77 responses so far ↓

• 1 Ginevra // Oct 31, 2007 at 9:00 pm

  Wow, this is so sad. I love Jo, and I love the Lexicon.

  I doubt Warner Brothers will have much of a case since they lifted things from The Lexicon for their DVDs. Jo has a case somewhat, but why not object before now, as I am assuming the encyclopedia will include no HP material that isn’t in the online version already?

• 2 revgeorge // Oct 31, 2007 at 9:09 pm

  So, what’s next? Suing all the fanfics & websites & podcasts?

  There’s a double edged sword here. Jo & her associates are entitled to their copyrights, but the issues regarding copyright have kind of gone way beyond the ability of people to enforce them. The technology has advanced so fast, but instead of adjusting authors & companies are trying to maintain the status quo, when they should be jumping on the new technology & using it to their advantage.

  As with most things, South Park has done an excellent episode on this, “Christian Rock Hard.” Again it’s not for everybody, but it really does hit the point, & it skewers contemporary Christian music, too!

• 3 Lois // Oct 31, 2007 at 10:06 pm

  Wow - I guess I’m glad I never wrote that Harry Potter book I was always planning…

  I thought Rowling even complimented that site and pulled from it herself now and then! If she was so impressed and thankful earlier, don’t you think she could just write him a little note and talk it over with him? Steve such a nice guy!

• 4 Jeremy Pierce // Oct 31, 2007 at 10:19 pm

  I think she’s got no case, legally. This seems to me to be a pretty clear case of fair use. This isn’t superseding any of the already-existing novels. Any future product is irrelevant legally, since it doesn’t exist, but what she has in mind is very clearly something very different from this. Assuming it doesn’t use too much that’s directly quoted from the books, I just think a lawsuit like this will embarrass Jo. It will start to look bad if she keeps suing people over copyright issues that turn out in every case to be legally unsupportable.

• 5 reyhan // Oct 31, 2007 at 10:25 pm

  I don’t see why anyone should be able to make money from JKR’s ideas without her permission, except for literary critiques.

  Also, electronic info - such as Wikipedia - is different from printed material. We haven’t quite figured out how copyrights will work for that.

  I also don’t think how nice a person is should make a difference to what they should - or should not - be allowed to do.

  I’m completely with the author on this one. She (and her publishers) may have set a bad precedent by not challenging printed works based on her work earlier. But that doesn’t mean they’re bound by it - unless a court somewhere rules so. I’m guessing that will be one of the defense arguments.

• 6 Eeyore // Oct 31, 2007 at 11:47 pm

  I would understand if Steve were trying to publish things that are not already on the web site. But a lot of the essays are someone’s theory about the characters, much as we’ve seen in books that have been published that she hasn’t challenged. So I don’t get it. Why now? And why Steve and the Lexicon, when she has said how wonderful they are and that she’s even used it as a reference when she was out somewhere doing her writing?

  Her encyclopedia seems to me that it will have content that no one else can have. So anyone who would want to buy it, still will.

  reyhan, the whole copyright thing on web sites is still up in the air, but a few years back some friends and I got into a disagreement about who had the rights to something we had written. After one lady did some research (and she had published a book or two as well), she found that if you “publish” it on the web and your name is clearly acknowledged, then you have the rights to what happens to that creative material.

  Where it would get murky with the Lexicon, it seems, is that it’s based on material that is Rowling’s creative property. But in all the times I’ve looked at the Lexicon, it seems clear to me that they give Rowling and Warner Brothers the credit that is necessary.

  Clearly one for some copyright lawyers to sort. I just hope that they aren’t advising Jo to pursue some of these suits to the point that it back fires and makes her look like the bad guy.

  Remember when Warner Brothers was going after all the fan sites that were started mostly by young teens–when they were threatening suits and fines and so forth? It wasn’t to their benefit to go after the very fans they wanted to cultivate. The same might be true of Rowling going after VanderArk, who is a nice guy and a loyal fan–with a lot of loyal followers.

  Pat

• 7 jo (jkr2) // Nov 1, 2007 at 2:17 am

  i’ve got mixed feelings about this, too. but it does seem it’s about the publishing of a companion encyclopaedic book, which does seem to step more into her ‘turf’ particularly in the minds of nominal readers.

  she has been very supportive i think of fan sites, fan fiction etc.

  i am convinced it has nothing to do with seeking more profit, as i’ve heard some snidely remark. hers will be for charity.

  Rowling seems quite intent, however, on taking control of every single detail that could possibly be left to the reader’s imagination.

  i do find that a bit harsh - especially from you, travis, since i see you as being particularly fair minded in these sorts of things. she answers questions that people ask her. she has bucket loads of stuff she’s never mentioned.

  re this particular case - i would like to know more about what went on behind the scenes before passing judgement on her.

  jo

• 8 korg20000bc // Nov 1, 2007 at 7:18 am

  Surely all the info in the lexicon can be found in the novels. Rowling’s encyclopedia better contain stuff NOT in the novels I will feel a very cheated man when I buy it.

  Travis,
  Are you shaking about your book?

  Matthew

• 9 Travis Prinzi // Nov 1, 2007 at 10:05 am

  Jo, you’re probably right. The comment was a bit harsh. I’ve learned things about the behind-the-scenes stuff on this one that I don’t intend to share, primarily because a lot of it could potentially be rumor and gossip. Let’s just say there’s definitely a lot of backstory to this particular debacle, and I should have reserved judgment.

• 10 John Granger // Nov 1, 2007 at 11:21 am

  Please note that MuggleNet’s Encyclopedia will be going on sale 28 November — it’s available on a pre-publication page at Amazon — and that this suit didn’t come out of the blue. Other news reports include bits about correspondence, a family tragedy, rights being sold to foreign publishers, and Warner Brothers being threatened (?) by the Lexicon for using their time-line.
  http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/11/gr_man_sued_over_plans_for_har.html
  http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200710311744DOWJONESDJONLINE001189_FORTUNE5.htm

  When will we learn that reports from the Daily Prophet are half-truths, distorted and incomplete stories, and sometimes just plain fabrications? The only thing we know for sure about this law suit is that we don’t know nothing for sure beyond the names of some of the players. Trying to guess what is really going on is not unlike our attempts to fathom what “Deathly Hallows” meant early this year — and a whole lot less edifying for everyone involved because these are real people.

• 11 Beth // Nov 1, 2007 at 3:40 pm

  Like others, frankly I’m a bit confused by this. Rowling has encouraged fan sites and lauded (and even used) the lexicon. If she doesn’t mind it being available “for free” (well, relatively speaking…one does still have to pay for internet access) then the only possible explanation seems to be that she doesn’t want the folks who put the lexicon together profiting from it. And since it’s a lexicon, much of it recapitulates her own creative work. Still, it took an enormous amount of work to compile and organize all the information about her fictional world in a readable and attractive fashion. And as Pat, I believe, pointed out, some of the work on the lexicon is interpretive in nature, of the kind we’ve seen in many other “secondary” HP sources.

  I’d be curious to know if it really is all about other people not making a profit from her creative property, or taking away from her future work’s sales for charity, or if there are deeper issues at stake. If the lexicon folks suddenly decided to publish but give all the profits away to charity too, would she still worry? It seems a bit odd that she would be fearful that people would buy this instead of her own “definitive” encyclopedia. Given that Rowling’s really WOULD be the definitive (because only she has access to information no one else knows) I don’t see how this could hurt sales. Given that she is not even working on the encyclopedia yet, as she keeps reminding us, it could be years before she gets one ready for publication. A printed version of the lexicon could, in the meantime, provide a lot of enjoyment for people, a lot of help for potential Potter scholars, and keep the enthusiasm for the books alive and well (not that I think there’s much danger of it flagging) in the interim.

