A few brilliant moments from JKR:

18    Q.  Are you concerned that if you were to write your
                19    encyclopedia, Mr. Vander Ark might sue you?
                20    A.  I am very concerned.  I have to say there came a day when I
                21    nearly choked on my coffee as I looked at, having been told
                22    that this was the case, and I went and looked at the Lexicon
                23    and suddenly found --
                24    Q.  The Lexicon?
                25    A.  Online.  I'm sorry.  The online version of the Lexicon.
                 1    And I found that Mr. Vander Ark had peppered the site with
                 2    "This is my original work.  Do not copy." 
                 3             Now, RDR Books have made a great play of the fact it's
                 4    all free for everyone, everyone is allowed to take whatever
                 5    they'd like.  Except anyone who read the Lexicon online,
                 6    because Mr. Vander Ark has decided that no one must copy him.
                 7    Even though what is on there is all my work.

14    A.  For that money, I believe you are being resold the Harry
                15    Potter books with a negligible amount of attempted commentary,
                16    some of it false, and a lot of facetious comments.  I quote, I
                17    would like to see Hagrid fit himself into a McDonald's booth.
                18    For $24.

23    A.  Mr. Hammer, to me you seem to be suggesting that what
                24    Mr. Vander Ark has produced is an index, a simple listing of
                25    everything in my books.
                 1    Q.  No, I'm not.  I'm suggesting that it's -- I don't want to
                 2    get into an argument with you.  The Lexicon describes itself as
                 3    an encyclopedia about the Harry Potter books, is that correct?
                 4    A.  I know it describes itself that way, yes.
                 5    Q.  And it has more than simply an index of names, isn't that
                 6    true?
                 7    A.  It lifted my work wholesale, that's very true.
                 8    Q.  Please, Ms. Rowling.  Just say yes or no.
                 9    A.  No, that wasn't a yes or no, Mr. Hammer.

13    Q.  So you are saying that the entire Lexicon has simply
                14    example of Xerox copying of the Harry Potter novels?
                15    A.  It is very slightly more than that.

16    Q.  In any event it has text wherever the source of the text is
                17    for every one of the characters of the Potter novels, as far as
                18    you know, isn't that true?
                19    A.  Yes.  And is that the best you can say for The Lexicon?  It
                20    has text?
                21    Q.  What I'm getting at now is that that amounts to hundreds
                22    and hundreds and hundreds of entries within one book.  Isn't
                23    that true?
                24    A.  Yes.  It was a lot of work.  I remember doing it.

4    Q.  Have you ever used a dictionary, Ms. Rowling?
                5    A.  You are telling me Mr. Vander Ark is going to teach me how
                6    to spell?

I’ve just got to add that I get the impression Mr. Rapoport is a bit of a rascal. A bit of a con. It must’ve freaked WB’s lawyers out to realize this guy was not going to back down!

sorry for being such a comment hog…

But, it’s also clear that RDR really did have the brass ring with SVA. SVA was a well-respected “authority”, popular with HP fans and having lots of material at hand to work with. If RDR had been willing to nurture the relationship with Steve & play by the rules, they could’ve put out (in time) a series of books that made a tidy little profit for all concerned.

All without the lawsuit. Without the tears. Without the grief for Jo or SVA or, even, Roger Rapoport himself.

Wow. I just transferred it to a Word doc for easier printing: it’s 504 pages! I also just listened to the Pottercast and now I know why poor Melissa’s hand is swollen. :(

Thanks again, Leaky, for covering this issue so well.

Wow, what a read! I’ve been busy so I only just finished reading through Day 1. I am surprised no one on comment board has picked up on this hilarious typo:

Q. That book does not in fact contain listings for all the 14 entries in the Harry Potter novel, isn’t that true? 15 A. No, it doesn’t. 16 Q. Now, why don’t you go through the Idiot’s Guide because you 17 LOOK it so much.

Obviously, thats meant to be “LIKE it so much” but at first I thought, what the…Is Mr hammer saying she looks like an idiot.

Then there is this funny quip from Cendali:

MS. CENDALI: Can you put up on the screen from 5 Exhibit 1, The Lexicon, the first page of the entry for 6 Voldemort. Forgive me for speaking the name.

