I’m about 3/4 if not more of the way through Day Two at this point.

I’m having such a hard time formulating my opinions on this trial, it’s not even funny. I mean I agree with everything Jo is doing and am on her side, but I also think that (At first perhaps) Steve had good intentions to make a reference book, but didn’t realize (or didn’t know for sure, rather) the copyright infringement it might cause. I can see it’s use to look up a quick fact. I however also fully agree that it’s wrong, he’s just basically summing and alphabetizing her work.

I forget exactly where, but somewhere in the trial SVA was given Jo’s words on the Acromantula and his Lexicon’s words on the Acromantula, and they were almost the same. He stated that he couldn’t think of how else to put it. I can maybe see that in some cases (such as the tentacle warts he mentioned) that you have to QUOTE specifically (and then you should QUOTE, with quote marks), but other than that, I came up with a couple different ways to explain the information on Acromantulas, even keeping the language eloquent and complication free while not using Jo’s prose almost verbatim. I’m sorry, that just doesn’t hold much water for me, SVA.

At the end of the session, Judge asked for copies of all the Potter-Books and of both Companion books and got them immediately… sigh ... though he said he had very little time for reading, maybe he will get hooked on …

Well I understand the pro-Jo-fraction better now because their arguments have been presented in a broader legal context and their hints to facts as SVA applying to be a co-editor in a broader factual context; I admit I had not read most of the hundreds of pre-trial papers.

I learned there have been reference works since Milton and in the case of Richardson an encyclopedia written by the author himself; the relating questions about copyright infringement in the 17th and 18th century seemed a little odd because I am not sure if the concept of copyright as we understand it today existed then.

Not only faire use would be a “murky” area of law, the same could be said about etymology which some linguists and philologists do not consider as a very exact branch of their respective sciences. It is true that some latin explanations in the lexicon could be better but that does not make them worthless. To this imo more and more pertinent points were made by the defendant’s linguistic expert. In some cases JKR developed a latin-inspired morphology of her own, maybe related to modern roman languages, cf some of the imperatives used in the spells (‘accio’). So I think she was right in pointing out you should not be too rigid and keep open to a reader’s possible interpretation, you cannot say a reader’s association is wrong just because the author had something else in mind, eg aloha. Or, for instance, Remus Lupin. Remus was Romulus’ twin, and in Rome’s founding myth, Romulus and Remus have been raised by the milk of a female wolf; so Remus Lupin would not only have been bitten (destroyed) but also nourished by wolves. When I heard JKR read from a book I was astonished about her pronounciation of ‘Lupin’; when reading I always had the french pronounciation in mind and kept thinking of Arsène Lupin, the all knowing detective. Would I have been entitled to do so? Voldemort’s name, I read in french fashion as well, without pronouncing the T in the end, which then would be similar to the german name Waldemar; was I entitled to those associations and word-plays? By the way, senior tutor Johnson did not point out that in French vol is not only the flight but the theft also. And so you could go on and on, endlessly.

I still do think that the lexicon should be printed. Certainly JK Rowling has every right to take legal action but there is still the question if it was a wise thing to do so. Well the trial is about markets and money, it is about intellectual property which today extends to the human genome (not your own, but big corporations buying and using it), and free speech. The underlying emotions seem to be about nearness and distance. Well our beloved author has every right to define distance. But – though she signalled distance by opening and closing doors on her site, did she not invite us to sit at her desk, virtually? And did it not come out that she was not quite honest to SVA when giving him an ‘award’ and encouraging his ‘obsession’ (and hysterics) while getting better and quicker information on Google? I noted that – at first – she avoided a clear cut answer to the judge’s question who actually wrote the much cited words about the lexicon on her site. So I do hope they’ll settle and that she will write her Scottish book giving an authentic, the author’s, interpretation.

NJCE Culver said: “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… 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. “

Interesting that you should say that. One of the Defense’s arguments is that the Lexi manuscript is definitely not a derivative work. However, that it is is apparently so clear that even those supporting the Defense take this as a given.

Also, the key point in the Plaintiff’s case is that, according to law, a derivative work such as this is within the exclusive rights of the copyright holder to authorise or create. The only way Steve can publish such a derivative is to either get permission- which he did not- or to create enough original material so that the use of the source material is fair.

Remember, also- and this is important, because I see it overlooked all the time- that Steve himself did not create the Lexicon manuscript. He even admits this himself when speaking of four authors and teams of experts. Technically, it is the amount of material created solely by Steve himself, alone, that will be the sum of original content.

At one point, the definiton of ‘Luna Lovegood’ was shown as ond with a decent amount of nin-JKR material. That’s true- and the bulk of that original material, to the best of my knowledge, was written by Lisa, who si neitehr crdited as one of these other authors, nor was incluced in any consideratiosn of profit.

It’s not jsut Jo’s wok that Steve is cashign in on. It’s everyone who labored to make the Lexicon website what ti is, from the othr ‘authors’ to all the various fan contributors.

I don’t see this case as suppressing a reference work. I see it as a sensible limitation- asking that the material remain exactly as it is, an online resource free for everyone to enjoy. There’s no need fr it to be otherwise, aside from Steve’s need to pay his bills.