  Given how kindly she has spoken of the lexicon and its creators in the past, I hope she will at least consider talking to them in person, if she hasn’t already (about their intentions and her own) and not just through lawyers.

• 12 korg20000bc // Nov 1, 2007 at 4:24 pm

  THis just on Rowling’s website
  “Companion Books

  As is now widely known, a complaint has been filed in the name of Warner Bros and myself against the publisher of a proposed Lexicon, written by Steven VanderArk. This decision was reached, on my part, with immense sadness and disappointment, and only because direct appeals for a reasonable solution failed. I never dreamed, in the light of our previous good relations – including giving the Lexicon a Fansite Award - that this situation would ever arise.

  From what I understand, the proposed book is not criticism or review of Harry Potter’s world, which would be entirely legitimate – neither I nor anybody connected with Harry Potter has ever tried to prevent such works being published. It is, we believe, a print version of the website, except now the information that was freely available to everybody is to become a commercial enterprise.

  It is not reasonable, or legal, for anybody, fan or otherwise, to take an author’s hard work, re-organize their characters and plots, and sell them for their own commercial gain. However much an individual claims to love somebody else’s work, it does not become theirs to sell.”

  Matthew

• 13 Travis Prinzi // Nov 1, 2007 at 6:32 pm

  More information coming out, this from Leaky, including excerpts from the law suit itself, and a timeline of events leading up to the suit.

• 14 reyhan // Nov 1, 2007 at 7:02 pm

  We’ve discussed the idea that at a certain point the author’s work ceases to be strictly her own; I believed that we were talking about conceptual integrity. Seems Steven VanderArk took it literally.

  The image that comes to mind is one of scavengers fighting over the entrails.

• 15 Ginevra // Nov 1, 2007 at 8:35 pm

  Much of the suit seems based on the fact that the site is free whereas the book is not. While this is true to an extent, nothing is ever quite free.

  As for profiting, plenty of people profit directly from websites. Several years ago, an article quoted Emerson (MuggleNet) as saying that his new college buddies might have thought him odd at first for running an HP site, but when they found out how much he made from the site, they were very impressed. I believe it was over $30,000 a year at the time, which was several years ago.

  Also, I am fairly sure some people profit at TLC. Several took the summer off to do a PotterCast tour, and surely salaries were paid. And at least one has quit a full time job, and presumably the bills are still being paid.

  So even on the internet, people are making money. And if someone is getting, then someone has to be giving.

• 16 Dave, the Longwinded // Nov 1, 2007 at 8:46 pm

  Obviously, none of us have a full understanding of this. But, this does come across as rather strange on its face. Part of me wonders if this suit would go forward (or exist) if Rowling had no plans to publish her own compendium to her books. But, I’m like some others. Why this? Why now? This seems such a non-sequitur move. I can’t really make heads or tails out of it.

  I do wonder if, in the long run, Rowling might unintentionally hinder any critical assessment of the books. If the grand poobah of Potterdom has run afoul of her for publishing something that it seems could only be used for critical purposes, then, if I were a publisher, I’d have to think real hard about publishing something of a critical bent from a lesser known writer.

• 17 Ginevra // Nov 1, 2007 at 8:52 pm

  I tried to find the original article I read but have had no luck thus far. I did find this, though, from Wikipedia:

  “As of 2005, the MuggleNet network started generating a six-figure income through advertising revenue. In addition, beginning in November 2006, MuggleNet introduced a line of branded merchandise, including T-shirts, wands, and other materials. Warner Bros. later issued a cease and desist letter for MuggleNet’s sale of unauthorized Harry Potter merchandise.

  “Spartz admitted that he is ‘not quite the [Harry Potter] fan he used to be’ and sees his role as ‘more of an administrator’ overseeing a large team of staff members. Spartz has also stated, ‘I plan to use the significant amount of money I have earned through my e-business, MuggleNet.com, as investment capital, as both an entrepreneur and an investor.’”
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuggleNet#_note-5

• 18 reyhan // Nov 1, 2007 at 9:32 pm

  Dave, I don’t see how this lawsuit would lead to a fear of publishing literary critiques of the work. I see the Lexicon and literary critique as two distinct things. One is at attempt to make money out of the success of the author’s work. It will appeal to those people who want more Potter and will pay for anything that looks like Potter. The other, if well written, will have much less popular appeal. It will have its own literary merit, albeit of a drier sort.

  Do you think there would be confusion?

• 19 BabyBlue // Nov 2, 2007 at 12:02 am

  As I posted at my site, if you would have said a year ago that Jo Rowling would sue Steve Vander Ark I would have laughed out loud. I’m simply stunned at this - and stunned perhaps even more that it’s being played out in the press. It just doesn’t make sense. It will be years before Jo Rowling gets around to writing an encyclopedia - and who really wants that anyway - I think we’d all rather have “Hogwarts A History.” She might do better, in fact, just to provide footnotes to her books in later editions (as you can find in Tolkien books) and forget the idea of a separate Encyclopedia. Like a Study Bible, you could have Rowling’s official Study Potter books. That would be very cool. Why isn’t she thinking straight?

  But to sue Steve - I never thought I’d see that. Melissa at Leaky is also writing book (and will make money off it too). What about all the Wizard Rock bands that use Jo’s characters as names for their bands. Is she going to drop the ax on them too? What other ideas does she have waiting to be acted on? Maybe she wants to form “Harry and the Potters.” I mean, it’s just absurd.

  I just can’t figure out why this is all out in public in the first place. It’s like Jo suing those folks in India for building a replica of Hogwarts (she lost that suit - but why sue in the first place? Is she bored?). You don’t sue your fans - certainly not the creator of the Harry Potter Lexicon. It’s just bizarre.

  I don’t get it.

  Bob Dylan just finished his latest “Never Ending Tour” and his staff at concerts have come down hard on fans who take photos or film him during the performance (he’s the most bootlegged performer ever and you can go to YouTube to see the proof - and that’s just a bit of it - He also doesn’t talk about the meaning of his songs, either, or explains his songs to us, no matter how many times he’s asked, he just won’t do it - which builds more and more mystery into his persona as we go off and try to figure out what he means on our own). But on the last night of his tour there in Chicago he spoke from the stage - something he actually hasn’t done (outside of introducing his band) in years - years. Here’s what he was reported to have said:

  After introducing the band, and as if she were one of them, he said, “. . .and here’s a woman in front who’s been working with her cell phone camera all night - man, she ain’t seen or heard nothin’!”

  He made fun of it all, didn’t take it too seriously and won over all of us because he’s right. It’s hard to listen when you are trying not to get busted for taking photos. And the point of his concerts is to listen.

  And the point of the Steve’s Lexicon is to learn everything about Harry Potter. He’s Jo’s best supporter. He’s the best - why would she want to drag him through the mud? It makes no sense. I can see people popping their corks in private, but to strategically attack the Lexicon - it makes no sense.

  There must be more to this story - and now that it’s out, I guess it will be revealed. It just makes me very sad.

  bb

• 20 LL // Nov 2, 2007 at 2:20 am

  Thank you BabyBlue for putting it so well. I too was slightly gobsmacked when I read about the Indian suit and this is horrible!

• 21 Eeyore // Nov 2, 2007 at 3:26 am

  My first reaction has been tempered by more information. Check out all of this at TLC:

  http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/1/j-k-rowling-updates-companion-books-article

  It gives a whole different perspective to what Jo is doing and why as well as what Steve is doing–with no apparent rational explanation. The first part is Steve’s side of it (first amendment rights? are you serious?), and if you scroll down, there is a time line starting in early September of JKR and WB trying to get Steve to stop publication, to get the manuscript to look at it, etc–all without any cooperation on his part or that of his publisher, RDR.

  When it comes down to it, there is a big difference between someone writing a critique of the books and someone just listing all the information that’s in the books. There are several cases that give precedence for Jo having ever right to sue over the publication of the Lexicon.

