|
|
Cleolinda Jones (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} cleolinda) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2007-11-01 14:19:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
I posted the news story in fandom_lounge originally, but it looks like the wank has arrived.
HP Lexicon wants to publish the site as a book.
JK Rowling and her lawyers are not pleased.
People are not pleased that JK Rowling is not pleased ("That fucking bitch.... But that's not good enough for Ms. Anne Rice, Jr. No. It has to be her way or the highway").
Over at Fandom Lounge, Defensive Mouse Is Defensive.
More importantly, Dumbledore is still gay.
More coming as it turns up. Because I'm pretty sure more is coming.
ETA: Ah, here we go. Points of interest, including a few from the FL comments:
lidane: "The Leaky Cauldron article has updated with a timeline from JKR's side and more details about the lawsuit from their perspective."
"The complaint claims Warner Bros. and Rowling's representatives have been 'rebuffed and treated rudely' in their attempts to engage in a dialogue with RDR Books. 'For example, while claiming not to have the ability or time to respond to plaintiffs' multiple "cease and desist" letters because of a family tragedy, defendant instead was hawking foreign publishing rights to the infringing book in Germany,' the lawsuit said." (Pointed out bypeachespig.)
JKR was already asked once, and she refused permission.westmoon: "I was told that she was asked. And quite clearly said no. It was talked about at the Prophecy convention in Toronto this summer, and apparently Steve was quite miffed that she refused to give him permission - as were some of the people to whom he related his tale of woe."
The Lexicon incorporates a good deal of text from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them already? (Note: Permission may have been given for use on the website. ETA: ... Or maybe not.) In that context, note this passage from the Leaky Cauldron article: The suit also quotes a statement made by Steve Vander Ark on his site, that says, "...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." The suit says, "this is exactly what Defendant is attempting to do here in connection with Ms. Rowling's work.
HP Lexicon: Anti-Ginny?
"Publisher Roger Rapoport, founder of RDR Books, said he believes the lawsuit is retaliation for a letter sent to Warner about a timeline used on Harry Potter DVDs."
And finally, as quoted in the LC article linked above: There is a substantial likelihood that defendants will continue to infringe unless halted permanently. Uh oh.
ETA 2: Aaaaand we have Godwin's law:
More frompeachespig: JKR gives her side on her site (" 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") and the Lexicon's publisher achieves Godwin's ("Steve created this Web site as a volunteer project on his own time, and stopping a book of his own creation is not something that happens in America. It's something that could only happen in a police state").
ETA 3: It's for the children, y'all.
ETA 4: The publisher responds. THE CHILDREN, WHY WON'T YOU THINK OF THEM?! "Warner Bros. responded by rushing into court with this ill-tempered and badly thought out legal action. This wastes financial resources that Ms. Rowling could give to one of her favorite charities." Also, since y'all seem to be noting that the Lexicon has not contacted any of its non-Vander Ark contributors about a book: "It is an original book with a vast array of independently written scholarly articles."
ETA 5: Frompyratejenni: The best explanation of the legal situation that I've seen so far.
fandom_lounge originally, but it looks like the wank has arrived.HP Lexicon wants to publish the site as a book.
JK Rowling and her lawyers are not pleased.
People are not pleased that JK Rowling is not pleased ("That fucking bitch.... But that's not good enough for Ms. Anne Rice, Jr. No. It has to be her way or the highway").
Over at Fandom Lounge, Defensive Mouse Is Defensive.
More importantly, Dumbledore is still gay.
More coming as it turns up. Because I'm pretty sure more is coming.
ETA: Ah, here we go. Points of interest, including a few from the FL comments:
lidane: "The Leaky Cauldron article has updated with a timeline from JKR's side and more details about the lawsuit from their perspective.""The complaint claims Warner Bros. and Rowling's representatives have been 'rebuffed and treated rudely' in their attempts to engage in a dialogue with RDR Books. 'For example, while claiming not to have the ability or time to respond to plaintiffs' multiple "cease and desist" letters because of a family tragedy, defendant instead was hawking foreign publishing rights to the infringing book in Germany,' the lawsuit said." (Pointed out by
peachespig.)JKR was already asked once, and she refused permission.
westmoon: "I was told that she was asked. And quite clearly said no. It was talked about at the Prophecy convention in Toronto this summer, and apparently Steve was quite miffed that she refused to give him permission - as were some of the people to whom he related his tale of woe."The Lexicon incorporates a good deal of text from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them already? (Note: Permission may have been given for use on the website. ETA: ... Or maybe not.) In that context, note this passage from the Leaky Cauldron article: The suit also quotes a statement made by Steve Vander Ark on his site, that says, "...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." The suit says, "this is exactly what Defendant is attempting to do here in connection with Ms. Rowling's work.
HP Lexicon: Anti-Ginny?
"Publisher Roger Rapoport, founder of RDR Books, said he believes the lawsuit is retaliation for a letter sent to Warner about a timeline used on Harry Potter DVDs."
And finally, as quoted in the LC article linked above: There is a substantial likelihood that defendants will continue to infringe unless halted permanently. Uh oh.
ETA 2: Aaaaand we have Godwin's law:
More from
peachespig: JKR gives her side on her site (" 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") and the Lexicon's publisher achieves Godwin's ("Steve created this Web site as a volunteer project on his own time, and stopping a book of his own creation is not something that happens in America. It's something that could only happen in a police state").ETA 3: It's for the children, y'all.
ETA 4: The publisher responds. THE CHILDREN, WHY WON'T YOU THINK OF THEM?! "Warner Bros. responded by rushing into court with this ill-tempered and badly thought out legal action. This wastes financial resources that Ms. Rowling could give to one of her favorite charities." Also, since y'all seem to be noting that the Lexicon has not contacted any of its non-Vander Ark contributors about a book: "It is an original book with a vast array of independently written scholarly articles."
ETA 5: From
pyratejenni: The best explanation of the legal situation that I've seen so far.Post a comment in response:
