In The News
Lexicon Trial Updates and Important Announcement about Floo Network
FlooWe owe quite a few updates tonight, and there is an important announcement following (since the information in this post is vital to that announcement, so make sure to read the whole thing):
Update:: Agence France-Presse says JKR will be a witness.
Firstly, the April 14 trial in the JKR/WB vs. RDR Books case will be a bench trial, meaning that there will be no jury. A witness list is due by April 4.
Secondly, Steve Vander Ark of the Harry Potter Lexicon gave an interview recently to BlogHogwarts, which Alejandro of BlogHogwarts kindly sent to us in the original English (it was translated to Spanish for the site):
- * * *
“Do you think that, if Lexicon wins the case, the Harry Potter fansites are going to be affected in any way(Lexicon Online included)?
A victory for RDR Books will protect the rights of fans to create based on someone else’s work. If RDR Books loses, copyright holders will be given broad new control over fan activity, control which will allow them to shut down sites, stop authors from writing about their works, etc. So a win for RDR Books is definitely in the best interest of fans who create websites, write fanfiction, make wands, compose wizard rock, and so on. I am surprised how many fans have missed this point. Their freedom to create is on the line here.
How many pages does the Lexicon book have?The Lexicon book will have around 400 pages. It’s 160,000 words. The book has four authors. I am the main author, but three of my Lexicon editors worked on the book as well.
If the Lexicon is published, once the Scottish Book gets out, will you still update Lexicon Online and Book?
I’m as excited to buy Rowling’s Scottish book as anyone! It will be very different from the Lexicon book, with a lot of new and exciting information which only Rowling can provide. I will continue to update the Lexicon website. I love working on the Lexicon and will do so even if I have no staff and even when people don’t read Harry Potter much anymore. Beyond that, I have written another book, called In Search of Harry Potter, which will be published in July. I’m starting on another one as well. I intend this series of books to comprise a complete independent reference library to Harry Potter. The second and third books will not generate the kind of legal concern that the Lexicon book has, thankfully.
Do you consider that your fanatism or admiration to J.K. Rowling is less now after all that have happened?
My admiration for the Harry Potter books is as great as ever. I’m still a huge fan. I’m also still a fan of Rowling, although I think her current actions are unfortunate and badly advised. I still admire her as a writer and a person and I don’t expect that to change just because she and I have a disagreement over a legal issue. Friends can disagree and still be friends.”
- * * *
And finally, we have a very important and related announcement regarding the status of the Floo Network.
The following is an announcement that contains commentary.
The interview quoted above contains a number of assessments about J.K. Rowling’s intentions and what the Lexicon case means for fandom as a whole. The comments sat uneasily with many of us as soon as we learned about them, and prompted a discussion among our entire staff about Leaky’s association with the Harry Potter Lexicon, in which it became overwhelmingly clear that Steve’s thoughts on this matter and ours differ so greatly as to be polar opposites; we do not think a win for J.K. Rowling means tighter controls on fan creativity at all, and are concerned for the opposite, as well as the attempt to misportray the issues of the case as stated in sworn affadavits. So, after a few days of careful and many-sided discussion, we, as a full staff, decided that people who have such a fundamental disconnect in beliefs cannot and should not be partners in name or spirit, and two days ago informed the Lexicon that we are severing our association.
There were many who called for this since the day the lawsuit was filed, and on many occasions since, but we decided to wait to make the final decision until we were able to shake out more about the case and the beliefs of the parties involved. Now that it has been made clear to us that the Lexicon’s leader and we disconnect on such a fundamental level regarding fandom, it would be disingenuous to continue calling ourselves partners.
We had intended not to make this decision until the case was completed, so as to not sway public opinion. The comments in question, however, combined with the suit’s history and revelations therein, make us too uneasy to continue affiliation for a moment longer. We had also wanted to refrain from offering commentary on the case, but we all agree that if it meant the continued propagation of comments against our beliefs by someone so visibly associated with us, silence could not be maintained.