  The following was a post from someone called Legal Eagle at TLC and really takes the personalities out of it. It doesn’t sound to me like Steve has any right to publish the Lexicon and profit by it.

  ***

  “The difference between opinion and a legal precedent is that the former has no validity in court, however well informed or well intentioned; the latter is what the sitting judge will determine damages and set awards.

  “This is, from the lawyers’ point of view, a LEGAL matter, not one of fan opinion.

  “From a legal point of view, the matter at hand is clear-cut: This is a matter of what’s called “derivative use.” It means that the copyright holder - in this case, Joanne Rowling - can mine her own work to construct quizbooks, puzzle books, and encyclopedias.

  “In the matter of derivative use, the key criterion is whether or not an unofficial/unauthorized book merely REARRANGES the existing text to recast a “new book.”

  “When viewed in that light, Mr. Vander Ark’s book fares poor legally because it is 100% (judging from the his website) based on what’s in Rowling’s books.

  “Mr. Vander Ark’s proposed book is not commentary; it’s not opinion; it’s a re-edited edition of what Rowling has carefully chronicled in her book.

  “The legal precedent for this was when a publisher issued an unauthorized “Seinfeld” quiz book. The court decided that there was nothing original added, that it was all repurposed, and that everything had been drawn from the television series. Therefore, as all the material was derivative use, the unauthorized book was held legally accountable for damages.

  “Give Rowling and her lawyers a little credit: They don’t sue capriciously; they sue when they feel they have no other choice in protecting their rights.

  “This explains why two former encyclopedias - AN UNOFFICIAL MUGGLE’S GUIDE TO THE WIZARDING WORLD: EXPLORING THE HARRY POTTER UNIVERSE (ECW Press) and THE J.K. ROWLING ENCYCLOPEDIA by Connie Ann Kirk - are probably out of print: The amount of derived material exceeded what’s called “fair use,” which is the test as to whether or not a work is considered to be within the legal limits: “1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. amount and sutstantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work [see http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html.

  “Rowling’s lawyers will likely cite that Vander Ark’s book (point 1) is for profit, (points 2 and 3) is principally or wholly derivative in content, and (point 4) will have a deleterious effect on the sale of Rowling’s own encyclopedia.

  “Of these points, in my considered opinion, only #4 will materially fail as fans of Rowling may buy an unofficial encyclopedia, but will buy the authorized book no matter what. The publication of an unofficial encyclopedia will not substantially hinder sales of the official one. In other words, some fans will likely by both, but no fan will buy the unofficial one in favor of the official one.

  “As for the proposed Mugglenet.com book (UNOFFICIAL HARRY POTTER COMPANION: THE ENCYCLOPEDIC GUIDE TO THE BOOKS, MOVIES AND MORE), it depends on how Mr. Spartz and Mr. Schoen handle the material: If it’s straightforward in encyclopedic format and uses the same material as Kirk’s J.K. ROWLING ENCYCLOPEDIA and Fionna Boyle’s UNOFFICIAL MUGGLE’S GUIDE TO THE WIZARDING WORLD, then it too may be on the lawyers’ radar. If, however, the text is not derivative, in terms of encyclopedia entries, and has original material (extensive commentary, contextual information) and stays away from a bare bones misappropriation of Rowling’s original texts, then it may (and I use that word guardly) escape the hangman’s noose.

  “Bottom line here, folks, it’s not about whether Mr. Vander Ark is a great asset to the Harry Potter community (legally, that’s a non-issue); doesn’t matter if Rowling uses his website for reference and has praised it (legally, both are non-issues); doesn’t matter if Rowling is a multi-millionaire (legally, a non-issue); and it doesn’t matter that Mr. Vander Ark has spent years researching Rowling’s universe. Doesn’t matter. What DOES matter is whether or not the book is substantially derived from Rowling’s texts.

  “That’s what the sitting judge will decide after examining the manuscript or finished book, and that judge will cite the aforementioned legal precedent regarding the Seinfeld quiz book.

  Class is dismissed!

  Posted by Legal Beagle on October 31, 2007 @ 08:31 PM ”

  ***
  (I looked for a way to show that as a quote but couldn’t find that page–it used to be there somewhere, I’m sure. Sorry it’s so long, but I do think he explained it all rather well.)

  Pat

• 22 Scott // Nov 2, 2007 at 5:23 am

  Thanks for that quote Pat. I’m afraid I have to side with Rowling on this one too. It’s not about whether the Lexicon or its author are wonderful. It’s about copyright law.

  When you’re talking about his Lexicon site, the law is a bit murky still because there is less legal precedent dealing with web sites. He may even have made a ton of money from advertising on that site, but I think it’s harder to prove that we was solely making that money from selling JKR’s work. I could probably be argued that he was making money by offering a service. But when you talk about printed work like books, there’s just no question. There are decades and decades of legal precedent on copyright.

  As far as all this being out in public, I am guessing this is the last thing JKR wanted. But you try stopping the media from running a story like this. They love the David and Goliath angle, even when Goliath is right. Just look at all the press Apple gets when they sue their fan sites for leaking info about their upcoming products. It gets quite ugly.

  It kinda makes me wonder about those SceneIt games. I wonder if they have some sort of license for using all those movie clips. I guess they would have to since they aren’t really introducing any new content, just basically making a Seinfeld quiz game.

• 23 BabyBlue // Nov 2, 2007 at 8:20 am

  You don’t sue your fans.

  Something is really wrong here. You don’t have one of the richest women in the world freaking out over money, unless something is really wrong. It just doesn’t make sense. Suing the Lexicon - the Lexicon is used by those who write fan fiction and essays on Potter (which Jo can’t control). I wonder if someone in her Camp has finally figured out that they need to plug that hole. The book part is silly - he’s had the Lexicon up for so many years its legendary. It appears there is some sort of power struggle going on here. This lawsuit is strategic.

  bb

• 24 Scott // Nov 2, 2007 at 3:00 pm

  You do sue your fans if they break copyright law. It’s not about the money. It’s about someone mis-using something that she owns the rights to.

• 25 Travis Prinzi // Nov 2, 2007 at 3:07 pm

  You know, I’m really starting to lean towards Rowling on this one. I see the point. Vander Ark’s book is not a critical analysis of the series, and it’s not one of those simple “links to mythology” encyclopedias. It’s a source-book to characters, places, definitions, etc. on the Harry Potter series, and that’s Rowling’s creation.

• 26 cigar95 // Nov 2, 2007 at 3:50 pm

  I have wondered if the process of assembling information in a topical manner, such that it can permit the discovery and identification of patterns in the story and provide further insights into the nature of the story, might constitute a form of “original content”. (Think of it as a muggle’s version of the pensieve, perhaps?) Pat’s quote seems to indicate that it probably does not.

  Perhaps the book can be modified by adding sufficient commentary to the “raw data” that it qualifies as a “new work”. Again, the legalities will determine this, rather than what I might think is the “right” approach.

  The other issue is the legal need to defend copyrighted works even if only to avoid establishing legal precedent for future attempts at publishing derivative works.

  I agree with John that it is wise to avoid speculating about the motives of the individuals on either side, even if only because we can do little more than guess. (Speculating on the *legal issues* remains great fun for those of us who got our legal education by watching years of ‘LA Law’ and ‘Law & Order’!)

  Nicholas

• 27 reyhan // Nov 2, 2007 at 4:24 pm

  I don’t think it’s about the money, at least not on her part. Her personal worth is about $1B, making her the second richest woman in the entertainment industry (after Oprah Winfrey). She’s richer than the Queen of England.

