SnitchSeeker.com - Stanford Law School helps Lexicon publisher in JKR court battle

SnitchSeeker.com (https://www.snitchseeker.com/forum.php)

- Harry Potter News (https://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/)

- - Stanford Law School helps Lexicon publisher in JKR court battle (https://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/stanford-law-school-helps-lexicon-publisher-in-jkr-court-battle-52173/)

Stanford Law School helps Lexicon publisher in JKR court battle

Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project, a group that provides legal support designed to clarify the boundaries of "fair use" in order to enhance creative freedom, has announced that it will help defend RDR Books in its lawsuit with J.K. Rowling.

Rowling filed a lawsuit on Oct. 31 of this year against RDR Books in an attempt to stop publication of The Harry Potter Lexicon, claiming copyright and trademark infringement. A temporary restraining order halting production of the book was granted on Nov. 8.

Quote:

"The public has long enjoyed the right to create reference guides that discuss literary works, comment on them, and make them more accessible," said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project, who will serve as counsel on the case. "J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. are threatening that right. We intend to demonstrate that the fair use doctrine protects the Harry Potter Lexicon."

Quote:

"The Harry Potter Lexicon draws material and inspiration from the Harry Potter series but is an entirely new piece of work," said David S. Hammer, co-counsel for RDR Books. "It is a companion to Rowling’s work, not a substitute for it. No one is going to buy the Lexicon instead of a Harry Potter book, or instead of seeing a Harry Potter film."

Quote:

"This book is a reference work based on more than seven years of research by a distinguished volunteer team of librarians and academics," explained co-counsel Julie Ahrens, associate director of the Fair Use Project. "Fair use protects scholars’ rights to create such companion guides. It simply is not the case that authors can exploit copyright law to prevent analysis and commentary on their work."

A hearing date has been set for February 6, 2008.

You can read more on the history of the case 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

Interesting. Well, if the book is going to be commentary along the lines of something like a Mugglenet book then it shouldn't be blocked. It all depends on how the information is going to be portrayed in the book itself (and how the lawyers can distort the laws).

Rowling had the idea for an encyclopedia based on her books first. Lovely except for the fact that you can't copyright an idea. If someone beats her to the punch, it's her loss for not getting to it sooner. It happens all the time in writing. Two people have the same idea, one writes the book first and makes millions while the other simmers in self-pity. Not a thing they can do about it because ideas are a dime a dozen. Everyone has ideas but something can only be done about it if it's in writing.

Unfortunately I do think a piece of that plays into this, Rowling wanting to be the first to make an encyclopedia from her books and this halt is to stop someone else from taking that idea. If RDR can weasel around the copyright laws (get a good enough lawyer and, well, they're in spades at Stanford, and it can be done) and get their book deemed within the rights of the author without violating said copyright laws, it's going to get done. It doesn't mean she can't write one, of course, but I do think she wanted the first, and rightly so. I'd be the same way if I were her.

A classic example is Microsoft. That wasn't Bill Gates' idea. It was someone else's. He took it and did something with it. Nothing that can be done about it because it was just an idea. It would be nice to say 'hey, that was my idea first, you can't take it!' but, unfortunately, the law doesn't see it that way.

The best advice in situations like this is if you do have an idea, act on it immediately that way you are protected by copyright, be it a book, script, movie, whatever. If you just sit on it, you have no one to blame but yourself for not getting to the punch first.

I read about this in the newspaper this morning (which ended up in a thirty minute debate about harry potter with my media studies teacher XD) But I think the book should be published with a simple disclaimer. Yes, all characters are J.K. Rowling's, but all the effort to organize and categorize every single thing mentioned in the book was HP-Lexicon.

Although, I must admit, if the lexicon remains online, I don't think all that many people will buy the book either.

Just my two cents

If it's online then no one will pay money to buy it.

I say dont publish it...just leave it on the net with a disclaimer saying that the characters are Jo's and say its just another fanfic...

I think the issue with the book is that they are planning to simply publish (for money) something that is currently available for free on their website. This is an example of extreme greed. I am rather disappointed with the Lexicon about this. If they keep the website up, few people will buy the book... if they take down the site, more people will buy the book... but how is that fair because the info used to be available for free?

wow...quite interesting

The only way I can really judge this for myself is by reading the book itself... And the way things are going, it doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon.

Quote:

I completely agree.

i'm kind of on both sides.

I side with RDR. Life can't stand still and if you have a good idea you need to run with it.

Also I agree that the book will not sell well if it's on line also.

Hmm... that's kind of odd. No one minded mugglenet's "What's Going to Happen in Harry Potter 7" book. I don't know why she's suing. Don't people usually sue to get rich? She's already there and then some, lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slipstick (Post 5962579)

Also I agree that the book will not sell well if it's on line also.

It won't which is why many publishers don't accept what's deemed "second reprint," especially when it comes to novels. They want the original and if it's available online for free, they're not going to make any money off of it because why would you buy something when you can get the exact same thing for free? My guess is that if this book is granted pubication rights then the site is going to come down. It creates a conflict of interest for the publisher because they won't be able to capitalize on public information.