That it was a fully supported decision doesn’t mean it wasn’t very hard for this staff, who have for so long considered the Lexicon an ally in all things. The staff was sobered and saddened to find itself walking so uniformly toward this decision, even knowing it was the right one. We have enjoyed an excellent five years as a member of the Floo Network, and don’t regret that time for a moment. We wish everyone associated with the Lexicon health and happiness in the future.
We plan to retain strong affiliations with Accio Quote, though how it would manifest depends on some future decisionmaking, as things are slightly upended right now. This decision in no way affects the regard and admiration we continue to have for Lisa Bunker and her staff, or for Belinda Hobbs and the work she has done on the main Floo page; we hope to remain closely associated with them and their sites. In addition we strenuously discourage anyone from taking frustration for this decision out on any associated staff members, of the Lexicon or any other site. This was not a decision based on hate and hurt, it was rooted in the sad realization that we are much too different now to remain partners.
As for what this means, more functionally: This essentially means the Floo Network has been dismantled, as the network would be, then, Leaky projects and Accio Quote, and that’s more a partnership than a network. (We will sort out what to do with the main Floo page, and its content, as well.) There have been many asking, since November, whether Steve would return to PotterCast: That answer is now no. And while Leaky has always owned the hp-lexicon.org domain and paid for the site’s hosting, we’ve promised to transfer the domain to Steve as soon as litigation is complete (a stipulation that would not have been made had ownership not been mentioned in court documents). We will continue to pay for hosting and provide free support until that day.
This has been very emotional and trying for the staff here so we hope you’ll forgive our little foray into the commentary area. Since people are by nature opinionated, and we are all human, we wanted to keep the personal opinions we all have separate from the pages here, which is why after the first few weeks of figuring out what was going on with this case, we began to stick to linking to and summarizing court documents and other publicly available pieces, and trying to ask further questions to clear up misconceptions when they occurred. The rationale there is that if it’s publicly available there’s an easy check on its accuracy, and goodness knows our users are nothing if not close readers. We have been mentioned time and again in these proceedings, which makes us involved to a certain, small extent; therefore the coverage will continue to be simple linking-to and explaining-in-layman’s-terms legal documents, so you can easily read them yourself if there’s ever any doubt what we say is true. That said, we don’t expect any significant public documents until reports start surfacing of the April 14 trial; there might be a few article updates and more interviews, but mostly we are waiting for the courtroom proceedings to occur. As usual, we’ll keep you updated to the best of our ability.
Thank you for understanding, and as always, we thank you in advance for your civility and respect to each other in the comments.
rate this article
Interested in Floo?
Sign up for free Email Alerts
I want to give TLC a pat on the shoulder. You made the right decision. This entire lawsuit has made me uncomfortable as a fan. In fighting against JK Rowling’s wishes, I believe we are destroying more than what we are gaining. Getting the Lexicon published is not worth a fight with Rowling’s lawyers, in my opinion. I was content reading it online. I don’t want it in paperback or anything.
But yeah… I’m relieved and happy that TLC has severed all ties with the Lexicon. It felt a bit uncomfortable here for a while, but I’m glad that sanity has won the battle after all!
“It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”
Good for you. I don’t know Steve, but from what I’ve heard he’s a really good, decent person, and has been wonderful for the fandom so far. In this, however, he’s dead wrong. I can’t imagine how difficult it must have been for you guys to come to this decision, but it was the right one.
Am sorry you’re having to go through this, but it sounds as though you have made a wise and thoughtful decision.
This whole lawsuit is upsetting. It shouldnt even be a problem. The rights ultimately belong to JKR so they should just give it to her. THE END. I agree with Leaky ’s decision. and they were very proffesional about it so I applaud them.
Leaky shouldn’t remain a partner with Steve if their ideas don’t align. Concerning the Reference Book that Steve wants to publish, Jo EXPLICITLY said ages ago that she planned to write her own reference book. If the author reserves a single privilege in handling the wrap-up of HER series, why would a true fan deny her that? Besides, Rowling’s motives for writing the book are simply for charity, not profit. Steve has, and plans to write other successful books—so why does he feel the need to fight this issue to gain more profit rather than serve the best interests of the ORIGINAL author and the series?