  I think it’s about her need to assert ownership over the rights to her intellectual property, what’s done with it, who gets to make money with it. I suspect that it’s important to do this right at the start, and consistently, before an entire industry mushroooms that exploits her property. The Harry Potter phenomenon is so large, the Lexicon is probably only the tip of the iceberg (to mix metaphors). I would also suspect that if she doesn’t start by exercising those rights, she may well lose them, at least in some jurisdictions.

  But whatever her reasons, no matter how mercenary or incomprehensible and illogical, or totally understandable and justifiable, the bottom line is that Harry Potter is her intellectual property. No one has the right to make money from her ideas without her consent.

  It is such a simple matter for me, that I’m having a very hard time understanding how anyone could object.

• 28 Ginevra // Nov 2, 2007 at 5:46 pm

  I can certainly see both sides, and I probably always will. It is so sad that it has come to this point, but I feel like it is because both sides are talking through their lawyers.

  The publisher of the encyclopedia seemed untrustworthy after reading his comments, in my opinion. Perhaps, by the time Jo contacted Steve, the publisher would not let Steve yield to Jo because the process was too far along and the publisher had spent too much money promoting and publishing the encyclopedia.

• 29 John Granger // Nov 4, 2007 at 11:30 pm

  http://lcmccabe.blogspot.com/2007/11/vander-arkrowling-brouhaha.html

• 30 reyhan // Nov 4, 2007 at 11:52 pm

  I read Ms. McCabe’s blog (see above). She too misses the point. The point is not whether the market is large enough to support both Mr. Vander Ark’s book and JKR’s book. It’s not a case of there’s enough money to go around and why can’t people just share and get along with each other.

  It’s a case of Mr. Vander Ark squatting on a corner of JKR’s land and building himself a ranch there (an attractive place, neatly catalogued and cross-referenced, from what I hear) and now wanting to charge admission to it.

  It’s not his to sell.

  As for him wanting to sue WB for using his timeline, again, it’s not his to sell. If he wants to pore over the books with a magnifying glass and a calculator, that’s wonderful for him, but the story line was created by someone else. No matter how prettily I organize my neighbour’s lawn ornaments, they do not become mine.

  Honestly.

• 31 Yaxley // Nov 5, 2007 at 1:26 pm

  The tactics employed by RDR publishing may be worthy of The Quibbler but Educational Decree #27 just makes JKR look a bit like Umbridge.

• 32 Ginevra // Nov 5, 2007 at 2:32 pm

  To lift the timeline word for word, typographical mistake for typographical mistake, without even referencing the source seems like a clear-cut case of plagiarism, if that is indeed what happened. I would be surprised if the court found otherwise. I certainly would not hesitate to fail a student for lifting this much material without referencing. Steve might or might not have the right to sell his timeline, but I am fairly certain no one has the right to steal it.

  I think it would be incredibly difficult to say whether the courts will find Steve’s book to be copyright infringement without actually seeing the book itself, the existing relevant law, and the cases of precedence. Clearly, there are existing encyclopedias covering copyrighted material that have long been published without dispute (e.g., other HP encyclopedias and Steve’s previously published encyclopedia on Star Wars - or was it Star Trek?). On the other hand, the cited precedence in this suit shows that some encyclopedic material does infringe on copyright. Without seeing the book itself, I would think it impossible to know on what side of the law this book falls.

• 33 Travis Prinzi // Nov 5, 2007 at 2:38 pm

  reyhan, points well-made.

• 34 reyhan // Nov 5, 2007 at 3:28 pm

  Ginevra,

  Now that’s a very interesting point: does WB or anyone have the right to use Mr Vander Ark’s timeline without referencing it?

  I suspect that what’s clear in academia - you do not use someone else’s work without referencing it - doesn’t apply in the same way in the legal world, i.e. plaigarism is not the same as copyright infringement.

  Pat (see above) has told us:

  ‘if you “publish” it on the web and your name is clearly acknowledged, then you have the rights to what happens to that creative material.’

  She’s also cited a source which says that the litmus test of ‘fair use’ is:

  ‘3. amount and sutstantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;’

  While this applies to JKR vs Mr. Vander Ark, it would presumably (?) also apply to Mr. Vander Ark vs WB.

  I think the question would come down to: what percentage of the timeline is something he created, and what percentage is from JKR?

  Personally, I don’t think that doing the math on someone else’s work is the same thing as “creation”. But I am obviously not an expert.

  There is a saying that seems totally apropos here: poachers make the best gamekeepers.

• 35 Mrs. Lovegood // Nov 6, 2007 at 11:49 am

  I have thought about this quite a lot, and I can see both sides. I think the problem is that Jo and Steve have not ever talked about this, that’s what needed to happen, though it may be too late now. Correspondence went back and forth, but it was filtered through lawyers and publishing firms and seems to have been, at least in part, misinterpreted.

  Somewhere I read that Steve wrote to Jo asking to collaborate on an encyclopedia and was turned down. I wonder if there were hard feelings about that on both sides.

  What I can say is that copyright law is very, very complicated and I’m not sure I understand it all. I think the fan community is hurt by this, and that’s unfortunate.

  What it really reminds me of is stories I’ve heard about married couples who have gone through a divorce. They get lawyers involved and suddenly everything changes. The lawyers are each only concerned by their own client and their rights and needs and what’s good for them. The whole situation escalates way beyond whatever hurts were originally there in the marriage relationship, and it becomes impossible to ever go back and patch things up. Even when the lawyers are only negotiating a legal separation and not a divorce, it seems to go this way. Now, Jo and Steve have both made public statements about this so the courts will have to decide it. Wouldn’t it be great if some wise judge forced Jo and Steve into a room by themselves without lawyers to just talk about it? I wonder what would happen then.

• 36 reyhan // Nov 6, 2007 at 1:45 pm

  Pat,

  Most of the time I find your plea for patience, mutual understanding and good will to be very persuasive.

  Not in this instance.

  I think that the analogy to negotiations during a divorce is not very appropriate, and could even be harmful. I’ll try to explain why.

  A divorce follows a marriage, which is amongst other things a legal contract about a partnership. The contract determines how the assets of the partnership should be shared, and the financial responsibilities of each partner upon the event of a divorce.

  JKR has not entered into a legal contract with Mr. Vander Ark. There are no assets of the partnership to be divided because there is no partnership.

  The reason why I think the analogy is potentially harmful is because of the implication that through communication, JKR and Mr. Vander Ark can restore their originally amicable relationship and agree upon a way of dividing up the assets. As I’ve stated several times, I do not think that Mr. Vander Ark has any claim upon those assets. From that perspective to urge JKR to share what belongs to her not only doesn’t make sense, it puts a burden on her to behave “well” in a situation where she is being victimized.

  To ask the injured party to get along better with the transgressor does not make a lot of sense for me. It’s not even a case of turning the other cheek. It’s a case of making a gift of what belongs to you to someone who’s stating that it actually belongs to him.

  I apologize to those who mightbe getting impatient at my repeating myself on this topic (this is my third or fourth time reiterating the same point.) I feel it would be dreadfully easy for JKR to look at the various sites (if SoG is representative of the views of fandom) and conclude that her fans have turned against her. I feel a sense of responsibility to keep affirming that I at least believe her intellectual property does belong to her and no other.

• 37 reyhan // Nov 6, 2007 at 1:47 pm

  And of course, the last comment was directed to Mrs. Lovegood, and not Pat.

  Sorry Pat. I’m terrible with names and faces.

• 38 revgeorge // Nov 6, 2007 at 6:59 pm

  Jo & her lawyers are certainly entitled to what they’re doing in regards to the Vander Ark encyclopedia. Of course, they shouldn’t complain when fan interest in JKR’s work drops off.

  If this is all about intellectual control of her work & not about money, which it is, then she should be suing every fanfic, fan artist, & filk writer, even if they’re not making money off her work. They’re still messing about with her intellectual property.

