JKR Suing the HP Lexicon

[MMADfan]

Didn't see anything about this here, so I thought I'd provide a link:


news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_en_ot/harry_potter_lawsuit

Thanks to Hogwarts Duo/Ang for bringing it to my attention!

She's suing for copyright infringement and seeking to prevent the publication of the hard-copy version of the Lexicon that is scheduled for release next month.

She's trying to maintain a grip over the universe she created, but I think her more-than-tacit approval of the HP-Lexicon website over the years is a major stumbling block in the suit. Of course, with her millions, she can afford an army of attorneys who may be more experienced and more qualified than the publisher's attorneys -- it sounded to me as though it was a small-ish publisher, but that just could be because I'm not familiar with it.

Let's just hope she doesn't start going after online stuff or claiming copyright infringement over fanfic a la Ann Rice.

[Herzele]

I'm sorry, but it is only me or is the woman sounding more and more ridiculous each time you hear something new from her? I mean, hello?? She's only suing because she fears that if the Lexicon is published she won't sell enough copies of her own ... And I bet she would love it if no one would think anything about HP that she didn't approve of first ... Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I have to admit I'm not particularly a fan of JK Rowling any more ...

[dreaming tree]

I'm actually on JKR's side on this. Basically from what I've gathered is that it's just going to be a print (pay) version of the website. If that's the case than JKR has every right to sue. Harry Potter is her world and we just play in it.

I know there are commentaries on the HP series available and those authors haven't gotten sue, but if the lexicon is just taking info from the books and interviews she has given, then it's simply the regurgitation of material out there. Also, nothing in the lawsuit says anything about the website, so the information will be there for anyone to see it for free. I know the book would make next to no money but why should the owner of the lexicon make money off of JKR. I'm sure much of the info was sent in by others, it's not like he's the only to add info to the site. He just seems to me a shady character after reading some excerpts from the suit.

From his disclaimer & excerpt in the lawsuit:

"...I don't give permission for people to just copy my work for their own use. Not only is that illegal, since everything in the Lexicon is copyrighted, it's also just plain wrong. Hey, I did all the work,I put in all the time, it's my skill and talent in this area which allowed the Lexicon to come into being. No one else has the right to use my work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't JKR and her respective publishers own the copyrights?

Newest Leaky Cauldron article w/ excerpts from the lawsuit
J.K. Rowling Updates "Companion Books" Article

RDR Books has a list of their titles and list the HP lexicon
www.rdrbooks.com

[MMADfan]

silverkitty said:

I'm actually on JKR's side on this. Basically from what I've gathered is that it's just going to be a print (pay) version of the website. If that's the case than JKR has every right to sue. Harry Potter is her world and we just play in it.

I know there are commentaries on the HP series available and those authors haven't gotten sue, but if the lexicon is just taking info from the books and interviews she has given, then it's simply the regurgitation of material out there. Also, nothing in the lawsuit says anything about the website, so the information will be there for anyone to see it for free. I know the book would make next to no money but why should the owner of the lexicon make money off of JKR. I'm sure much of the info was sent in by others, it's not like he's the only to add info to the site. He just seems to me a shady character after reading some excerpts from the suit.

From his disclaimer & excerpt in the lawsuit:

"...I don't give permission for people to just copy my work for their own use. Not only is that illegal, since everything in the Lexicon is copyrighted, it's also just plain wrong. Hey, I did all the work,I put in all the time, it's my skill and talent in this area which allowed the Lexicon to come into being. No one else has the right to use my work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't JKR and her respective publishers own the copyrights?

Newest Leaky Cauldron article w/ excerpts from the lawsuit
J.K. Rowling Updates "Companion Books" Article

RDR Books has a list of their titles and list the HP lexicon
www.rdrbooks.com

I've always found that assertion of his "rights" on his website reeks of hubris, since he cannot copyright huge chunks of it since the copyright belongs to someone else. He could conceivably copyright the particular format and organization of the ideas, and so on, but otherwise, what he really is complaining about is plagiarism, which is something different from copyright. For example, I cannot copyright my fanfic stories because I have no right to write stories set in the HP universe, but someone could still plagiarize what I write, and that is just a huge no-no even if it isn't illegal. I suppose (though I'm not certain) I could copyright original characters, but since they are set in the HP universe and don't make any sense outside of it, I don't think I could even do that! LOL!

Since the publishers and Vander Ark won't let anyone see a copy of the book, one can only assume that they are replicating parts of the website that do violate JKR's copyright and that the book is not just something new and original. I think there are arguments to be made on both sides, but I think JKR has a lot on her side of the issue, and Vander Ark and RDR's lack of communication with JKR's attorneys certainly does not reflect well on them.