You made the right decision, as painful as it was to make.
I’ve heard SVA a time or two on the Pottercast and always thought that he brought a lot of intelligence and understanding to the discussions. But. Copyright law is what it is. One cannot take the work of another person and repackage it as one’s own. This is what SVA is/was trying to do. He’s done something that any of us could have done ourselves, if we wanted to sit down with the books and do it. Trying to profit from this is like taking any other book under copyright, rearranging the chapters, and trying to call it one’s original work. It’s illegal.
Morton, just wanted to say thank you for your sensible and patient postings in this and previous threads concerning RDR v WB. Please keep it going!
bud
For a while, I thought that poor SVA was being taken for a ride by RDR: he was a pawn in RDR’s game to get rich… that he had a signed agreement with RDR and that was a train he couldn’t actually get off, and RDR was the ‘villian’ here.
The quotes attributed to SVA in the article paint quite a different picture.
I’m sorry to say that I was giving SVA the benefit of the doubt, but now there is no doubt that he has some wrong-headed notions of what ‘fair use” is, and has made a career on the back of JKR’s work, but maybe got a bit too “greedy” for his own good.
As such, I support the dissolution of Leaky’s association with HPL… Leaky has always been the classiest-act in HPFandom, and this is just another case in point.
Steve is the one to blame here, Zebra, and not TLC, JKR, or WB. I support this decision by TLC and it couldn’t have been easy for them to do this, either.
<u>Ask yourself:</u>If Steve had just kept his work when he said “But without her permission I won’t publish it <lexicon> in any form except online” would he be in this pickle now? NO!!
If Steve had just remembered what he told others “I get email every so often from fans asking me to publish the Lexicon in book form, so I’ve dealt with this question before. Basically, it is illegal to sell a book like that. Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she’s the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world. And since we’re fans and supporters of Jo, we wouldn’t do anything that would violate her rights, even if we could get away with it.” would he be in this pickle now? NO!!
If Steve hadn’t attempted to use the Floo Network in a profit making scheme without the knowledge of Melissa [a Floo Network webmaster] 50% of net income that is derived from ordering the Lexicon book online via clicking site links in the Floo Netwook would Steve be in this pickle now? NO!!
If Steve had written a book that fell within the letter of the copyright law and was absolutely ‘fair use’ would Steve be in this pickle now? NO!!
Don’t kid yourself and don’t try to kid others. It’s all down to Steve. He’s the one who’s in the wrong here.
@ Morton: I appreciate what you have to say on the issue and I’ve no wish to butt heads with you but I think my post is quite coherent. As the law currently stands there is no reason to allow the infringing work to go forward and insert grave instability into the status of copyright law. Laws can and do change, but as they have not yet done so, it in no way excuses Steve’s actions to date.
I’m proud of you Leaky, and sorry that you’ve had to make what must have been a very difficult decision. I stand by you. And if doing the right thing makes me or anyone on the Leaky staff a “sycophant”, then I, for one, will proudly wear that label.
(I’ve always gone by Kari in these comments before, but am now adding my middle name to distinguish between myself and the “Kari” who posted on page 4 of these comments, especially as she and I seem to have very different opinions on this issue. Not that anyone cares. I’m just sayin’.)
@GadgetDon
“Good people sometimes do things that they shouldn’t. They rely on bad advice, they don’t see the whole picture, and there are times in everyone’s lives where we add one and one and one and come up with five. The way I’ve seen both SVA and JKR behave during the lawsuit does nothing to make me think badly of either of them. It’s rough on both of them, and the best part of when this is resolved is that it will be resolved. The worst part of this is that people feel a need to choose sides, to say “I like you so I can’t like you”.”
With all due respect, and if you have read any of my (yes, I know, SO numerous) posts, you will note that I have refraigned from saying one thing or another regarding Leaky’s collective decision, I do not see how that decison is demonstrative of anything resembling making a choice between liking JKR or SVA.