  And the fact that there’s a supposed difference between the lexicon being on the Internet & not in print, well, copyright law is in a constant state of flux. Who knows if tomorrow some judge won’t rule that Internet fan works & podcasts violate copyright law. What about wizard rock bands? They sell cd’s & put on concerts using material originally thought up by Jo. Are all of them going to get a knock on the door from some lawyers.

  My point is copyright law is so byzantine & archaic that people are fighting old battles instead of looking to the future. The old saying goes, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Having Vander Ark’s encyclopedia out there & the controversy over it is only going to sell Jo’s work more. People will be eager to get her encyclopedia to see how it differs from the other one.

  If it’s only about money, which it is, then arrangements can be made between the parties.

  If it’s about Jo’s control of her intellectual property, then, as I said, there’s a whole lot of people she should be suing.

• 39 revgeorge // Nov 6, 2007 at 7:31 pm

  As a follow up to my last post, I just purchased a couple of songs off of iTunes. Point is, I never would’ve purchased those songs if I hadn’t heard a free song given away by the band on iTunes. There’s an example of taking advantage of new technology instead of living in the ancient days of copyright law.

  Course this plan didn’t work out too well for Radiohead, when they gave away their new album & let the fans decide how much to pay for it. I guess only half of the people who downloaded it paid anything for it. But that was the risk Radiohead was willing to take. But they’ll also be releasing special editions & a regular cd, too, so they’re just expanding their options.

  I know the above examples are different than a book publishing thing, but the same basic principles apply.

• 40 reyhan // Nov 6, 2007 at 11:46 pm

  I think there is a substantive difference between messing with someone’s intellectual property without asking for payment, and messing with it for gain. Once you start asking for money, you’ve taken it to a different level, a level where you’re claiming some sort of right to it. You can’t sell what’s not yours. Conversely, if you’re selling it, the implication is that it must be yours to sell.

  In the future - which may already have arrived - artists may freely give away their work on the internet, for the extra advertising, or to expand their options as you say. But it doesn’t change the basic principle: the difference between mine and thine.

• 41 revgeorge // Nov 7, 2007 at 2:03 am

  Reyhan,

  I didn’t say it was right what Vander Ark & RDR are doing. I think under existing law JKR has every right to sue to try to stop what she sees as infringement on her work. The problem is that the “law” won’t settle it; some judge’s interpretation of the law will. That judgment could go in favor of either party.

  I also pointed out that other people profit from JKR’s work, Mugglenet & The Leaky Cauldron being two prime examples. One could say that they get all their money from advertisements & not through selling JKR’s work. But nobody would be advertising on their sites except for the fact that JKR wrote Harry Potter & they are the two biggest fan sites. So, in essence, their income is derived from Jo’s work. Nobody’s seen a problem with it yet, but again some judge in the future could decide differently.

  So, no, Vander Ark shouldn’t be doing what he’s doing. But he’s got nothing to lose. If he loses, he loses, & he still has the lexicon online. But if he wins, well, that changes things quite a bit.

  I’d be interested in seeing if he counter sues WB & Jo for lifting his time line, which is a critical piece of work, & including it in their dvd sets.

  The sad thing is that with a little give & take on both sides & a little common sense both sides could profit quite well out of this. But that can’t happen now apparently. Not because lawyers & lawsuits are necessarily evil, but because the law, by its nature, does not take into account common sense or give & take. It is what it is, or at least what some judge says it is.

  Just my thoughts.

• 42 Eeyore // Nov 7, 2007 at 4:09 am

  reyhan said:
  “And of course, the last comment was directed to Mrs. Lovegood, and not Pat.

  Sorry Pat. I’m terrible with names and faces.”

  No problem–but I’m glad you clarified that. I would have had a hard time figuring out when I said all those things.

  I think you’ve stated it very well, concerning JKR’s rights and Steve’s lack thereof. I’m just sorry that it all came to that. But when someone starts claiming they have the right to publish something that they didn’t write, that really is crossing the line. Even if WB used his timeline–which is his own assumption based on one little piece of information that’s included. I remember hearing him talk about that at Lumos 2006 and it didn’t look all that obvious to me. So, that’s something for the lawyers to sort, I suppose.

  revgeorge, I agree, some common sense would have been nice. But it sounds like Steve was told he was violating copyright law, and his publisher is pusing ahead anyway. Personally, if someone, even an author who was mildly successful, told me I’d infringed on her copyright, common sense for me would be to stop. But common sense, I hope, would have led me to realize in the first place that I couldn’t rearrange someone else’s story and publish it as my work. Honestly, that just doesn’t even make sense.

  I’ve always wondered how Steve got away with all the stuff on the Lexicon on-line, even though it is free. They have pages of info, with pictures, from JKR’s official web site as well–and that’s all copyrighted. It very clearly states that all rights are with WB and JKR and “all rights are reserved”. The web design is from Lightmaker and copyrighted as well. So how does the Lexicon get away with posting screen caps of each page of Rowling’s site?

  I’d say he should be glad they haven’t gone after him before and he should find a way to get his publisher to stop while they’re ahead.

  Pat

• 43 revgeorge // Nov 7, 2007 at 11:37 am

  Pat,

  You’re correct. No doubt Vander Ark should try to settle this with Jo & WB before it gets to court. Based on current law, he doesn’t appear to have too much chance of winning. Matthew 5: 25 comes to mind “Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison.”

  Granted, prison isn’t the likely outcome of all this, but the point’s the same. It’s always best to settle things amicably out of court than to go into court where things are more out of your control.

  I wonder why wasn’t more done to make the book form of the Lexicon a more critical work instead of simply a photocopy as it were of everything on the web? It doesn’t seem like it’d be too hard to add commentary & analysis to a lot of the material there. Comments on character’s motivations, comparisons to other literary figures, analysis of Jo’s work & how it fits or doesn’t fit into various genres, etc. But I guess we probably won’t know that.

  Anyway, great comments by both you & reyhan! I think they help keep things in perspective.

• 44 reyhan // Nov 7, 2007 at 11:54 am

  revgeorge,

  Does Matthew 5:25 really say that? How apropos!

  You and Pat both write about common sense. Here’s my take on that.

  I believe that we all have a little voice inside of our heads that tells us when we’re heading towards trouble, that we shouldn’t be doing something, that it could be dangerous or even wrong. Call it common sense. I also believe that we choose not to listen to it, or it gets drowned out by other voices: pride, willfullness, anger, envy, malice, greed, what have you.

  I’m imaging this scenario. Mr. SvA is deluged by compliments and praise from one and all, including the author herself. Someone says to him “You know, if you published this stuff, a lot of people would want to pay you for it.” Maybe a publisher approaches him and says: “HP is big. People like your stuff. We’d be willing to publish it.” Dollar signs start flashing. A sense of importance, and the glory of being a published author starts growing. The voice of common sense - “but this isn’t really my stuff” - is drowned out by the thought: “but I put a lot of work into it”. When reality, in the form of JKR and WB’s lawyers knocks at the door, it’s too late. The decision has been taken, the commitment made to this course of action, and all energies are devoted to defending that course of action. Stepping back is difficult, unless someone tells them clearly: you haven’t got a legal leg to stand on. That absent, things will be worked out in court.

  It’s an imaginary scenario, like I said. Only one of the ways it could have happened.

• 45 Ginevra // Nov 7, 2007 at 9:08 pm

  Reyhan, I think you are mostly spot on with the circumstance Steve found himself in. I was even one of the ones who said recently that I would very much like to own a printed copy of the Lexicon. I figured if MuggleNet could do a best seller by simply regurgitating the ideas and theories of the collective fandom, surely the material on the Lexicon would be allowed in printed form, but that was before I had spent a lot of time thinking about the case, as well. I am much less certain now.