I do hope that JKR doesn't start going after the not-for-profit fandom on the web. It doesn't sound like it, but if she sits on her rights, she could lose them, and who knows what her attorneys may tell her now.

[pinnacle]

silverkitty said:

I'm actually on JKR's side on this. Basically from what I've gathered is that it's just going to be a print (pay) version of the website. If that's the case than JKR has every right to sue. Harry Potter is her world and we just play in it.

I know there are commentaries on the HP series available and those authors haven't gotten sue, but if the lexicon is just taking info from the books and interviews she has given, then it's simply the regurgitation of material out there. Also, nothing in the lawsuit says anything about the website, so the information will be there for anyone to see it for free. I know the book would make next to no money but why should the owner of the lexicon make money off of JKR. I'm sure much of the info was sent in by others, it's not like he's the only to add info to the site. He just seems to me a shady character after reading some excerpts from the suit.

Mm, word.

I'd also like to add how disappointed I am in Steve Vander Ark. I like HPL a lot, but it's not like it's a tremendously big deal. So many pages are outdated, too. When I first heard it was going to be published as a book, I thought it was horribly pretentious, and apparently Jo feels the same.

[Drake]

Yes, I agree with Jo. It's just silly that they were making a book anyway, because really.

Who would buy it? It's online for free.

[esoterica1693]

TLC has an update today. Sounds like it's the result of a very ill-advised p*ssing contest started by SVA and/or his publishers against WB. Allegedly he 'hit first' by trying to sue WB for lifting 'his' timeline from the Lexicon for use on the DVDs. If that's the case it seems like that brought his work onto their radar and this is their response. Whether or not the Timeline was something he had any rights to at all, much less the proposed book, is a question that would require a copyright expert looking at them, but it seems to my semi-educated amateur eyes (a bit of an MLIS and a paralegal certificate):
a) SVA is on very shaky ground claiming any rights to either the Timeline or the book form of the Lexicon;
b) his publisher is at the least guilty of hubris and bad tactics and possibly worse;
c) a mosquito (RDR Publ) should not fly around near an elephant (WB) and not expect to get swatted.

I've met SVA once at a fan event and I use the Lexicon extensively. My impression of him was very positive, and I hate to think that he's being a jerk towards Jo and her intellectual property. It is conceivable that he made a really poor choice in publishers which he may regret. Or it's possible he's being a royal jerk. I hope it's the former.

The lousy thing about lawsuits is that once they're filed you can't talk about them, so there's no way he can speak in his own voice about the matter, and the less RDR says the happier their own lawyers will be. But in the meantime someone who up until now seems to have been a positive part of the fan community is waist-deep in muck and unable to do or say anything in his own defense.

Folks who've never been up close and personal to a lawsuit on't realize how incredibly awful the experience can be, esp. if your opponent has very deep pockets and/or is a major corporation. "Well I'm just gonna sue them!" is a response usually best left to your own rantings in your closet, not actually put into action, unless you're ready to have your life destroyed. Justice has little to do w/ it.

[MMADfan]

esoterica1693 said:

TLC has an update today. Sounds like it's the result of a very ill-advised p*ssing contest started by SVA and/or his publishers against WB. Allegedly he 'hit first' by trying to sue WB for lifting 'his' timeline from the Lexicon for use on the DVDs. If that's the case it seems like that brought his work onto their radar and this is their response. Whether or not the Timeline was something he had any rights to at all, much less the proposed book, is a question that would require a copyright expert looking at them, but it seems to my semi-educated amateur eyes (a bit of an MLIS and a paralegal certificate):
a) SVA is on very shaky ground claiming any rights to either the Timeline or the book form of the Lexicon;
b) his publisher is at the least guilty of hubris and bad tactics and possibly worse;
c) a mosquito (RDR Publ) should not fly around near an elephant (WB) and not expect to get swatted.

I've met SVA once at a fan event and I use the Lexicon extensively. My impression of him was very positive, and I hate to think that he's being a jerk towards Jo and her intellectual property. It is conceivable that he made a really poor choice in publishers which he may regret. Or it's possible he's being a royal jerk. I hope it's the former.

The lousy thing about lawsuits is that once they're filed you can't talk about them, so there's no way he can speak in his own voice about the matter, and the less RDR says the happier their own lawyers will be. But in the meantime someone who up until now seems to have been a positive part of the fan community is waist-deep in muck and unable to do or say anything in his own defense.