All I see is a statement concerning differences of opinion and philosophical direction leading Leaky to make a decision to sever ties (though not to hang the Lexicon out to dry – they are continuing to pay for the website venue for the time being, which in itself says something about fairness and integrity, it seems to me).
Nor do I see them trying to force anyone agree with them. I understand their position, as I understand opposing positions stated with logic and thought (such as yours and many many others) and I support the right to make them. I just don’t see in Leaky’s statement anything along the lines of liking one or the other.
That, to me, is immaterial in any case, since I make my own decisions, have my own opinions, and shall continue to do so, regardless of any one statement or another.
No diatribe here, just wondering if I’m missing something that perhaps you saw, or is it merely a difference in interpretation, which is certainly to be expected.
At least in my humble opinion.
M.
Leaky, you did a brave a nobel thing. it takes a strong person (or in this case dedicated group of people) to do whay you have done. i support your efforts compleatly!!
My sympathy goes out to Leaky and AccioQuote. I hope things go smoothly with this breaking apart of the network. Big hugs for everyone.
When your stance on something that important is misaligned, let alone that they are polar opposites, its time to call it quits.
@GadgetDon
“Good people sometimes do things that they shouldn’t. They rely on bad advice, they don’t see the whole picture, and there are times in everyone’s lives where we add one and one and one and come up with five. The way I’ve seen both SVA and JKR behave during the lawsuit does nothing to make me think badly of either of them. It’s rough on both of them, and the best part of when this is resolved is that it will be resolved. The worst part of this is that people feel a need to choose sides, to say “I like you so I can’t like you”.”
With all due respect, and if you have read any of my (yes, I know, SO numerous) posts, you will note that I have refraigned from saying one thing or another regarding Leaky’s collective decision, I do not see how that decison is demonstrative of anything resembling making a choice between liking JKR or SVA.
All I see is a statement concerning differences of opinion and philosophical direction leading Leaky to make a decision to sever ties (though not to hang the Lexicon out to dry – they are continuing to pay for the website venue for the time being, which in itself says something about fairness and integrity, it seems to me).
Nor do I see them trying to force anyone agree with them. I understand their position, as I understand opposing positions stated with logic and thought (such as yours and many many others) and I support the right to make them. I just don’t see in Leaky’s statement anything along the lines of liking one or the other.
That, to me, is immaterial in any case, since I make my own decisions, have my own opinions, and shall continue to do so, regardless of any one statement or another.
No diatribe here, just wondering if I’m missing something that perhaps you saw, or is it merely a difference in interpretation, which is certainly to be expected.
At least in my humble opinion.
M.
@GadgetDon
“Good people sometimes do things that they shouldn’t. They rely on bad advice, they don’t see the whole picture, and there are times in everyone’s lives where we add one and one and one and come up with five. The way I’ve seen both SVA and JKR behave during the lawsuit does nothing to make me think badly of either of them. It’s rough on both of them, and the best part of when this is resolved is that it will be resolved. The worst part of this is that people feel a need to choose sides, to say “I like you so I can’t like you”.”
With all due respect, and if you have read any of my (yes, I know, SO numerous) posts, you will note that I have refraigned from saying one thing or another regarding Leaky’s collective decision, I do not see how that decison is demonstrative of anything resembling making a choice between liking JKR or SVA.
All I see is a statement concerning differences of opinion and philosophical direction leading Leaky to make a decision to sever ties (though not to hang the Lexicon out to dry – they are continuing to pay for the website venue for the time being, which in itself says something about fairness and integrity, it seems to me).
Nor do I see them trying to force anyone agree with them. I understand their position, as I understand opposing positions stated with logic and thought (such as yours and many many others) and I support the right to make them. I just don’t see in Leaky’s statement anything along the lines of liking one or the other.
That, to me, is immaterial in any case, since I make my own decisions, have my own opinions, and shall continue to do so, regardless of any one statement or another.