  Mostly, I always assumed that Steve would do a printed version of the Lexicon because I remembered him saying that he had published a Star Trek encyclopedia a long time ago, way before Harry Potter. I started to think I had lost my mind, though, when no one else was bringing this fact up, but I finally found a reference confirming Steve did publish the Star Trek encyclopedia: http://www.theurbanwire.com/jun04/stevevanderark.html. I am sure that he assumed that if he did the same sort of thing for Harry Potter that he did for Star Trek, it would be legal.

  As for why Steve didn’t include more critical analysis, I just don’t think that is who Steve is or what Steve does. Steve is a list maker, a cataloger, a Myers-Briggs SJ to the nth degree. Analysis is not his specialty: facts are. Steve loves purely factual information and does not really value speculation about what it might all mean. Or at least that is my perception of Steve.

• 46 revgeorge // Nov 7, 2007 at 11:55 pm

  Ginevra,

  Interesting points you bring up. If SVA had done a Star Trek encyclopedia in the past, then he might have thought doing one of Jo’s work would be okay, too. And once started the ball rolled too far to pull it back especially once a publisher got involved. Plus, copyright law could’ve been tightened up since he did the Star Trek one.

  As for Jo having complete control over her work, well, I think according to the law she really doesn’t have that in regard to this issue. If Jo had said to Steve, sure, go ahead with your work, you have my complete approval, I still think WB, Scholastic, & whoever the British publisher is would still be able to file a suit themselves. Jo did give up some of her rights & control when she agreed to sign a deal with a publisher & a movie company. If I’m correct, when WB got the movie rights they didn’t really have to work so closely with Jo on the films. The fact that they did just made their movies better, except for the Gambon casting, but that’s a personal peeve.

  That being said, I still think most of us are in agreement that SVA doesn’t have very much legal ground to stand on, based on current law.

• 47 reyhan // Nov 8, 2007 at 1:02 am

  Speaking of Gambon, here is an excerpt from a Daniel Radcliffe interview (from Digital Spy):

  ‘Asked by Parkinson how Michael had reacted to the news (that Dumbledore was gay), Radcliffe replied: “He’s been camping it up around the set like nobody’s business!

  “Not in the film (HBP), though we did actually film a scene the other day, and I would like emphasise at this point that the script was written before this revelation and I don’t think Steve Kloves had any prior knowledge, but there was a scene the other day when Michael had to come in and tell another character how much he loved knitting patterns! Which he just adored saying that.”

  I may need to boycott the last two films. It would be a severe loss, but the alternative (loudly booing whatever scenes Gambon camps it up in) would be worse.

• 48 John Granger // Nov 8, 2007 at 4:35 pm

  From the Wall Street Journal blog 11/3/07 vis shellcottage.blogspot.com:

  “Ah, the deja vu! Looking over Rowling’s complain to the court, I had a delightful flashback to days not so long ago when, defending myself in Seattle federal court, I took on what must be the second wealthiest literary property in the English-speaking world, that of J. R. R. Tolkien. Now there’s a remarkably similar case coming from what must be the wealthiest literary property on the planet.

  There are the same nasty attacks, alleging illicit motivations on the part of defendants that the Rowling’s lawyers have no way of knowing. Consider them lies, because that’s what they were in my case. You should also consider flipping the allegations of greed around. Never, when lawyers are involved, neglect their enormous desire to bill as many hours as possible to a deep-pocketed client. There’s undoubtedly more greed per square inch in the Times Square offices of O’Melveny & Myers than there is at all of Michigan-based RDR Books (a company whose list of titles demonstrates a love of good literature)–much less the original source of the book at the fan website of hp-lexicon.org.

  You can also see hints of that billable-hours greed in the rather pitiful attempt one of the Rowling’s lawyer makes to describe her books. A lover of great literature he is not: “Over the course of these seven books, Harry learns many new things, makes new friends, travels, and has many adventures.” That’s how a fifth-grader writes a book report. In this case that fifth-grader, now grown old and cranky, was billing Rowling perhaps $500/hour. That sort of pay will make almost anyone think they’re a literary genius.

  Fortunately, in law, money doesn’t always win. The Tolkien estate must have spent close to a quarter of a million dollars trying to stop my book-length Lord of the Rings chronology, Untangling Tolkien. I spent some $4,000 to utterly vanquish them. Just before a judge would have responded to concurrent motions for summary judgment, they bailed out, offering in a letter to settle for a “few changes.” Three months later the judge changed their “little hope” to “no hope” by dismissing their lawsuit “with prejudice.” You can find my book on Amazon and traces of my fair use arguments to the court in the last chapter.

  Lawyers can be strange. In the Rowlings complaint, there’s an attempt to put the billionaire Rowlings into the role of a struggling writer for whom every penny counts. Only a lawyer with a large, six-figure income would try to portray her as a victim, particularly since her stated rationale is nothing more than a monopolistic desire prevent any competition to an encyclopedia she wants to write. A good defense lawyer could make mincemeat of her claims there. Numerous copyright disputes have made it clear that no author, fictional or non-fictional, can silence critics. The public interest in that is so great, that in the Beannie Babies case a few years back, it cast aside a visual copyright to any commercial use of pictures of the collectable doll.

  The biggest weakness in the RDR Book lawsuit may be that their book is too nice with her corpus. It should take a critical look at where her plot is weak and her characters unconvincing. My Tolkien chronology did that. His time line was remarkably accurate, but I do point out the few places he got it wrong. In the eyes of a court, an author (or in my case, Tolkien’s son Christopher), can’t be trusted to do that. And what matters with something as trite as collectable dolls, certainly matters for one of the bestselling books on the planet.

  RDR Books also has one marvelous advantage that I didn’t have, the fact that much of their book has apparently been posted for years on a fan website with Rowlings and her lawyers doing nothing about it. Given the modest profit margins of most small publishers and the little or nothing that the contributors to this book will be getting, the “commercial” portion of copyright fair use will carry little weight before a fair court. By not enforcing her claims with websites, she’s virtually conceded them for a book. The downside of that is when lawyers see that, they’ll get nasty with fan websites. But then intellectual property lawyers are always getting into nasty little snits, all the more so when their cases are weak.

  And that brings up Rowling’s primary advantage. The case has been filed in SDNY-the Southern District of New York, because there the court, operating cheek-and-jowl with powerful NYC publishers, is notoriously tilted in favor of rich copyright holders. It’s the intellectual property equivalent of lawsuits filed against giant corporations in obscure Marshall, Texas.

  You see that bias in how Manhattan IP lawyers often act before judges. My opponent was so used to differential-to-plaintiffs SDNY judges, he blundered badly before the Ninth Circuit judge in my case. I still smile when I recall his attempt to tell the judge how she ought to rule in one of our disputes. He was on the phone from Manhattan. I was a few feet away from the judge and could sense her growing impatience. Needless to say, I won.

  In my case, virtually all the decisions my opponents were citing came from a few 1998 rulings in the SDNY, decisions that have been soundly criticized in law journals and that, fortunately for me, do not bind a Ninth Circuit court. In the almost a decade since those decisions, no other circuit has bought the Second Circuit’s rather extreme claims about the reach of a fictional copyright (i.e. banning unauthorized reader’s guides). One Midwest court even dismissed the Second Court’s argument as “frivolous,” which indeed it was.

  The one good thing about this dispute is that it may force the Second Circuit to recant its 1998 blunder. I had the counsel for a university press tell me that, since those rulings, his press has avoid publishing anything about popular, contemporary fiction. That’s precisely the “chilling effect” the fair use provisions of copyright law are intended to prevent.

  –Michael W. Perry, author of Untangling Tolkien

  P.S. I assert no copyright to these remarks, so Harry Potter websites are free to post what I’ve written here online. And if Steve Vander Ark would contact me through my website, InklingBooks.com, I’d be happy to offer him advice as someone who’s been through what he’s been through.”

