|
|
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,@ 2007-11-05 18:17:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Entry tags: | entitlement, fandom: harry potter, i see stupid people, internet lawyers, please mommy make it stop, think of the children, this is the wank that never ends, thoughts on yaoi |
"A vast international smear campaign"
Previously on the ridiculous number of Lexicon-related entries on Fandom Wank:
Entry the First: The Harry Potter Lexicon wants to publish the site as a book. JK Rowling and Warner Bros (who may be bringing in some trademark issues as well as copyright issues) are not pleased; in fact, Steve Vander Ark apparently had already asked for her permission and was refused. Lexicon fans are not pleased that JKR and WB are not pleased. Defensive Mouse Is Defensive. The Lexicon may already incorporate a large amount of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, not to mention essays from contributors who were not asked if their work could be used. RDR Books, the Lexicon's publisher, argues that 1) the book is for the children; 2) suing the Lexicon takes Rowlingian resources away from her charities and could only happen in a police state; 3) C&D orders are like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. WB may have stolen a timeline off the Lexicon; they argue that even if they did, the information on the timeline does not belong to the Lexicon. Praetorianguard explains some of the legalities. Dumbledore is still gay.
Entry the Second: The Leaky Cauldron gets hold of WB's complaint and interviews RDR Books' spokesman... Richard Harris. Harris avers that the book is "directly typeset from the site" and contains lots of scholarly analysis for great, non-infringing justice. WB asks RDR to turn over a manuscript or copy of the book so they can see what copyrights are or are not infringed; RDR tells WB to have someone show them how to print the site. RDR then states that the book does not yet exist and that they cannot see how turning over the book "would benefit [them] in any way." Also, they tell TLC that WB "bore false witness" in the complaint. The book's cover, which does exist, bears a suspicious resemblance to the style of the UK adult HP books. Two essay contributors confirm that they were not asked for permission, and one says that the Lexicon has told her that there aren't any essays in the book. FWers recall that Vander Ark said at various conferences that he started the Lexicon in hopes of being the one to help JKR with hers (a 2000 Yahoo Groups post by Vander Ark backs this up), and video shows Vander Ark telling fans at Prophecy 2007 that "Jo didn't know her world as well as the fans did and that they owned it now, not her." Also, "Expelliepilogus!" Bonus: RDR quietly removes the reference to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Entry the Third: Steve Vander Ark posts a statement on the Lexicon saying that 1) the Lexicon and all the volunteers (presumably including essay contributors who may or may not have been ripped off) "regret the unpleasantness" and 2) he wanted to publish the Lexicon because of overwhelming fan demand and encouragement. Godwin's Law and accusations of sockpuppetry show up in the comments before they're closed. Jessica at Q for Quack alleges that Vander Ark told her a year ago not to publish her own encyclopedia because JKR's lawyers would sue her back into the Stone Age. A Lexicon supporter offers to donate to a SVA defense fund because JKR "just doesn’t want to LOSE CONTROL of HER creation." According to comments on AOL and Times Online articles, the HP books are in the public domain and JKR is lonely lesbian trash. Or something. I forget to post the Yahoo Groups link and post it on this entry. Also, these are a few of our favorite things; "Potterdammerung! Hardly is this word out / When a vast image out of Dumbledore's Pensieve / Troubles my sight"; this is surely the Potterdammerung of which the prophets spake.
Today:
An update on the TLC article: "TLC has received word via a reliable source that the initial email to Steve Vander Ark and RDR Books was phrased as an attempt to appeal to the Lexicon’s status as a site favored by J.K. Rowling. It also, according to the source, clearly named Warner Bros. as at stake and called Vander Ark a friend of the series and someone publishers/lawyers/agents were sure did not want to disrupt Rowling’s rights. RDR has called the email 'threatening and abusive' and claimed that Warner Bros. only claimed rights after RDR sent them a letter regarding the timeline on the Harry Potter DVDs."
Another update regarding the publication date: From the same TLC link: "Update 3: A reader has commented that they ordered the book in the UK, which was slated to have a Nov. 5, 2007, publication date; the order was pushed back to January, 4, 2008, instead." Looks like Methuen is cooperating.
A new addition to the RDR Books Lexicon page:
Is the entire Harry Potter Lexicon websites [sic] in the book?Note: RDR Books has refused to hand over a copy of the 412-page book that is not the entire website, which would clear up any confusion immediately. Particularly as to whether non-SVA essays were used, or if Fantastic Beasts was or was not incorporated into the manuscript verbatim.
