Tim Wu in an article for The New Yorker looks at the events leading up to the trial, speaks to Steve Vander Ark, and compares J.K. Rowling to the mythical Athena:
“Once upon a time, a talented weaver named Arachne declared herself superior in skill to Athena, the goddess of wisdom, who also invented weaving. Whether Arachne was actually better we’ll never know, for Athena, in a jealous rage, destroyed her rival’s tapestry and turned her into a spider. Last summer, at a “Harry Potter” convention in Toronto, a fan named Steve Vander Ark made a similar mistake when he dared to compare himself to Joanne (J. K.) Rowling.”
Wu describes what led Vander Ark to create the Lexicon website, and notes that Vander Ark has suffered “cruel fates” as a result of the lawsuit:
“In the late nineties, while working as a children’s librarian in Byron Center, Michigan (pop. 3,777), he discovered the “Potter” series. He began to take notes and, by his own estimate, has read each of the books forty or fifty times. “Something about these detailed imaginative worlds just captivated me,” he said during a court recess.
In 2000, Vander Ark, who considers himself a Ravenclaw, turned his obsessive notes into a Web site, The Harry Potter Lexicon. Soon, he was a celebrity in the “Potter” community. But when he decided to turn his Web site into a book Rowling sued his publisher, effectively exiling him from the wizard community.”
Wu also notes Leaky webmistress Melissa Anelli’s presence in the court room:
Anelli is writing her own “Potter” book, with Rowling’s blessing, and during a break in the trial Rowling sought her out and gave her a warm embrace, a moment that might have been as difficult for Vander Ark as any part of the legal proceedings.
“Melissa has done more to hurt me than Rowling,” Vander Ark said during a recess. “I can’t blame her for liking her status.” After all, he said, Rowling “is God and Melissa is her prophet.” He went on, “I am an outcast now. But I still consider myself a ‘Harry Potter’ fan.”
*
Editor’s Note: In the above-mentioned article, Mr. Wu attributed several statements made during a recent PotterCast (number 148) to Melissa Anelli (“He is vilified now”, “He has ruined his good standing.”). These remarks were instead made by Leaky Editor Sue Upton, who was commenting on the impact the decision to publish the book has made upon Vander Ark’s reputation.
The reason there was concern over the lexibook / Scottish book, was because SVA uses her wording so very closely (which is the point of the lawsuit). If this version is allowed to be published without further and extensive editing could he then claim that these were his own words and sue for infringement on those grounds? This was the issue as discussed. Copyright law has many murky areas, as we have seen. Some professors even eschew campus email to avoid potential intellectual property entanglements.
Lily Phoenix wrote: “The worst part is, his actions are all selfish. He isn’t writing this book for the HP fans; he’s writing for money, pure and simple. Otherwise he would have either been satisfied with the online lexicon as a representation of his work and dedication or he would have sold his books and donated the profits to charity as JKR has done.”
Much as I agree wholeheartedly that Melissa Anelli’s book will be her original work, I think this speculation about SVA’s motivation (implicitly contrasted to Melissa’s) is very unfair. No matter from which point you look at the matter, you certainly cannot deny that there are commercial – financial! – interests behind Melissa’s book as well. Not entirely commercial interests, of course. But I doubt that mere greed is the only motivation for SVA either!
“Derivative works” were touched upon in a recent post, May 07, 2008 @ 11:15 a.m. by “akemi42.”
As to a comment posted by “Socks4Dobby” @ 4:26 a.m., the term “slippery slope” seems to describe “precedent,” and about how “allowing” one sort of “thing” or case to make it through the gates of Court would “allow” other similar “things” of greater and greater proportion (a snowball effect) to make it through, as well. So, in that case, according to that which was stated by “Socks4Dobby,” setting arbitrary standards, about “books that do not have enough original content,” and “drawing lines which dictate what percentage of the book must be original writing,” is more important than how it is being phrased within the comment. The “slippery slope” application might say that it might be both, “dangerous” precedent to restrict others from using smaller and smaller percentages of another’s original authored work, and “dangerous” precedent to “allow” greater and greater percentages of another’s original authored work to be used, as well.
“Akemi42,” and maybe others that have provided perspective through Legal commentary, described “derivative work,” for example, as WB has obtained “license.” The author could produce/publish a “derivative work” of her own, and through presenting “licenses” to other’s, such as WB, for fee or otherwise, those who obtain the “license” are allowed/licensed to use a certain extent of the author’s original work, while the author continues to maintain control of her copy right. On the other hand, as alluded to by “Akemi42,” and again by “Shelli” @ 10:00 a.m. & 10:17 a.m., about “Timelines” and RDR/SVA suing J. K. Rowling, it seems that:
The defendants seem to be attempting to purport that a “license” exists A.) through some manner of “fiction”/ethereal concept where “licenses” are created out of thin-air (genius, if they can actually do that); B.) through some tacit acquiescence where RDR/SVA has been already been allowed to do or carry on with something so that would be inequitable to stop them from doing it now; C.) through some yet to be determined “allowability” of a “Timeline,” and it’s further placement in millions of DVD’s.