  Comment by Michael W. Perry – November 3, 2007 at 3:10 pm

• 49 revgeorge // Nov 8, 2007 at 5:09 pm

  John,

  Thank you for posting the article by Michael Perry. He mentions briefly in his blog something that I think has bigger implications beyond whether one thinks Jo or Steve is right in this case.

  That is, he says, “By not enforcing her claims with websites, she’s virtually conceded them for a book. The downside of that is when lawyers see that, they’ll get nasty with fan websites.”

  I think that’s an important point. I don’t think SVA could print up copies of the Lexicon & give it away for free. But somehow he can do it on the Internet. What if some lawyer picked up on that & went after the online lexicon? What if some lawyer started going after all online fan sites? Don’t think it can’t happen. Didn’t Paramount do that several years back with online Star Trek fan site?

  Point is, JKR is perfectly entitled to file suit against SVA & RDR, but she might want to think about not killing the goose that laid the golden egg. That is, the fandom, who have responded so passionately to her work & have kept interest alive in it.

• 50 reyhan // Nov 8, 2007 at 6:54 pm

  revgeorge,

  I think that there is an important difference between fansites such as SoG, where people post their thoughts and engage in debate and critical analysis and fansites which just post what JKR has created, albeit re-organized and re-formatted. I think it’s the difference between fair use and copyright violation. JKR has tolerated the second type of fansite for a long time. We will see if she would be within her rights to ask them to be taken down after the Lexicon debacle.

  As for killing the goose that laid the golden egg, well, if a goose defecates on my head, I might start looking favorably at wringing its neck.

• 51 revgeorge // Nov 8, 2007 at 7:36 pm

  reyhan,

  I don’t think it’s a matter of what Jo necessarily wants anymore. As I was saying in response to the blog John directed us to, it’s hard to put the genie back in the bottle after it’s been let out; in this case, the genie of lawsuits against fan published works. Whether or not one’s making money off of them.

  Sure, under current law, sites like SOG et al are safe. But there’s the crux, current law. And in our day & age, current law isn’t just what Congress puts out but also what judges rule.

  Again, I don’t disagree at all that Jo has every right to do what she’s doing in this suit. I’m just saying it could morph into something she never intended it to be.

• 52 revgeorge // Nov 9, 2007 at 5:50 pm

  Here’s a link for an update on the lawsuit over the publication of the Lexicon. Thanks to John Granger for posting this on his site.

  http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6499333.html

  Please note the last paragraph of the article which posits an absolutely hideous possibility that there could be other Harry Potter novels not written by JKR. I hope this is just a wild, wild, untrue rumor!

• 53 reyhan // Nov 9, 2007 at 9:18 pm

  This is just the first.

  Many, many years ago, before the days of computer graphics, there was a game called Nethack. The prize was called the Amulet of Yendor. You’d battle your way through levels and levels of monsters, and finally get your hands on the ultimate prize. Only to be told that it was a Cheap Imitation Copy of the Amulet of Yendor.

  There are going to be countless cheap imitation copies of Harry Potter.

• 54 korg20000bc // Nov 10, 2007 at 6:28 am

  This just in at Rowlings site:

  “Section: News

  Friday 9 November 2007
  Lexicon Continued

  As you may have read, on 8 November, 2007 a judge in New York granted an order against RDR Books in respect to the proposed book The Harry Potter Lexicon, such order applying to any proposed licensing of the book worldwide.

  Judge Patterson has imposed a restraining order on the publishers of the Lexicon, which will remain in place until February 2008. This means that the book can not be completed, published or marketed until the court has had time to decide whether it would break the law if published in its present form.

  I take no pleasure in the fact that publication has been prevented for the present. On the contrary, I feel massively disappointed that this matter had to come to court at all. Despite repeated requests, the publishers have refused to even countenance making any changes to the book to ensure that it does not infringe my rights.

  Unless their position changes, we will all return to court next year. Given my past good relations with the Lexicon fansite, I can only feel sad and disillusioned that this is where we have ended up.”

  Matthew

• 55 Scott // Nov 10, 2007 at 9:26 pm

  I think one thing you can take away from all this, if by some odd chance you haven’t learned this before, is that lawyers almost never contribute anything valuable to society. The ones that deal with prosecuting or defending people from criminal charges are better. But the blood suckers that convince people to sue a company because they foolishly dropped hot coffee in their lap, so of course they deserve to win the lottery, those lawyers are a blight. Lawyers who get in on cases like this between an author and a fansite are not trying to solve anything. They are only trying to leech money from everyone involved. It drives me nuts.
  Sorry,
  /rant off.

• 56 reyhan // Nov 11, 2007 at 12:27 am

  Um, Scott, I owe my present happiness to one particular lawyer. If not for her calm professional hand on the helm over the last few years, I don’t know what my life would look like. And actually, I have met quite a few over the years (criminal, family, estate). And for the most part, I respect them a lot.

• 57 revgeorge // Nov 11, 2007 at 10:48 am

  The problem isn’t with lawyers so much, but with the system. Who’s to blame lawyers for doing what the system allows, & right now the system of law, especially in the U.S., allows anyone to sue for anything at the drop of a hat.

  If any lawyer is to blame, then probably the ones at the American Bar Association could be, for consistently opposing tort reform. And yet, they still have the same rights to lobby the government as everybody else, so that’s kind of a moot point, too.

  I think what has to be recovered is a sense of individual responsibility & restraint. The idea of winning the lottery through a lawsuit is pretty firmly ingrained in Americans now. But one doesn’t have to live up to that idea. I’ve had several opportunities to sue people over the years, but I never have, either because it would cost me too much to get any recompense or else it would simply make the situation between me & the other parties much worse.

  Just because we have a right or an opportunity to do something, doesn’t mean we have to do it. And lawyers, for better or worse, are simply doing their job & trying to satisfy their client, & make a living, too.

  But that’s been my point in all this debate between SVA & JKR. Jo has a perfect right to sue over this issue, but that doesn’t mean she has to. She & SVA could meet tomorrow & come to some arrangement that still allows him to publish while giving some of the proceeds to charity.

  Just because one can do a thing, doesn’t mean one is obligated to do it.

• 58 Bioteacher // Nov 11, 2007 at 3:11 pm

  I have been reading a number of opinions about this. At first I sided with the Lexicon, but then thinking about it more, I think I agree more with JKR. Yes, lawyers can go after frivolous things, but I think this is a pretty clear copyright infringement. There is actually a fantastic post that was on Leaky’s forum here:

  http://www.leakylounge.com/betaforum2.3.1/index.php?showtopic=56577&st=350&p=1464444&#entry1464444

• 59 Ginevra // Nov 11, 2007 at 3:46 pm

  I just don’t think this case is as clear as the LL poster claims. I agree that this case is very much not about freedom of speech, and I cringed when RDR so ludicrously claimed it was. False statements like those discredit their case much more than they realize.

  However, if you look at existing published material, there is much out there that is no more original than the Lexicon and unchallenged. For example, take a look at the wildly popular and commercial Cliffs Notes. Most Cliffs Notes cover the classics, but there are Cliffs Notes out there on To Kill a Mockingbird and The Handmaid’s Tale, titles which though classic are not yet out of copyright. Is the Lexicon really that much less original than these?

  I am not saying Steve’s case is clear either. I really have no idea which side will or should win. I do wish that RDR could start competently representing the case and Steve, but I won’t hold my breath.

• 60 reyhan // Nov 11, 2007 at 6:32 pm

  Ginevra,

  I’m thinking that the publishers of Cliffs Notes go about it the right way, and ask the author for permission to publish. Which most authors, having a sense of humour remembering their own English 101 days when they didn’t have the time to read the original, grant.