No diatribe here, just wondering if I’m missing something that perhaps you saw, or is it merely a difference in interpretation, which is certainly to be expected.
At least in my humble opinion.
M.
@GadgetDon
“Good people sometimes do things that they shouldn’t. They rely on bad advice, they don’t see the whole picture, and there are times in everyone’s lives where we add one and one and one and come up with five. The way I’ve seen both SVA and JKR behave during the lawsuit does nothing to make me think badly of either of them. It’s rough on both of them, and the best part of when this is resolved is that it will be resolved. The worst part of this is that people feel a need to choose sides, to say “I like you so I can’t like you”.”
With all due respect, and if you have read any of my (yes, I know, SO numerous) posts, you will note that I have refraigned from saying one thing or another regarding Leaky’s collective decision, I do not see how that decison is demonstrative of anything resembling making a choice between liking JKR or SVA.
All I see is a statement concerning differences of opinion and philosophical direction leading Leaky to make a decision to sever ties (though not to hang the Lexicon out to dry – they are continuing to pay for the website venue for the time being, which in itself says something about fairness and integrity, it seems to me).
Nor do I see them trying to force anyone agree with them. I understand their position, as I understand opposing positions stated with logic and thought (such as yours and many many others) and I support the right to make them. I just don’t see in Leaky’s statement anything along the lines of liking one or the other.
That, to me, is immaterial in any case, since I make my own decisions, have my own opinions, and shall continue to do so, regardless of any one statement or another.
No diatribe here, just wondering if I’m missing something that perhaps you saw, or is it merely a difference in interpretation, which is certainly to be expected.
At least in my humble opinion.
M.
@GadgetDon
“Good people sometimes do things that they shouldn’t. They rely on bad advice, they don’t see the whole picture, and there are times in everyone’s lives where we add one and one and one and come up with five. The way I’ve seen both SVA and JKR behave during the lawsuit does nothing to make me think badly of either of them. It’s rough on both of them, and the best part of when this is resolved is that it will be resolved. The worst part of this is that people feel a need to choose sides, to say “I like you so I can’t like you”.”
With all due respect, and if you have read any of my (yes, I know, SO numerous) posts, you will note that I have refraigned from saying one thing or another regarding Leaky’s collective decision, I do not see how that decison is demonstrative of anything resembling making a choice between liking JKR or SVA.
All I see is a statement concerning differences of opinion and philosophical direction leading Leaky to make a decision to sever ties (though not to hang the Lexicon out to dry – they are continuing to pay for the website venue for the time being, which in itself says something about fairness and integrity, it seems to me).
Nor do I see them trying to force anyone agree with them. I understand their position, as I understand opposing positions stated with logic and thought (such as yours and many many others) and I support the right to make them. I just don’t see in Leaky’s statement anything along the lines of liking one or the other.
That, to me, is immaterial in any case, since I make my own decisions, have my own opinions, and shall continue to do so, regardless of any one statement or another.
No diatribe here, just wondering if I’m missing something that perhaps you saw, or is it merely a difference in interpretation, which is certainly to be expected.
At least in my humble opinion.
M.
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
Since DH was published, your interest in Potter fandom has:
- Increased! I'm more involved now than I ever was!900 (22%)
- It's stayed at the same level of fun it always has!1486 (37%)
- Decreased slightly: I only check sites a few times a week now.1019 (25%)
- Severely lowered. Without new canon, I'm bored.407 (10%)
- It's gone. In fact, I can't even answer this poll because I'm not really visting a Potter site.130 (3%)
@ Zebra
You know, it’s sad, but I imagine you saying that aloud in the voice of an annoying 6 year old (no offense to 6-year olds), stomping your feet, pouting your lips, and with glistening eyes on the verge of tears. If it wasn’t for the absurdity of the post it might even be funny.
@M.
Per usual, you are clearly correct. We all have lives. This is just a fun, interesting part of it. Why is “TOM” posting here. Doesn’t that just mean he became part of our lifeless crowd?
People stick to the point. Name calling and insults are not furthering the discussion.