Latest Site News

EmmaRiddle · #1 (**permalink**) 01-16-2008, 03:56 PM

In a continuation of the J.K.Rowling & W.B. vs RDR Books case, the former have now filed the full injunction request against the publishing company to stop the publication of a commercial printed version of the Harry Potter Lexicon.

The document itself is about 1,100 pages long; RDR have 3 weeks in which to reply.

The complaints start with;

Quote:

The book "compiles and repackages Ms. Rowling's fictional facts derived wholesale from the Harry Potter works without adding any new creativity, commentary, insight, or criticism. Defendant's attempt to cloak the Infringing Book in the mantle of scholarship is merely a ruse designed to circumvent Plaintiffs' rights in order to make a quick buck."

It goes on to say that the cover of the book was found to be misleading, that the book would contravene & scoop Jo's plans for an official printed encyclopedia, that Jo & W.B. tried to avoid a lawsuit, that there's a difference between fansites & commercial ventures, that RDR's poor handling of the situation warrants an injunction, that Steve Vander Ark himself claimed the book would be illegal, that if the case is found in favour of RDR Jo could find herself under threat of a lawsuit when she eventually publishes her encyclopedia and that it would set a precedent for other unauthorised works.

The document also contains pieces of evidence, including a declaration by Jo.

Quote:

"To this day, I care deeply about how the characters and story lines are presented and what type of derivative works I license based on the Harry Potter books. I require that all licensed materials, such as the films based on the books, be of the highest quality. I also limit Harry Potter merchandising in an effort to maintain quality controls. In other words, I am careful about the way the Harry Potter books are presented to the world. I believe I owe that much to the millions of Harry Potter fans who have grown to love the books and to trust in the quality of the products associated with them.

"I am extremely appreciative of the support both I and the Harry Potter books have received from the fan community. I enjoy and encourage the free flow of ideas, creativity, commentary, and discussion of the Harry Potter books, including on free-of-charge fan websites, even if it has meant allowing these fan sites to reference copyrighted Harry Potter materials or to create derivative works such as fan fiction or art. I express my appreciation for fan sites and the fan community by, among other things, bestowing a 'fan site award' on one or more of the Harry Potter fan sites each year. In June of 2004, I granted just such a fan site award to the Harry Potter Lexicon fan site partly because of the free and open nature of the site. That being said, I never intended for this award or my encouragement and support of the fan community to be taken by anyone as an authorization for them to create and sell an infringing Harry Potter book (or any other materials) for their own financial gain.

"I have chosen not to license a Harry Potter companion book similar to RDR Books' proposed "lexicon" because I intend to write my own. In addition to the two companion books I have already written -- Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and Quidditch Through the Ages (the "Companion Books") -- I have stated on my web site, in numerous interviews in the press and elsewhere that I intend to publish a definitive guide to all of the creatures, characters, places, and other elements that comprise the Harry Potter world. Just as I did with the first two companion books, I will donate royalties from such a companion book to charity.

"Moreover, I have made and kept notes in connection with each of the Harry Potter books, which I have recently begun to augment with additional materials that I intend to include in my own companion guide. In addition, I am aware that both my British and American publishers, Bloomsbury and Scholastic respectively, have each compiled and indexed the material from the previous Harry Potter books and that these materials would be made available to me if I chose to use them.

"The seventh and final book in the Harry Potter series was only released less than six months ago on July 21, 2007. I was touring in support of the book, most recently in the United States and Canada, until December, 2007, after which, I took a much-needed break.

"I was thus sad and disappointed to learn while in the midst of touring in support of the last Harry Potter book that RDR Books and Mr. Vander Ark planned to release a Harry Potter "lexicon" directly contrary to my wishes. I understand that the prposed book is neither commentary nor criticism of the Harry Potter series -- either of which would be entirely legitimate -- but instead lists in alphabetical order the various fictional characters and things in the Harry Potter universe. It is as if I have been 'scooped' before I even had the chance to wind up the book tour for the final Harry Potter installment, much less to write and publish my own Harry Potter guide.