All in all, Jo is tremendous on holding her ground with vigour. Although, I too laugh now every time I read when she says “Mr hammer” but its must be a mechanism for to help fend off his attack. Perhaps to gain that extra second to construct her eloquent reply (or retort in some cases!). Notice, she does not say “Ms Celandi”, simply because she is at ease and is under no pressure. This is so fascinating although I do feel anxious for Jo but at the same time, I am in utmost admiration for the way she acquits herself.

OK, I’m going to read the rest later when I get home, cant wait.

“Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property. Which means

she is 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.”

How can Steve Vander Ark change his mind on something like that? IT MAKES NO SENSE. This is all so frustrating, it’s effing plagiarism! I wish this trial would just be done with, the end result ensuring that Jo’s work is shown the respect it deserves.

Thank you, Leaky & Stanford, for letting read us this on-line!

Just having glanced through what JKR said and thinking of all those having remarked the case should have gone to a mediator.

THANKS SO MUCH for posting these Kristin. I am fascinated to get a first hand account of the court proceedings—I feel like I am right there next to John sniggering at his Mr. Hammer drawings while I listen to everyone testifying.

This is such a cool thing to read. I’m happy to say that so far I feel Jo actually gave a better argument and backed her points a lot better than steve vander ark. I just hope that she wins. Today I did what I swore I would never do, and actually went on the website. It is practically JK Rowling’s work, copy and pasted onto the page. If you buy this book, there’s no need to buy any of Jo’s books. Just read this, it’ll tell you the basic plot and all of the character’s descriptions, and all of her other genious inventions. Except you’ll miss out on all of the rest of it. The linking, the suspense, the excitement, the enjoyment, some of the key storylines (in my opinion) and also you’ll find that he has added a few comments, all of which seem rubbish after reading what Jo says in the transcripts. He has stolen off of Jo, and deserves to have not only his book banned, but his website taken off line. The only bit of it I saw that made it less than utter rubbish, was the one thing all fan sites should include, the comment boards. Other than this, if you have read all 7 Harry Potter books, Fantastic Beasts and Where to find them and also read Quidditch through the ages, there’s no need to read his encyclopedia, however if you haven’t read them, there’s still no need, as his work doesn’t even compare to Jo’s. She is a genious. He is a copycat librarian. Go and buy each of her books, and you’ll enjoy it a lot more than his website. Though I’m guessing most fans on here already have. Rant over.

I would not go so far as to say the Lexicon website should be taken down, as it’s a free resource. The only thing I disagree with with Jo is that it has no usefulness WHATSOEVER to ANYONE, which isn’t true (I’ve been known to kip on there to look up generally whoever you know, say Uric the Oddball was in the books) BUT it is not exhaustive and is not generally very useful. I use it more of a reminder than of getting new information. Plus his entries are more of a mixture of paraphrasing and direct quoting without quotation marks, so it is indeed hard to tell whether he worded something one way or if Jo said did.

However, the book is wrong on many levels and I back Jo 110%.

MattyJM:

“I wouldn’t consider the Lexicon to be a transformative work at all.”

You’ve misunderstood the meaning of “transformative”. From the Wikipedia discussion of Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group (the Seinfeld trivia book case):

“The court emphasized that derivative works were based upon preexisting works. They transformed an original work into a new mode of expression, but unlike a work of fair use expression, a derivative work’s purpose was not transformed.”

In the Seinfeld case, the court rule that the critical distinction for the “transformative” test of fair use lay not in the form of expression, but in the derivative work’s purpose. In the Seinfeld case, the judge found the work lacked sufficient transformative quality because the purpose of the book was essentially the same as the show—to entertain.

This is manifestly not the case with the lexicon, whose purpose is substantively different from that of JKR’s work; while the HP books were intended to entertain, the lexicon’s purpose is reference.

“It virtually copies and pastes that information into the book, most often verbatim or almost verbatim….”

I challenge you to substantiate this claim. A substantial portion of the RDR lexicon is available online at Justia.com:

docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/52/2.html

In my reading of the first 100 entries (Abbott – Astronomy) I found a total of only five verbatim citations from canon, comprising a total of 39 words—a far cry from your “copy and paste” allegation, AFAICS.