According to that which has been previously commented about “derivative work,” it seems that the defendants may be implying that through this notion of “license,” the “ability/allowability” to produce/publish a “derivative work” exists.
It might be a misinformed illusion to have the opinion that Mr. Vander Ark is not a “defendant” in this present case. If one refers to the Petition, and as it is amended, Who are DOES 1-10? Additionally, Who are those who may have fictional names (whether under business names, or otherwise)? Further, Who are those affiliated with RDR, variously described, who injunction is sought against?
Although, keeping Mr. Vander Ark unnamed in the Case, and “unnamed as a defendant” in commentary, as I too hope the best for Mr. Vander Ark’s interests, it would be naïve to go about one’s life aloof, only to later find that the Court required something of you, as well. I don’t think Mr. Vander Ark is that naïve.
It’s a shame that this article (or other fans’ comments/views on it) are encouraging you to leave the fandom. I would have thought that one event like this wouldn’t be enough to make you leave, especially as you have obviously cared enough about HP and the fandom to support it financially. However, it is your choice.
If you really feel that way then goodbye to you too.
Thanks for being so balanced you guys. It has to be so hard for you personally since you know Steve and have basically had to choose which side you agree with. It is not your fault Melissa that Jo has formed a friendship with you and the Leaky Cauldron Team that she has not with other fan sites. You should be excited about your book, you have done things the right way and it is unfair for others, who have done things the wrong way, to hold this against you. Looking forward to your book and all that it has to offer the fan community. Once again, I think I repeat many other fans thoughts when I say that we greatly appreciate the balanced look at the trial when you are personally involved.
“It makes SVA look just as bad as it makes Melissa look, which isn’t that bad at all.”
Posted by Mimblewimble on May 07, 2008 @ 08:07 PM
I should qualify this a little. If I was a truly disinterested person in the whole situation, this article would have lightly amused me. If I took anything from the article in the back of my mind, it would have been feeling a little disturbed by SVA trying to get JKR to smile at him in the courtroom. Even if I knew nothing about any of the players, I would feel that a normal guy being sued by a celebrity who then tries to be buddies with the celebrity while in the courtroom is a little… just a little off. The fact that he talked about it to a reporter is also a little off. It’s unsettling.
“Even if I knew nothing about any of the players, I would feel that a normal guy being sued by a celebrity who then tries to be buddies with the celebrity while in the courtroom is a little… just a little off. The fact that he talked about it to a reporter is also a little off. It’s unsettling.”
Indeed. It’s not merely unsettling, it shows the level of delusion that exists in SVA’s head. The fact that he would seek some form of friendly acknowledgment at that point is beyond the pale. I have said it before, and really it is without rancor, I think SVA needs some mental health assistance. He is out of touch with reality.
Though, the case could set a precedent, if WB/JKR wins, then there’s nothing different than has been in the past. Also, fair use cases are looked at individually. It’s such a vague law that it has to be. So there will be no one ruling on this type of case because each case is unique.
Also, Melissa and SVA’s books are VERY different. Melissa’s concerns the phenomena of HP and the fandom. SVA’s is a regurgication of what’s in the books. Two completely different books.
@Copperhead:
If SVA wasn’t named as one of the “John-does” during the trial, he’s not being sued. I don’t think any of them were named.
In addition to my previous post I would like to qualify my statement a bit. I am quite convinced that Melissa Anelli’s book probably is entirely her original work, but I cannot possibly judge its originality without having read it.
I have not read all the transcripts, but I would not take from this snippet that the judge agrees that SVA could sue JKR for publishing the encyclopedia. From a copyright perspective, he is not entitled to any copyright protection for the material in the Lexicon except for some small bits such as the timelines. I don’t believe he would win if he tried to assert this very narrow right. My bottom line again is that if RDR wins, it does not mean that SVA can sue JKR for publishing the encyclopedia. It only means that the book form of the Lexicon was within the bounds of fair use.
@Cathy
Thanks. :) I think we are are on the same page
@ mollywobble and others
According to the code of ethics on the Society of Professional Journliasts web site (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp), I think Melissa should have stopped reporting on Day 1. Journalists should avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest and I think both exist here. I also think that the comments left up about Steve’s personal life fall outside the terms of use typically employed on TLC. They are ugly, tasteless, and leaving them there makes TLC look tacky.
I’m a bit late, I’ve just seen that. I’m speechless, I was still hoping for some sort of understanding at some point so we can all move on but I realise now that this is impossible. I’m having a hard time believing that this is the same Steve who created the Lexicon, they seem like two different people.
All of this makes me sick, this is by far the saddest thing that has happened to the fandom. Good luck with your book, Melissa, I’m so sorry about what’s happening to you. I don’t even think Steve would have had the nerve to say that to you in person. I hope Jo’s okay as well, nobody deserves all this.
The reason there was concern over the lexibook / Scottish book, was because SVA uses her wording so very closely (which is the point of the lawsuit). If this version is allowed to be published without further and extensive editing could he then claim that these were his own words and sue for infringement on those grounds? This was the issue as discussed. Copyright law has many murky areas, as we have seen. Some professors even eschew campus email to avoid potential intellectual property entanglements.