I wish these comments had an edit function. Bloody typos. Sorry.

... but Jo’s Wok is almost as nice as the Icecrime Parlour, sorry, I could not resist that one.

If Steve wins, what kind of copyright does he have? Does the copyright entail the entire text of the lexicon? Or added content only? Can Steve stop other reference guides from being published for the reason that it will infringe on his copyright? Even more can Steve copyright his time line, since it’s all JKR based and it has a referencing goal? Will Steve have an indirect claim on JKR’s copyright?

NCJE Culver:

I suppose it’s up to the judge to decide what the purpose of the book is. Certainly it is meant to be a reference guide. But there is quite some difference between what it is meant to be and what it is. I do not believe it uses Ms. Rowling’s work fairly, and while it most certainly can be used as a reference guide, it is takes far more of Ms Rowling’s material than is necessary for that.

I believe that Mr. Vander Ark could have very easily written a reference guide without adding the extensive amount of detail he has put into the Lexicon. A simple index; listing each concept (which could be a place, character, spell, object etc.) from the books alphabetically, then listing every page on which that concept appears in each of the seven novels plus the two companion books (Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch Through The Ages) would have been far more appropriate.

There is no doubt that it would have been less efficient for the reader. But it would not have been infringing either. It could have referred the reader back to the novels and companion books for the information they sought, to the books which contain the original information in Ms Rowling’s own words. It could have simply made it easier to pinpoint the location of that information in the novels and companion books.

Instead, SVA has authored a work that does not require the reader to own or read any of the novels or companion books to obtain the information they seek, it is all right there, alphabetised and slightly rearranged, in the Lexicon. To learn all about the Harry Potter universe, one no longer needs to own Ms Rowling’s books if they own a copy of the Lexicon. Certainly the worst example of this is the way that the creatures from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them are described in vivid detail in the online Lexicon.

I read about these fictional beasts through the online Lexicon before buying and reading Fantastic Beasts, and found that the amount of information that the Lexicon had left out was negligible. It had well and truly plundered Fantastic Beasts and presented the information for free online. I’m surprised Ms. Rowling didn’t take legal action then (no doubt she felt that the activity was still somewhat harmless as long as Mr. Vander Ark was not seeking to make profit off her own work). I daresay she regrets not doing so now.

I also happen to agree that the availability and completeness of this information through the online Lexicon could very well have been a factor in the comparatively lower sales of the companion books (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and Quidditch Through The Ages)

Forgive me, I am not a lawyer and cannot speak with any authority on this subject. All I know is that I do believe that the Lexicon book, in a very real sense, does act as a replacement for Ms. Rowling’s books rather than a transformation of them, though only in the sense of it’s use as a reference. A fan fiction writer could use the published Lexicon to find virtually any fact they need to know about the Harry Potter universe without ever having to open one of J.K Rowling’s books (assuming they trust the quality of the book to be of the same standard of the novels). That doesn’t sound fair to me, is that not, after all, cutting out potential sales of Ms Rowling’s novels? If someone had read the novels in a library for example, but had bought the Lexicon for use as a reference at home rather than buy the seven novels?

What you have failed to grasp in that Ms. Rowling’s books have more use that just entertainment. The companion books are not purely encyclopaedias, they contain jokes and comments from characters in the Harry Potter novels interspersed throughout and are therefore entertaining. In the same way, Ms. Rowling’s novels are not purely for entertainment. They can be used, and have been used, I can guarantee, as references. For example, if I want to write fan fiction, I’m not going to trust the Lexicon for information about the Harry Potter universe (because it has been wrong before). I would personally look up the information in the novel itself. If you trust the quality of the Lexicon it will make things easier for you, but in essence the Lexicon offers very little the book does not, certainly nowhere near enough, in my opinion, to define it as a transformative work.

You see then, how, by simply restating information that can be found in a more complete form within the novel, the Lexicon book is not transformative at all. Indeed, the fact that the Lexicon will never match up to the information that can be gleaned from the original works by Ms. Rowling is another reason why the Lexicon ought to have been a mere index, telling the reader where to find the sought-after information in the novels, as well as perhaps containing some commentary, for example, explaining (or attempting to explain) the folklore roots of certain concepts in Harry Potter.

My conclusion is that the Lexicon is not fair. It may indeed damage sales of Ms. Rowling’s own planned encyclopaedia and may damage sales of her existing companion books which the Lexicon so thoroughly duplicates.

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

I have no need to substantiate that claim, because I covered myself when I made that claim. I did say verbatim OR almost verbatim. The key phrase here being “almost”. There is no question that Mr Vander Ark could not have avoided duplicating the use of certain words to describe concepts that only exist in Ms. Rowling’s fictional universe. Which is precisely why he ought not to have even tried to do so at all.

Whew! Just finished Day 3:

From Ms. Cendali’s closing argument:

“Now, one of the issues you may have to address, your Honor, is what we argue is a circular argument, which is that if they can argue that their purpose was to take everything, does that justify their ability to take everything.”