"Even worse, RDR Books and Mr. Vander Ark apparently are attempting to justify publication of the 'lexicon' based on the past praise I had given to the Harry Potter Lexicon fan site. As I have already explained, I have always supposed Harry Potter fans, even if it has meant allowing fan websites to reference copyrighted Harry Potter materials, but have drawn the line at selling such materials for commercial gain. By threatening to publish and sell the unauthorized 'lexicon,' RDR Books and Mr. Vander Ark have crossed that line.

"It is incomprehensible to me that this 'lexicon' should be allowed to be published simply because I encourage and support fan websites or because Mr. Vander Ark was able to finish his 'lexicon' while I was still touring in support of the last Harry Potter book. My fear is that if the 'lexicon' is published, authors like myself will be forced to restrict the use of their materials on fan websites or risk losing their right to restrict other unauthorized uses of those materials. Such a result benefits no one and hurts the fan community most of all.

"Contrary to assertions made by RDR Books and Mr. Vander Ark, there is an enormous difference between enjoying the free Harry Potter Lexicon fan site and allowing a book to be sold that directly competes with future Harry Potter works that I intend to author. Moreover, the website differs significantly from RDR Books' proposed book. The website, to which I gave a fan site award, features exciting graphics, user forums, and critical essays, whereas the proposed book simply repackages story lines and characters from the Harry Potter series in an alphabetical A-Z listing. Also, as I mentioned, the website is free whereas RDR Books plans to sell the book fro $24.95. Lastly, the 'lexicon' does not measure up to the standards that I have set for licensing derivative works. In short, I would never have approved of this 'lexicon.'

"To add insult to injury, I have learned that RDR Books intends to market the 'lexicon' in a way that suggests that I have endorsed it when, in fact, the opposite is true. The back cover of the proposed book contains a large and prominent quote by me that makes it look like I am endorsing the book. In fact, the quote was taken without my permission from a fan award I gave the Harry Potter Lexicon fan site in 2004, which as I explained above, is different in style, purpose and commercialism from the proposed book. Given the similarity between the names of both the website and the 'lexicon,' the book gives the false impression that I have approved of it and suggests to my fans that I am encouraging them to buy the book, when I am not.

"I feel as though my name and my works have been hijacked, against my wishes, for the personal gain and profit of others and diverted from the charities that I intended to benefit. Accordingly, I respectfully ask this Court to stop publication of RDR's Books' 'lexicon' and send a message to other would-be infringers that they may not capitalize on the fame and success of the Harry potter franchise in the future."

Also included are emails between Steve Vander Ark, the author of the Lexicon, and the Christopher Little agency, in which Ark requests to be employed to help out with Jo's encyclopedia. The request was denied as Jo did not wish to collaborate with anyone on the project. There are also emails which Ark had sent to fans before who had requested he print the Lexicon, clearly stating that he believed that would be illegal.

Other declarations included come from; Jeremy N. Williams (Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.), Jeri Johnson (Senior Tutor / Academic Dean of, and Ashby Fellow and Lecturer in English, at Exeter College, University of Oxford), Suzanne Murphy (Vice President, Publisher, Trade Publishing and Marketing, Scholastic, Inc.), Dale Cendali (partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP law firm), Cheryl Klein (Senior Editor and Continuity Editor on Harry Potter for Scholastic, Inc.), Neil Blair (Attorney and Junior Partner, Christopher Little Literary Agency), William Landes (Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School), Myron J. Heifgott (Consultant in survey research), Sarah Odedina (Children's List Publisher, Bloomsbury Publishing, PLC), Diana Birchall (Story Analyst for Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.), Melanie Bradley (counsel at O'Melveny & Myers LLP) and Emily Blumsack (Associate, O'Melveny & Myers LLP).

Past articles on this story can be found at the links below;

J.K. Rowling files lawsuit

J.K. Rowling’s statement

RDR Publisher’s statement

The Lexicon’s statement

Judge issues restraining order

Stanford Law School defends RDR Books

Source: The Leaky Cauldron

kami12 · 01-16-2008, 04:23 PM

WOW... I mean WOW

Lionella · 01-16-2008, 04:29 PM

I agree with J.K, they can't publish it! I won't buy it anyway

Hope Jo's going to do a encyklopedia soon!