• 61 revgeorge // Nov 11, 2007 at 8:32 pm

  It seems that what JKR is most concerned about is someone making money off her work. And competing with her upcoming, who knows when, encyclopedia & taking away money from it that would go to charity.

  First off, lots of people make money off of her work, mostly with her permission. So, that seems a moot point.

  Second, if she’s so concerned about the printed Lexicon competing with her upcoming encyclopedia & taking money away from charity sales, then I would think she’d much more concerned about the Lexicon being FREE online. If she’s afraid people won’t buy her encyclopedia because the Lexicon’s in print, shouldn’t she be much more concerned that nobody will buy her book because the Lexicon’s free & accessible to everyone?

• 62 Ginevra // Nov 11, 2007 at 11:37 pm

  Perhaps Cliffs Notes does get permission from authors. I really wasn’t sure about that. Still, there are other similar texts (how similar is the question) that I am sure don’t have permission.

  I love Steve’s latest post: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/whats_new.php

• 63 reyhan // Nov 11, 2007 at 11:46 pm

  No admission of wrongdoing, is there? Just, I love her and I’ve always stood up for her and I’m not a bad guy and if we could just sit down together I’m sure we could work it out.

  The analogy may not be apt, but that is exactly what many abusive spouses say after they’ve been issued with the restraining order.

  The part about she has encouraged our “creativity” sounds grim.

• 64 revgeorge // Nov 12, 2007 at 1:22 am

  reyhan,

  A bit harsh, isn’t it, comparing SVA to an abusive spouse? Truth is, despite all our varied opinions on this story, we don’t know the whole truth. Perhaps nobody will because of all the legalities involved.

  Sadly, all of this has gone beyond what Steve & Jo might really want. It’s now in the hands of multiple lawyers & judges sorting through byzantine copyright laws.

• 65 Scott // Nov 12, 2007 at 2:46 am

  Revgeorge,
  “I think what has to be recovered is a sense of individual responsibility & restraint. The idea of winning the lottery through a lawsuit is pretty firmly ingrained in Americans now. But one doesn’t have to live up to that idea.”

  As always, you have a knack for putting things in a way that I should have, if I had stopped for a moment and thought before I wrote.
  I wasn’t meaning to completely bash all lawyers, although there are those out there that are making the system worse (ambulence chasers, etc.) I do know that the bad lawyers would all be out a job in 2 seconds if people in America generally thought like you. I think it has to do with a lack of the larger picture and how their actions affect others. No one seems to understand that when they sue a huge insurance company, everyone’s insurance gets more expensive. When you sue McDonalds for serving you hot coffee which you spill on yourself, everyone pays more for their food. There are plenty of times when you should make the other person or company take responsibility for their actions, but there are, IMO, far more times when you should not.

  As far as JKR not going after all the other fansites or even going after the Lexicon online, that may actually be what loses it for her. While I do think she has a right to her copyrighted material, she must demonstrate in a timely fashion that she is intending to do so. If she took too long to go after this kind of thing, the court may decide that she gave up her right to go after it. That time span is the tricky bit. It is somewhat subjective.

• 66 revgeorge // Nov 12, 2007 at 6:29 pm

  Scott,

  I think your points are well put. In any profession, there are always those who give the others a bad name. Lawyers are just as much Americans as anybody else & so they too have bought into the idea that all you have to do to strike it rich is win one really good class action suit. But as you so well put it, all this really does is raise prices & take away opportunities.

  It’s hard to say what to do, though, when things get so far off track. Although it’d be nice to see the judicial system itself try to add some restraint to this whole mess. I remember an old Bloom County cartoon, where two people took an absurd case before a Judge Wapner like judge. The judge heard the case & then said, “This is darned silly! Bailiff, kick these two nuts in the butt!”

  But I suppose that sort of judicial response is too much to hope for nowadays…sigh!

• 67 Scott // Nov 12, 2007 at 7:14 pm

  Short answer: tort reform. Problem is, most of the people in Congress that could pass that are lawyers themselves. They are not likely to kill their own gold-egg-laying goose.
  Longer answer: I’ve always thought one simple change could make a huge difference. If someone or a company causes you harm, whether physical or financial, you sue them. There are generally two parts to the punishment, assuming it goes that far: compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory is that company or person paying your medical bills or paying for lost revenue if they violate your copyright, or whatever. They are actual damages incurred by you. That is fine. Be even more strict on that. Make the defendant pay every last dime, including legal costs, etc. if they lose the case.
  Punitive damages are the problem. That’s the jackpot part. By definition, punitive damages are punishment for the offender. You can’t put a company in jail, so you hit them in their bottom line. Fine, but there is no way McDonalds needs to pay $10 million to some idiot that can’t figure out that coffee is hot. Most cases never even go to trial because defense lawyers don’t want to get anywhere close to a jury deciding on a huge award. Most juries give huge punitive damages because if they are ever in that position they would want a huge award.
  The way to fix that is to award the punitive damages, but not give that money to the person suing. Put the punitive damages into the state coffers or whatever the court is. Let the punitive damages reduce everyone’s tax bill. If you truly want to give out huge awards like that to punish the offender, then fine. But don’t give that jackpot to the people suing, and more to the point, to their lawyers. If you did that, the frivolous lawsuits would dry up. You could still sue someone to have them pay for damages they cause you, but you don’t win the lottery because some poor company made a mistake and their insurance company decided to settle.

• 68 reyhan // Nov 12, 2007 at 11:19 pm

  revgeorge,

  It is harsh, which is why I wrote that the analogy may not have been apt. The similarity is where the transgressor avows his love for his victim, pleads for a chance to just talk without interference, and completely ignores the harm he has inflicted.

  But it’s still a lot less harsh than talking about the transgression itself - the eighth commandment do you think, or the tenth? As you say, who knows how this really came to pass.

• 69 revgeorge // Nov 13, 2007 at 12:39 am

  Reyhan,

  It depends on which numbering of the Commandments you’re talking about. For me, the 7th Commandment is “You shall not steal.” The 8th is “Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.” And the 10th is about not coveting your neighbor’s wife or manservant or maidservant, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to him.

• 70 reyhan // Nov 13, 2007 at 10:21 am

  I think I remember you said you were Lutheran.

  I meant the “you shall not steal” commandment, as well as the one about not coveting what doesn’t belong to you, in this case, the credit for someone else’s work.

• 71 revgeorge // Nov 13, 2007 at 11:55 am

  Reyhan,

  No problem. I thought you meant the ‘not stealing’ one, but I wasn’t sure. Yes, we can look at this issues from the point of view of that commandment. Taking what belongs to someone else is not right. I think most people have come to the conclusion that intellectual property is the same or close enough to the same as actual real property, so that taking it without permission & profiting off it is wrong.

  Of course, in SVA’s case, we also have to use the 8th Commandment in viewing this, that is, don’t bear false witness against your neighbor. Luther expounds on this meaning by saying the commandment includes not just refraining from slandering, speaking ill, or lying about our neighbor, but also speaking well of him & explaining everything in the kindest way.

  Speaking thus of Steve, I think we could explain this by saying, maybe he doesn’t believe he’s stealing Jo’s property. Maybe he thinks his printed Lexicon is actually a critical work & thus protected work. Maybe he thinks this was a gray area & now the law will have to define it. Maybe he thinks that since Jo had no problem with the Lexicon being on the web for all to see, that she wouldn’t have any problem seeing it in print. There’s a whole bunch of maybes that speak better of Steve than simply saying he’s a thief or that he’s acting like a spouse abuser.

  All those may be true or they may not be, but in keeping with the spirit of the commandment, we can’t say for sure, because we don’t know for sure. I don’t know Steve or Jo. I’m not their friend or pastor to be able to discern more clearly what’s going on. I’m not a lawyer on the case. So, all I can go on is what the parties say.

• 72 reyhan