p.f.,

I wouldn’t have known you weren’t a native speaker of English. I have no such excuse for my poor typing – I’m just a poor typist. :)

I’ve seen witnesses cry in court, I’ve seen lawyers cry in court, I’ve even seen a judge cry in court. I’ve seen an entire courtroom in tears – myself, the defense lawyer, and the judge included – when a defendant was pleading guilty in a vehicular manslaughter case. It was just horrible all around. The victim was a baby. The parents of the victim were really nice people, both of them only 21 years old. The defendant was a really nice guy with no criminal history. He wasn’t drunk, he wasn’t speeding, he wasn’t driving carelessly – he ran a brand-new stop sign on a road he drove on every day. Horrible, horrible case.

How a judge reacts to emotion in a courtroom would depend, I think, on the type of case and the judge himself. Judges have seen it all, and a lot of them can get pretty jaded. But it’s pretty easy for them to spot someone who’s genuinely in turmoil and someone who’s just playing for sympathy.

Cheers Elizabeth!!

Thank you.

An additional question though, if SVA didn’t cite a specific detail or sentence as being part of JKR’s series would that be considered plagarism? Because words withouth citations or quotations are believed to be the author’s own work, or is just putting Harry Potter in the title exempt you from citing in a companion book such as this?

Ginny -

Like most everything, it depends on the circumstances. With regard to the academic concept of plagiarism – perhaps. In academic settings, you generally have to cite everything you say. So if I lifted a line directly from Rowling, without putting quotation marks around it or including a citation, many professors would likely consider that plagiarism.

The law’s standards aren’t so stringent. The law looks more at the work as a whole, not one or two lines here and there. I doubt a judge would care much if, in a 400 page companion volume, there were five sentences that were identical to Rowling’s that didn’t use quote marks or citations. But if 50% of the book’s sentences were like that, I think the judge would find it a lot more problematic. That doesn’t necessarily mean he would find a copyright violation – there are other factors to consider – but it would be strong evidence in favor of one.

... hello Elizabeth, thank you for the flowers :-) and thanks again for your answer.

I would not have been surprised about tears in the case you described. What I did not expect in a copyright case ist the given extent of underlying emotional intensitiy, far more tragedy than burlesque.

@ pf and bluewizard RDR is arguing Fair Use as the basis for the case to publish precisely because they have already conceded they have infringed (i.e. in layman’s terms stolen) JKR’s copyright. This is not disputed by anyone and has been publicly admitted by RDR (see Justia.com) RDR’s lawyers, and I think was mentioned in Falzone’s concluding remarks.

WB lawyers and people on the TLC Forums have gone over the Lexicon book using Justia.com and have shown 91% or more of the text has been lifted directly from the HP books and another 3% or more has been lifted directly from other reference books sometimes without any citation by SVA (I think this was also mentioned in court). The rest, roughly 4-5%, is (mainly infantile) commentary by SVA. SVA stated under oath he never cut and pasted from the books but another Forum member has an email in which SVA baldly says he did.

One section/factor of Fair Use does consider that permission be given by the copyright owner if anything above 5-10% of their work is used in derivative works (i.e. “the amount and substantiality of the portion taken”). This permission was never asked for nor was it given. It also demands that the amount of infringed copyright be taken into account when deciding if it falls under Fair Use. i.e. the quantity infringed is important and relevant in law.

It is true that the judge has hinted that given that Fair Use cases are decided on a case-by-case basis that the nature of the Lexicon may make this copyright infringement rule a lesser consideration in his final judgement because, as he hinted, the book may be useful and, also, not impinge unfairly on JKR’s other projects, so he may be inclined to admit it under Fair Use despite its gross infringement. If he does so he will have set a precedent that can then (and certainly will) be challenged in a superior court.

Then we have the objections to the emotional element in this case. I think if someone had stolen something precious from you and then tried to profit from it, after promising publicly and in writing that they would NOT do so you might become emotional too. The fans are emotional because some basic MORAL issues have arisen that have not been satisfactorily addressed:

1. If SVA says he is a fan why did he not stop the book when asked to by the author he himself says he admires and he calls a “genius”?

2. Why did SVA say in writing that it was illegal (May 2005) to make an encyclopaedia/lexicon and then proceed to do just that?

3. Why did he blame RDR for the court case when he could have pulled the book at any time?

4. Why did he lie to TLC when he said he would have no problem dumping RDR if it came to a copyright infringement case and then argue in an interview that Rowling was making a “power grab” and that she was threatening fansites, wizard rock, and fanfiction?

5. Why did he indemnify himself at all against copyright infringement?

6. Why did he not admit that he has stolen copyright off all the fans that had contributed to the Lexicon and whose work he now hoped to profit from?

7. Why were none of the other authors of the Lexicon mentioned in the book version? Why were they not included in the contract to be remunerated?

8. Why was no effort made to contact the fans who had contributed to the Lexicon and whose work was then used in the book in order to acknowledge or compensate them?

9. Why did he chase after people who had reprinted passages from the Lexicon website threatening legal action against them for copyright theft?

SVA has yet to answer any of these questions satisfactorily, and these are only the tip of the iceberg. Including the fact that he almost certainly has no legal ownership, or copyright, over the Lexicon website itself. He could be challenged by any of the volunteers who have contributed to the site over both ownership and copyright. Not only has he infringed JKR’s copyright he almost certainly has done the same in relation to every contributor to the free fan-based Lexicon site, which RDR stated publicly formed the basis for the book. And, irony of ironies, as a result, he is almost certainly in breach of his contract with RDR as well.

This is outrageous. I feel like it should come down to the bottom line of, without Jo, Steve Wouldn’t have any material to catalog and publish. The simple fact that Jo’s got more coming should mean that her work should be hands off until total completion and with her permission at that. I loved Steve and the Cannon Conundrums…back when it was all harmless. I appreciated his devotion and interest, its obvious now that the prospects of a payday have blinded him. Seriously, how can you in good faith put up a fight with Jo? This is her thing, she shared it with us. it reminds me of the Yeates poem ” A Coat”.

NotTheHBP: What I was saying was that you really can’t call the HP Lexicon poor quality, that’s all. We’ve all seen the site. The print version is supposed to be the site in print form. I understand that much of the content is lifted straight from the HP books, but I can appreciate the hard work that went into organizing in a resource-book type fashion. And for years the HP fandom gushed about what a great resource the lexicon was and everyone marveled the hard work that went into it. Now that it’s involved in a lawsuit everyone is quick to change their mind. Forget the years of admiration for Steve and his staff’s work. It’s trash now.

It’s amazing how this fandom can turn their backs on people so quickly. And it’s amazing how a site that’s supposed to be warm and friendly is full of people that attack anyone who isn’t the most hardcore fan. No, I do not post regularly. No, I do not go to the conventions. I don’t write fan fiction or do fan art. However, I do not think that I have any less of a right to love the books that J K Rowling wrote. And by the way, I did not attach JKR at all. I simply mentioned that she visited the site.

Aloha, Johanna