NCJE Culver

Sammy:

“Not putting quotation marks around quotations is considered plagiarism.”

True. But plagiarism is NOT copyright violation. Don’t confuse them.

“I would think that Fair Use refers to the general information in the books.”

Only in part. The US Supreme Court set forth a four-part test for Fair Use. It is true that under the first test (the “nature of the copyrighted work”), fictional writing is generally held to be more strongly protected under copyright law than, say, a news report, because it contains a higher concentration of copyrightable property. However, the individual tests were never intended to be taken in isolation. Rather, the courts have traditionally looked at the interplay between them. In Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group (the Seinfeld trivia book case), the court “noted that transformative use can lessen the importance of the nature of the copyrighted work.” In other words, if a derivative work is sufficiently transformative, the mere fact that it copies a substantial portion of the original work may be insufficient for a finding of infringement.

“And if almost your entire book is made up of these quotations, isn’t that just like….oh, I don’t know….copyright infringement?”

Not in and of itself, no. There are other factors to be considered.

harrypotterfantw:

“If you buy this book, there’s no need to buy any of Jo’s books. Just read this, it’ll tell you the basic plot…”

I would disagree. I doubt I’ll ever buy an HP encyclopedia (Steve’s or Jo’s) simply because the books just don’t excite me all that much, and I really don’t care to go chasing down HP minutiae. However, I DO have several Tolkien encyclopediae and guides on my shelves, and I can’t even imagine trying to claim that they substitute for Tolkien’s works. “Read the Illustrated Tolkien Encyclopedia and there’s no need to buy Lord of the Rings”?! Not a chance. When I want to be entertained, I read Tolkien’s books; when I want to look up a fact, I go to the ITE. They serve substantively different purposes, and that goes straight to the heart of Fair Use (see Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, which I’ve cited in a previous post above).

NCJE Culver

Phew, I’m on the 3rd day now. I find the judge’s opening “statement” quite a sombre warning. If i was either defendant or plaintiff, I would be be bloody frightened at my potential “Bleak House” destiny. Is it normal for judges to make lengthy “off the cuff” comments like that? Not that I object, on the contrary, its refreshing to hear the judge talk this way especially as he seems genuinely concerned about the welfare of the clients and bluntly honest about the “cashing in” lawyers!

You know, I am so tired just reading all of this, how the heck did Melissa and Kristin keep up with transcribing! Kudos guys

Did anyone else catch “Roanne” on p. 42?

and, every time i read Mr. Hammer, all i could think was John saying it in his faux-Jo accent!!

Whew! Just finished Day 2.

Basically, the entire defense is to use the word “reference”. SVA uses the word “reference” 89 times in his testimony (i.e., “reference guide,” “ready reference”), and that’s not even including variations on the word, like “referencing” or “referenced”. Mr. Harris goes time and again to the well, emphasizing that the Lexicon is a reference guide.

Most of us on JKR’s side argue that the lack of analysis or original commentary makes the Lexicon infringing. The defense is arguing that the lack of analysis or original commentary is actually necessary to make the Lexicon a “ready reference”

Again, this is what we have argued about many times. Does the overwhelming copying (oh sorry, “referencing”) of which the Lexicon consists qualify as fair use because a widely used system of organization (the alphabet) is superimposed?

The defense is trying to make the Lexicon look like just another reference book, but they had the opportunity to present similar examples into evidence, and there was not one thing they could find that copied even close to as much copyrighted content as the Lexicon. So the Lexicon is NOT just another reference book, as they are arguing.

This is a huge power grab by the fair use people, seeking to justify any amount of copying with the argument that even the most rudimentary form of re-organization (alphabetization) makes the use fair. And the defense in addition seems to be arguing that, since the alphabetization makes the use fair, it is their duty to copy as much and as closely as possible from the orginal work to make for a better book. Wow.

“It’s not stealing, it’s REFERENCING, now gimme gimme gimme.”

I’ve got to hand it to the defense, they’ve got some brass ones. Hope to God the judge doesn’t buy it, but it’s not up to me.