This was the part of the defense’s argument that made my jaw hit the floor. They basically argue that they should be allowed to copy everything because they MEANT to copy everything. Wow. I don’t know how lawyers keep a straight face when they’re saying this stuff.

NCJE Culver, THANK you for giving us a look at the Lexicon. It finally put to rest any notion in my mind that the Lexicon doesn’t do anything the book doesn’t do. People, read the entry on Dumbledore and tell me again that Steve Vander Ark just copied and pasted from the books. The information in that entry would require hours upon hours of study and analysis and cross-referencing—hours that he has now saved anyone interested in Dumbledore.

For example, despite the number of times I’ve read the books, I did not have the faintest idea how long Dumbledore was headmaster of Hogwarts, and it would t likely have taken me hours, even with all the books in front of me, to figure it out. Steve provides the answer: about forty years. He also does a good job of cross- referencing the world of Potter with the history of the real world-noting that Dumbledore’s mother (or sister, whichever) died around the turn of the century and that Voldemort began developing his plans in a time when totalitarianism was sweeping across Europe-a connection I and many others already HAD made, but I guarantee you that not every 12-year-old--or even 42-year-old-who might use the Lexicon will have figured that out.

A Lexicon like this will definitely ADD something to the experience of anyone interested in Harry Potter—at least, one who doesn’t already carry around a database of facts in their head after multiple rereadings and long discussions online. So…transformative? YOU BET.

Trosa

I don’t think anyone’s arguing that there aren’t sporadic bits of new material in the Lexicon, I think what’s being argued is that if you cut out all the parts of the Lexicon that aren’t copying, the published Lexicon would be a pamphlet and not a book.

Whoops.

I meant:

if you cut out all the parts of the Lexicon that are copying, the published Lexicon would be a pamphlet and not a book.

So there.

: )

@Tulsa re: Dumbledore As Headmaster

It really wouldn’t take you that amount of time and is very easy to work out from a few small quotes in POA made by Remus Lupin “I was a very small boy when i received the bite” “But then Dumbledore became Headmaster” (Both quotes are from page 258 of The Prisoner Of Azkaban UK Paperback) and the date of birth of James Potter which is 1960 (Page 268 Deathly Hallows UK Hardback). Easy enough to work out that James Potter and therefore Remus Lupin first attended Hogwarts in September 1971. We know Dumbledore became headmaster before that, probably when Lupin was around 9, so lets say that makes it around 1969 or 1970. Its common Knowledge that Harry went to Hogwarts first in 1991. So its easy to surmise that When Dumbledore died He had been Headmaster for around 37 years. These facts took me around 4 minutes to find.

Now as for the Lexicon, i have visited it around three times, but i find it lacking in any real value. The so called essays add nothing of value and are too simplistic. I have heard SVA speak twice live and heard him on Pottercast and nothing i have heard makes me thinks he really “gets’ Harry Potter. He is OK (not great) on surface facts, but has no imagination and does not understand the underlying themes of the books. Having looked over the court documents over a couple of weeks and read the transcripts, i fail to see what original thought or content this so called Lexicon book adds to the Potter Universe

Mimblewimble wrote: “I don’t think anyone’s arguing that there aren’t sporadic bits of new material in the Lexicon”

I’m not going to argue that the majority of the material in the Dumbledore article is particularly new. But I WILL argue that it produces a clear, coherent picture of Dumbledore’s life that would take much, much longer to understand if you had only the use of the books.

PJB wrote (after mentioning two quotes that allowed him to deduce Dumbledore’s tenure): “These facts took me around 4 minutes to find.”

Yes, but that’s the thing. Seeing as you were able to find them so quickly, I’m guessing that you already knew those quotes existed. Our of the four THOUSAND-plus pages of Harry Potter’s American hardback editions, you found two quotes you remembered and cross-referenced them.

But I’m sure you’re aware that you - and a lot of other denizens of Leaky - are familiar with the books on a level that many, many people are not. Those people are the ones that will find such a Lexicon useful.

OK, maybe some people ARE arguing that the Lexicon doesn’t add anything new (PJB), but my point is that if the Lexicon is ruled to be sufficiently transformative, anyone will be able to copy any amount of text with the absolute minimum of editing and then say, “Well the Lexicon was ruled to be transformative, so certainly MY (cut and paste) work is also transformative.” And the defense basically argued (especially in the closing arguments) that if something is ruled transformative, that NO amount of copying would trump that factor (ok they argued for “reasonable” taking, but if the Lexicon is their idea of reasonable taking, I would hate to see what they considered to be a bit much).

Indeed their argument seemed to be that if something is transformative (of which their definition is broad to say the least), then lots of copying is actually a good thing to make the book better.

Can you at least see how this is a questionable leap in reasoning?

@ Trosa

I stand by my statement that the Lexicon Book has no value. I guess as i spend my life adapting books for Radio mainly i have a head for lines from books, but like i said these 2 facts just jumped out at me when i read your post and just grabed the 2 books i remembered. So anyone who reads the series can make this judgement easily and not ‘spend Hours” Why would a book that gives you facts like this be useful? Seriously a book that gives Character Motivations and themes is much more use than this book would ever be