FoxFire · 01-16-2008, 04:48 PM

Yikes this is complicated and borderline nasty. I do agree almost wholeheartedly with Jo; however, I don't believe that Vander Ark and the Lexicon intended to release a published version for their personal gain. But she and her representation could be very stingy if they chose to be; it's quite lucky for us and generous of them to allow fan sites like ours and many others to function, considering so much copyrighted info is referenced on them, and most notably, FREE OF CHARGE! I also didn't know that Jo intended to write her own encyclopedia (which would be awesome; maybe she'd add stuff!). I'd like to hear Vander Ark's side of the story, but I do support Jo in all of this.

A thousand pages?!

Dumbledore · 01-16-2008, 05:00 PM

I mostly agree with Jo, but this quote of hers is flat out untrue:

Quote:

I have stated on my web site, in numerous interviews in the press and elsewhere that I intend to publish a definitive guide to all of the creatures, characters, places, and other elements that comprise the Harry Potter world.

She said she "MIGHT" do a lexicon in the future. She was anything but committal about the idea.

I would have liked to have seen the Lexicon go to print. Too bad.

shirelbb · 01-16-2008, 06:07 PM

I agree with her and I woulden't even buy the book. It's illegal and she has every right to say no. It's her private work.

half_blood_prince · 01-16-2008, 07:41 PM

i agree with her they cant publish that.

griffin_girl · 01-16-2008, 07:48 PM

I actually agree with Jo. I say let the Fanfic stay on Lexicon...just don't print it!

I really want an encyclopedia though...

Hermione67 · 01-16-2008, 08:01 PM

I am not surprised that there is yet another person/company trying to
make money off of what Jo has worked so hard on for so many years.
HP is so popular and its Jo's and no one elses. So hands off.

cgold · 01-16-2008, 08:11 PM

I understand both sides but in the end, I have to go with JK since she has a right to protect her own work. It's weird to me how fans sometimes think they own the characters, etc when really we don't.

Krissy Moon · 01-17-2008, 12:04 AM

wow. Who thought a story she began so many years ago would bring her millions of dollars, tons of fans, and the need to file a law suit? I'm glad she's fighting for her rights, but someone should remind Jo that imitation is the purest form of flattery!

reddiej · 01-17-2008, 12:32 AM

To the person above who said Jo 'might' do the encyclopaedia? She said in one of the TLC podcasts that she will definitely do it, so it's no longer an if scenario. Still, this is just getting mad, this entire lawsuit, and I am definitely on Jo's side here.

Mari of the Ocean · 01-17-2008, 02:01 AM

I personally agree with Jo

OtterySt.Catchpole · 01-17-2008, 03:57 AM

Technically it is theft of intellectual property because looking at it from the most basic pov you have to admit, an encyclopedia doesn't 'create' or 'reveal' anything new it just states old facts that come from the books which are a copyrighted work. Try doing it with any other book and without the author's permission and you'd probably get sued ... like an Encyclopedia of Seuss or Tolkien these things require authorial consent ... or whoever owns the copyright.

Can't they patiently wait for Jo to die and then fifty years after? Or is it more ... *ponders* I don't think copyright should be extended too much past the fifty years after the death of the author ... that's just greedy and I'm writing a sequel to Romeo and Juliet I don't need legal problems from the Shakespeares ...

If it was a book about what they thought about the Potter universe (like all those other unathorized books Jo has let slide) then it would be okay, but they're not adding anything or creating anything just compiling the author's stuff ... which while nice and polite is wrong. It's like if Fanfic writers started saying they'd publish their works for money ... It's theft. We didn't create Harry Potter ... we can't steal her ideas ... (though I think we'd have more ground to stand on based on original invention and plots ...) but it's still Jo's universe and thats unarguable ... sure she didn't invent phoenixes (I did actually I should sue) but truth is she did invent Fawkes and gave him all the qualities he has and blah blah blah thus making a new character ... which is to say nothing of Flying Ford Anglias, and danglias ... like those flying brains ...