Folks who've never been up close and personal to a lawsuit on't realize how incredibly awful the experience can be, esp. if your opponent has very deep pockets and/or is a major corporation. "Well I'm just gonna sue them!" is a response usually best left to your own rantings in your closet, not actually put into action, unless you're ready to have your life destroyed. Justice has little to do w/ it.

Sorry -- too lazy to trim the quote -- just wanted to add another two cents here. He had very little to support his objection to the use of "his" timeline for two reasons. To the extent it is copyrightable, it is quite arguably copyrightable by JKR, but it is quite likely not copyrightable at all. One cannot copyright ideas or facts, only their expression. The timeline is extracted from the books, something that anyone could do. Although there is something intrinsically distasteful about using someone else's labor for free, that's only a very, very small part of copyright. I could take the contents of a telephone directory, for example, and reproduce them and sell ads for my directory without ever having done any work to find the telephone numbers & other info aside from lifting them from the original directory. The information contained in the directory is not copyrightable. Now, I cannot reproduce it exactly, because the organization of the telephone book may be unique. (I'm using a telephone directory just because it's an easy example, but there are other cases -- ones in which someone "borrowed" lists of facts, for example, that were available in a book and replicated them, but because they put them in a new format, it was not considered copyright infringement.) So, unless he can point to something unique and original in his timeline that is replicated precisely by WB, SVA didn't have much hope of prevailing. Oh, that's the other thing, to be copyrightable, a work has to have a "modicum of originality" -- it's determined by the courts based on precedent (in the common law systems of the UK & the US) whether something can be said to exhibit that "modicum of originality." Somehow, I think it could be argued that a timeline doesn't have sufficient originality to be copyrightable.

Anyhow, as I've said before, it's more complicated than it may seem on the surface, but it certainly must be unpleasant, just as esoterica says!

[esoterica1693]

Thanks, MMADfan. Yes, my gut sense is that SVA has very little to stand on in claiming the Timeline to be his, but w/o pulling out my DVDs.....
A phone book is a good analogy. Copyright law, esp. where 'fair use' is invoked, or when re-packaging/arranging/indexing other's work, is too complex to come to firm conclusions. Another analogy might be an index or finding aid to a book or corpus of writing--what does it take to get that to be seen as the indexer's own intell property?
It would be interesting to see SVA's contract w/ his publisher. On the comments on TLC, one hypothesis is that maybe he's signed away lots of his rights to them and that *they're* the ones who decided to sue WB over the Timeline, while he'd been being more low-key about it up until now. And that basically SVA is now along for the bumpy ride while his publisher goes after WB to try to protect *its* investment (presuming they've paid SVA some sort of an advance and/or sunk money into PR...). This is a plausible scenario.

Either way, seems to *me* (IMHO, and IANAL) that SVA and his publisher are in waaay over their heads in the matter of intellectual property law and that they're overreaching as to Steve's rights. Whether out of cluelessness or greed is however unable to be determined!

[mmadlyinlove]

I'm on JKR's side... I mean, if I created a series, especially one that was as famous as the HP series, I would want to protect my rights. I mean, I would not mind if there were publications which I pre-approved, but come on.... I mean I think every one of us on this board would feel the same if our original works might be published and we didn't want it to be. But that's just my little comment. ~mmadlyinlove~

[MinervaMcGonagall]

Well, I would not buy it because it's online for free.

Yes, I do think JKR and Warner Bros are getting some what greedy (the whole incident with the Indian art fair ) but they do have a right to sue. It is copyrighted and it's not an analysis.

[Drake]

esoterica1693 said:

TLC has an update today. Sounds like it's the result of a very ill-advised p*ssing contest started by SVA and/or his publishers against WB. Allegedly he 'hit first' by trying to sue WB for lifting 'his' timeline from the Lexicon for use on the DVDs.

Sorry , I just caught that part.

Are you serious? That is the funniest thing I've ever heard. People can be really stupid sometimes, tell you what.

[esoterica1693]

Well, I'm not sure whether my take on it still holds after later postings. I haven't sorted through all the legal documents. That sort of reading and analysis was painful enough when I was getting paid to do it and could bill my time out. <g>

But no matter the particulars of how the fight started, I think it's clear that SVA's *publisher* is, to quote Ron Weasley, "totally mental," at least if his and his company's actions thus far are any indication. The only question is how SVA fits in to all this, how much say he's had into the conduct of the dispute thus far, and what his contract w/ his publisher looks like.