Latest Site News

EmmaRiddle · #1 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 08:54 AM

Leaky has interviewed representatives from Warner Brothers (Diane Nelson, President of Warner Premiere) and RDR Books (Richard Harris, spokesperson for RDR Books) regarding the lawsuit against the fan encyclopaedia in order to clarify the stances of both sides.

Quote:

WB claims to spend hundreds of hours vetting dozens of these types of books each year, and only goes to court (as in the case of Tanya Grotter) when the authors are not willing to make the necessary modifications.

It’s incumbent upon WB to act to protect J.K. Rowling’s rights in order to retain the rights; failure to act may in some (or future) situations be seen as giving up of rights. WB feels it has worked with fans in many ways, by providing elements and materials to allow them to continue in a manner that isn’t commercial. It granted Steve Vander Ark and the Lexicon the rights to use some of its art non-commercially, back in 2001.

Quote:

The British publisher of the Lexicon book is cooperating with WB’s requests and engaging in a dialogue, but it isn’t the case in the U.S.

WB doesn’t feel this is an issue of first amendment rights, and that there are unequivocally no rights owed to the Lexicon for a timeline deriving from the rights of others.

There is no intention to have this suit apply to other fan endeavors such as web sites, wizard rock, etc.

Quote:

RDR claims that Steve Vander Ark originally contacted J.K. Rowling, they think “via letters…over a period of months,” to ask to work with her to create an encyclopedic resource, and was rebuffed, which is when he sought out a publisher for the Lexicon. He made no further contact to the J.K. Rowling camp.

Quote:

The book contains critical analysis from “Steven Vander Ark and his staff.” When asked what he meant by critical analysis Mr. Harris said, “You can go to the site and read the articles. I’m not going to itemize them for you.” Questioned further he said “the book was typeset directly from the site,” and that it was word-for-word taken from the web site.

Quote:

RDR claims the book is not an infringement because “it’s a critical and educational review,” and, “we are not simply rearranging information.” Mr. Harris said a large portion of the book was “probably” typeset from the lexicon directly, though had “no idea” what proportion of the book is essays as compared to a catalogue of info.

Quote:

RDR claims not to have given JKR’s people a copy of the book because “we don’t have a copy to give them…because the book hasn’t been published yet.”

More can be read on the case here and here.

Source: The Leaky Cauldron

marla_khulet · 11-03-2007, 10:24 AM

wow! The issue is getting bigger everytime you get to check..

camilas · 11-03-2007, 12:04 PM

I don't know why people even bother doing that. It goes clearly against the author rights and it's not like no one is going to notice such a book.

cgold · 11-03-2007, 12:38 PM

Hmmm...it will be interesting to see the outcome of this since I think both sides have a point. It's more than likely that JK will win to some extent though since it's her intellectual property.

Abbie0312 · 11-03-2007, 01:00 PM

Well this is going to be interesting.

dancerbookl · 11-03-2007, 02:05 PM

This will be something to watch for.

Emma potter 95 · 11-03-2007, 02:33 PM

good

griffin_girl · 11-03-2007, 07:53 PM

wow...this is going to get bigger....and even more difficult for Jo. Seriously, why can't people just give her a break? first fake DH's and now a violation of the copyright by making this Encylopaedia!

accio.brain · 11-03-2007, 08:23 PM

Doesn't any of those people understand "I want a break!"? Patience is what they need to learn. The Potter Encyclopedia will be started and completed whenever Jo wants to.