In conclusion, *everyone is sleeping now* (putting you all to sleep was my good deed for the ~~day~~ present lifetime) Jo created something beautiful and wonderful and *giggles* magical we shouldn't pay that back by stealing her rights as a creator ... (speaking of creators rights *has his podium taken from him*).

Why the very notion of anyone editing one of my works ...

appalling ...

ironically enough I always reference the Lexicon ...

but its still wrong ... stealing is stealing even if its just thoughts ... perhaps the worst theft of all.

Eclipsed · 01-17-2008, 10:21 AM

Woah, this is getting insane.

EmmaRiddle · 01-17-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumbledore

I mostly agree with Jo, but this quote of hers is flat out untrue:
She said she "MIGHT" do a lexicon in the future. She was anything but committal about the idea.

I would have liked to have seen the Lexicon go to print. Too bad.

No, she has flat out said she will. Keep up Rich

Quote:

It's weird to me how fans sometimes think they own the characters, etc when really we don't.

This whole case is ridiculous. RDR haven't a leg to stand on. The thought that them winning this case, could mean Jo could be sued when she publishes her own encyclopedia, is mind-boggling.

The level of entitlement in Potter fandom is horrific.

Quote:

I'm glad she's fighting for her rights, but someone should remind Jo that imitation is the purest form of flattery!

You can't be like that when it comes to the law, otherwise you end up setting a precedent which will affect other authors and their fans. Stealing, and claiming something as your own, is not flattering imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.K.Rowling

My fear is that if the 'lexicon' is published, authors like myself will be forced to restrict the use of their materials on fan websites or risk losing their right to restrict other unauthorized uses of those materials. Such a result benefits no one and hurts the fan community most of all.

That is a terrifying thought.

Wow, that last paragraph (I've only just read Jo's declaration...busy bee that I am!) actually brought tears to my eyes. I imagine this has left her pretty dis-illusioned with fans, not to mention it's got to be very upsetting.

Kazters · 01-17-2008, 11:20 AM

the sad thing is jo used the lexicon and spoke about it. and gave him website hits and he goes and does this!

Jo has said she will wrote her own book give the woman a break she will do it! and she shouldnt have to worry abou her fandom in this way!

SlytherinSissa · 01-17-2008, 03:03 PM

Rowling has enough technical specs to drown RDR and Lexicon on copyright infringement but she really needs to stop this 'I had the idea first' business. As a writer, she should know that ideas CANNOT be copyrighted. Had this been for anything else original (not of HP origin), it would be first person to the finish lin wins gets the credit. She had the idea to make the encyclopedia first. Super but it doesn't give her eminent domain over it because of that and no one else can touch it. What does give her rights over it is the fact that it's her work she's cataloguing and putting into an encyclopedia. That does give her the right to stop others from doing the same because she hold the copyright for the information going into the book itself. Ideas hold no water in court. A very famous trial that happened fairly recently solidified that precident, Dan Brown and his DaVinci Code versus the writers of Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Ideas (not to mention book titles) cannot be copyrighted and cannot belong solely to one person. That's where ethics and writing comes in. Someone with a conscience wouldn't steal someone else's idea but, sad to say, not everyone has one of those.

And it's 70 years after the person's death that a copyright holds on a written piece of work.

EmmaRiddle · 01-17-2008, 03:45 PM

I don't think the fact she planned to write one is the point; more that the material being used is hers. Scooping her, though not illegal, is rude. Especially since it's being done by someone who was supposed to be one of her biggest fans. She has to vent her disappointment, even if that particular bit doesn't hold up in court.

What I found most appalling was this;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Vander Ark

I am 49 years old and have proved myself to be a lot more than just some teenaged fan with a website.

Smooth, real smooth.

Kazters · 01-17-2008, 04:41 PM

i agree with you emma! 100% i really do. he comes accross as well just being selfish and arogant! this is jo's creation and she owns it!

i really just feel for Jo so much!

Latest Site News

Latest Harry Potter News

Latest FanFics

Latest Forum Posts

Latest Games

Hogwarts RPG

Members