of course i agree with everything you just said. SVA is just trying to make money off Jo’s work. If he wins, I hope his book does terribly. No one should (or anyone that calls themselves a fan, would) buy his book. I don’t feel sorry for hime. He got himself into this mess.

Judy, it’s exactly what I was thinking regarding the money earned by the sites through ads. I’m pretty schocked at how less it is, and it just makes me respect sites like TLC and Mugglenet for running so wonderfully well despite these financial constraints. This shows that the site is actual run due to a lot of passion and love for anything HP. Hats off to all you guys!

Considering that he knew all this, it’s still shocking that SVA did what he did. I for one was completely shocked when all this came out, since SVA has been such a major part of the HP fandom. It just makes me feel sad to think it all had to fall apart like this. I stand behind Jo 100%. If only SVA had realised what he’s doing is wrong, all this would have been avoided.

And I agree with WB in that statement. No one has the right to try and make profits off another persons creative work. Being someone who plans to be a writer in the future, I know how Jo must have felt when such a thing happened. It feels terrible when your work is exploited in such a way, and Jo has been more than generous to allow the fansites to operate for so long, which I’m sure quite a few writers would not have allowed.

Mollywobbles23, you’re a lot more perceptive than I am. Putting that clause in his contract really does betray the fact that Steve knew what he was doing could have legal implications. He probably is no fool, but couldn’t resist the siren call of money.

For Prenz: I can assure you that Mugglenet or TLC make much more money than HP Lexicon. Emmerson somewhere said that Mugglenet earned him over 100 000 $.

Knowing that Jo’s intentions were to write an encyclopedia, this gentleman being a fan should have left well alone and left it to the expert herself. I’m not interested in any future book about harry potter unless it’s written by Jo herself because lets face it only she can do it justice. Shame on himf or his greed in money and the fame that would go along with the publication of this book. I support Jo and hope that all goes in her favor.

As a writer myself, I understand where Jo would be a bit uncomfortable. BUT: 1. The fair use doctrine applies—her work can be quoted without permission for books such as this. 2. Her work HAS been quoted in several books like this. 3. Jo Rowling even admitted herself that relied on the site for quick checks when writing latter books (which calls into question her recent court statement about it being sloppy and incorrect). 4. Jo encouraged SVA, gave the site awards, etc. 5. MOST IMPORTANTLY: J. K. Rowling is STILL J.K. Rowling. For her to demonstrate this much fear and emotion over this information being published shows a tremendous lack of belief in her own work and name.

How on earth could anything that anyone else publishes outshine the work she intends to release? She has information and background on characters and concepts in her head that NO ONE ELSE HAS. There is no way the publishing of this book represents so significant a threat to her. From the standpoint of the Law of Attraction, she’s drawing to her exactly what she’s fixated on. I would encourage Jo to focus on what she wants to attract-a tremendous readership for her upcoming book, which she shall surely have-and step away from this court case.

For those of you who have never been involved in a court case before, trust me, it’s a scary thing and something to be avoided if possible. Given the judge’s suggestion that both parties settle out of court, it’s a bit disappointing to me that this case went so far in the first place. There is a happy medium to be found!!!

I have to say I don’t think it’s wrong to be motivated by making money. It was at least part of Jo’s initial motivation, when she wrote the first book. People need money to live. Steve, it seems to me, wanted a change in career and felt this would be a way to get into publishing/writing. While he may have been mislead, the fact that this trial is happening, that lawyers are arguing on both sides, means at least some people don’t agree that it’s a cut and dry case of copyright infringment. I still believe that there are 1 or 2 books out there that were published a while back that just list information about the Harry Potter world, though in a less engaging way than the Lexicon. The Lexicon is a target because it’s famous enough to make some real money and get some real attention.

I believe the Lexicon could have made much more money on advertising, but they hardly had any ads till recently. Compare with Mugglepop-upNet and you’ll see a big difference.

After this WB statement, it’s clear that the only way out of a court decision is for RDR to decide to stop publication and for JKR/WB to accept that and not seek further damages, which I kind of think they would do. But I’m not sure what RDR will do.

Does anyone get the feeling that Steve and Jo are being dragged along by their corporate partners and that they are not the ones making the final decisions here? I hope no one’s putting words in Jo’s mouth, but I heard her say the same language yesterday as what’s in the WB statement this morning, how it takes too much and adds too little. Talking points. I’m not surprised this is causing Jo not to be able to write. . .

Again, I believe JKR has a right to prevent publication but I still don’t believe that something she claims to be so atrocious could sell enough to even be noticed. I’m a huge HP fan but whilst I most likely wouldn’t buy SVA’s book, I wouldn’t hesitate to buy JKR’s. I also think it’s a bit far fetched to call it plagiarism. He’s not trying to pass her work off as his own. An encyclopaedia isn’t a book of essays, it doesn’t provide comment, it gives you information on subjects usually in alphabetical order, and given that the information being offered HAS to come from the books… well, you can see where I’m going with this.

I also think it’s a little unfair of her to suggest that no effort went into what he did, if that’s the case why DIDN’T warner brothers just make their own timeline? Because it’s easier not to, because it wastes times, this suggests that creating a timeline TAKES time… Let’s put it another way, if they had made their own, the person doing it would have been paid for his time, NOT the extortionate amount SVA was demanding, but /something/. $50 maybe :) I mean, this was before deathly hallows which is when we discovered Lily and James’ death dates etc. which made it all so much easier to figure out.