No, the book is 412 pages and does not include everything that is on the website. Attorneys for Warner Brothers and Ms. Rowling simply sifted through the website guessed what might be in the book and then alleged that these hypothetical sections are damaging the author. This is a good example of what happens when you sue to censor a book that you haven't read. The reason the plaintiffs did this is that they were trying to convince fans of the site that the book was in some way a violation of trade or copyright law which it is not.Why didn't the plaintiffs wait to read the book before they sued?
Possibly because they knew that they couldn't win an injunction in court and that their best shot was to generate unfavorable publicity for the publishers and everyone associated with the book. The suit, filed on Halloween, was also designed to frighten the publishers and the authors.
Also, the FAQ on that page alleges a vast international smear campaign. Because God knows I'm getting paid to point out this idiocy.
From
julian_black: It's like goldy or bronzy, only it's made out of iron.Things are slowing down now. Barring a pseuicide, I have high hopes that this could be the last entry.
ETA: A summary in lolcat.
ETA 2: Snape fans weigh in on the matter (warning: the deer is teal). (Thanks,
kerryblaze.)ETA 3: Huh. A comment at TLC alleges that some sixty negative comments were deleted from the Lexicon statement last night, but I was on it with ScrapBook and Screengrab pretty frequently, and I can't see any discrepancy in numbers. Also, there's still a number of negative comments yet. Does anyone have any evidence that this actually happened?
Also, from
lidane: "Steve Vander Ark = a House Elf and/or Harry Potter", per a comment on TLC.ETA 4: Pics of the disputed timeline (here on the OOTP DVD). So did WB steal it or not? Analysis in the comments.
Also, now that RDR's edited out the reference: Invisible Nagasaki.
ETA 5: Apparently that TLC commenter (re: ETA #3) was posting from the future, because now all the Lexicon comments are gone. Which was pretty much inevitable. I'm just saying, that's why I was on it with Screengrab and ScrapBook the other night. (One giant screencap from SG and then three small ones manually taken from SB, sorry.) The reason there's no comment box on the last cap is because it was taken shortly after comments were closed entirely.
ETA 6: Ah, here's what I was waiting to post. Someone forwarded me an email that's now gone public, so I can link to it. In it, an RDR Books staffer at the "Powell Precision Lecture Agency" writes "on behalf of Steve Vander Ark the premier Harry Potter expert who has run The Harry Potter Lexicon website since 2000, one of the most comprehensive Harry Potter websites available, as his lecture agent. Steve has turned his website into book form by working with publisher RDR Books to create a top notch Harry Potter encyclopedia." I thought it was a non-copyright-infringing work of literary criticism and commentary? "Steve would be an excellent speaker at the Terminus events in Chicago during August of 2008. I see you have many events taking place, Steve would be a wonderful edition [sic] to any one of them. The book is benig [sic] published later this month, and we expect very good things to happen for Steve." Since I have a copy of the email, I can confirm that it was sent yesterday. As praetorianguard notes at the link, "The fact that RDR is pushing SVA as a guest speaker on the conference circuit as the soon-to-be-published author of a Harry Potter encyclopedia after JKR/WB filed suit against that very book may, if admissible for relevance, show the bad faith of RDR in dealing with this entire matter. Courts hate parties who act in bad faith, and conversely, they love parties who are willing to talk resolution. At some point, continuing to act as if the lawsuit isn’t happening is going to be seen not only as disrespecting JKR/WB, but as disrespecting the court, and that’s not going to be fun for anyone. Already, JKR/WB have alleged in their complaint that RDR wouldn’t even talk to them about this issue; if RDR is out pushing this book as if the lawsuit weren’t even happening, that can only help JKR/WB."
ETA 7: A PDF file of the actual filed complaint.
ETA 8: From
waltraute: elanor_isolda counters several of the allegations. I would note, however, that many of these allegations stem from information on RDR Books' own site, or their uncooperativeness in handing over a copy of the book to confirm that they're in the right. There's no way to know if Fantastic Beasts, essays or artwork are in the book if the publisher simply says at one point, "It's got critical literary analysis" and "It's typeset from the website, WB can just print that." Also, WB is arguing that the timelines and/or the information therein does not belong to the Lexicon in the first place, although plagiarizing exact wording (did they? I don't know that we've settled this yet) might or might not be actionable; I don't know how that works. Other points come down to a he said/she said issue, and as I've maintained throughout these entries, someone is misrepresenting something, and the answer may not necessarily be obvious. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out, and bad form is not limited to one side or the other. 