Anyway, I’m only saying all that because this debate is soooo one sided it’s silly. Don’t kill me just coz I beg to differ. I personally think she’s right to prevent publication. Mostly because it’s her work, she should get a say on what happens to it, his encyclopaedia is superfluous and I think she’s absolutely right to think it might open the floodgates and saturate the market and lead some people to feel slightly sick of HP etc etc. But those are the only arguments with which I agree.

Anonymoose: “underscore: That clause is NOT unusual and suspicious, you silly people. I’m a freelance Illustrator and I deal with this every week.

Silly people? Please do not try to pass of blatant untruths and then insult people for actually getting it right.

The firm I work at deals in Intellectual Property Law and 5% or less of the publishing contracts that are signed have that clause; in fact, the topic is rarely even broached by either parties as a likely scenario. It is a rare occasion indeed to have a publisher agree to something like that. The reason being is that publishers have a vested interest in protecting themselves from lawsuits. They rely upon the author’s word and ensure the author bears the brunt of legal challenges.”

Anonymoose, please. What you’re doing is WRONG. There may be posters reading and contributing to these pages who may be in a position to get their own writing material or freelance artwork published in the near future and you are miseducating them about THEIR RIGHTS by leading them to believe that contracts with one-sided IDEMNIFICATION CLAUSES should simply be accepted and signed without question—WHEN THEY SHOULD NOT. That is wrong and you should be ashamed of yourself.

An Idemnification Clause should always protect BOTH parties. Contracts always have them solely in the company’s favour, like you said, so that those who are ignorant and naive enough not to know better sign it without question. However this clause SHOULD always be altered at the request of the artist(s)/writer(s) so that said Idemnification Clause protects them instead, or both parties in some fari and balanced way.

From my experience as an illustrator, an IDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE is set in place to protect the client/company from work that violates someone else’s copyright.

BUT:

It can also be arranged differently in order to protect an artist, like myself, from prosecution resulting from use of client/company-supplied reference materials that violate someone else’s copyright (such as photographs, paintings, etc.).

I just thought I’d clear that up because a lot of fans seem to assume that this was suspicious on behalf of Vander Ark, when in fact this kind of protection should be practiced by all hopeful aspiring future writers and artists. Thank you.

Can you imagine?

If RDR/SVA win and they publish the book, can they sue JKR for copyright infringement when (and if) the Scottish Book comes out? Whose copyright takes precedent?

Jo Rowling is standing up for authors everywhere.

the saddest part is how ugly this all is. And I have a nasty feeling that it’ll get worse before it gets better.

I just wanted to say thank you, Leaky Staff, for keeping us updated on both sides of the story throughout this whole thing. Really, Thank you so much for all of your hard work

But again, the fact that SVA was smart enough to get a lawyer’s opinion on having an idemnification clause included (which is the only explanation other than RDR possibly having it already) does not mean anything. Rowling had Idemnification as well. Any trials from the past that involved phonies claiming Rowling stole THEIR work (Larry Plotter, whas it?) were covered by Bloomsbury’s lawyers, if I remember correctly, and did not require poor J.K. to put herself in debt just to afford using her wol lawyers when she still wasn’t quite so wealthy yet. We KNOW he FIRMLY BELIEVED that publishing something like his Lexicon in the state it was in would be illegal copyright infringement, but it may be that he went through with it anyways after RDR convinced him that it was not based on comparison with other prepublished HP reference guides and WB, EA, and Rowling’s use of it.

I mean, it may be that he IS swine, but, Jesus, you can’t really conclude that by what’s been said in trial so far.

Actually there are a few problems with the indemnity clause. praetorianguard, a contract lawyer, has a great blog on livejournal. According to the blog written yesterday, the clause was written in a way that will allow RDR to sue SVA if they do lose this case. Yes RDR will bear the cost of this lawsuit, but If WB proves the Lexicon violates copyright laws, SVA can be sued by RDR for breach of contract. You’ll have to read the blog to understand it, but it sounds like a dirty lawyer trick on RDR’s part.

Mizzy and Ericka- There is a huge difference between fair use and plagiarism. As it has been stated time and time again, you cannot simply publish a book of re-organized information. That is plagiarism. From all of the court documents and statements that I have read, there is nothing to suggest that SVA has contributed any original work to the book at all. It is simply a cut and paste of the 7 HP books. While this may be ok online, where it is free to everyone and there are several other sites with similar information, the same does not necessarily apply to a published book. SVA is trying to make money off work that is not his own. Other HP companion books contain enough scholarly information, additional commentary, criticism, etc that they DO fall under fair use. But these books are very different from what RDR is trying to publish. Even if Jo and others have used the Lexicon as a reference, the only thing SVA has done is make the information convenient to find; he has NOT added any value to the work. However, if RDR wins, there could be a backlash against sites like the Lexicon and others in the future for copyright infringement. So instead of having handy internet references, all sites will be stopped immediately so that problems like this don’t arise in the future.

Sorry, Indemnification clause, not indemnity clause.

Erika, it is plagiarism if 90% of your work is uncited, direct quotes. Correct, this is not an academic paper, nor do I believe Steve was trying to pass this off as his own. But even if you take direct quotes, and cite them correctly, you can still plagiarize if you don’t add your own commentary regardless what your intentions were. You cannot create a companion book for a work of fiction without adding outside commentary. Steve didn’t create an encyclopedia for WWII.