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?
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.

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.

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.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

sententia
2007-11-07 01:18 am UTC (link)

To be honest, I think Elanor's post is fine and brings up a couple of good points - especially regarding other companion books already out there. I know that some of the worries about the Lexicon version is that it is going to go further than those books did, but considering that at least one of those books HAS word-for-word lexicon content in it ... hell, if someone was ripping off my (non-existant) work and profiting from it without lawyers hitting them with a C&C which they instead land ME with when I try and publish that same content, I'd be pissed off as well.

While I certainly don't agree with all that Elanor says at all, some of it is just a difference in opinion. Pity she couldn't have shut that hubby of hers and his lawyer up, because the utterly ridiculous manner in which they've handled the situation makes them look amazingly uninformed, arrogant and stupid. While Elanor's post doesn't change my standpoint much on how wrong it is to play in Rowling's sandbox when she has said no, she at least dealt to the issue it in a sane way that does make sense.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	toxictattoo 2007-11-07 01:29 am UTC (link)
	Here's where I'm confused. If those other books sought JKR/WB permission to print their books because they were using copyrighted materials, why is it JKR/WB's responsibility to sue on Steves/The Lexicon's behalf for ripping off his wording that he is clearly taking from copyrighted materials without permission? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sententia
2007-11-07 01:53 am UTC (link)

It's not that they should sue on Steve's behalf, it's that they allowed the content in the first place. Taking the Lexicon completely out of the equation, Warners/Rowling thought that the material was obviously fine when it was published (word for word) by someone else otherwise they would have sued them/served them with a C&C order, so why should they sue when Steve uses those exact same words? I find that bit a little weird.

The Lexicon author is certainly not helping his own case and the cover is ridiculously close to looking official, but I'm starting to think that maybe he is the start of a tougher approach that Rowling/Warner are taking towards guides etc, which is something they have every right to do, of course. There are certainly books out there that have the same concept as the Lexicon, although perhaps (I don't know the fandom well enough) not as extensive. I can see why the owner would expect to be allowed to publish the Lexicon based on past publications, but once Rowling et al said no, he should have realised that their stance had changed and simply backed off.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	cleolinda 2007-11-07 01:54 am UTC (link)
	Warners/Rowling thought that the material was obviously fine when it was published (word for word) by someone else otherwise they would have sued them/served them with a C&C order, so why should they sue when Steve uses those exact same words? I find that bit a little weird. As ridiculous as this whole saga has been, that really does stick out as a good point. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kijikun 2007-11-07 02:06 am UTC (link)
	I think a lot still goes back to the fact the other books gave JKR/WB advanced copies and had a lot of original commentary, mythological references, and other original material. All of this could have been and might still be avioded if Steve just gives them a blasted copy! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sententia
2007-11-07 02:10 am UTC (link)

Yeah, I don't quite understand where he's coming from in regards to the way he's responded to all of this. Unless the copy was full of a whole lot of stuff it shouldn't have included and he's employing stall tactics while he reworks it, there really should have been no issue of giving them a copy. I think it's gotten to the stage where all of this HAS to be a stall tactic, right?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

toxictattoo
2007-11-07 02:07 am UTC (link)

Makes sense. Except I keep getting stuck on this whole permissions thing.

If those other books sought permission first and ran it by JKR/WB first, in my mind (and I'm definitely not a lawyer or that familiar with copyright law) that is what makes the difference.

They got the okay prior to publication. He did not.

But then, I'm not sure how calling it unauthorized factors into the whole copyright thing either.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sententia
2007-11-07 02:16 am UTC (link)

I thought only some of them had permission, and the 'unauthorized' ones didn't? It's the sort of thing that makes sense in my head, but then that's proven to be a poor guideline in the past! Certainly though, there is a difference between content that has been approved by Rowling and that which hasn't. To make matters worse, he didn't simply not get prior approval, he got told he couldn't do it, which adds another dimension to the situation that works against his favor.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	toxictattoo 2007-11-07 02:26 am UTC (link)
	Yeah. I'm getting a headache from this entire thing and am starting to chase my own tail, I think. Which is especially funny since Harry Potter isn't my fandom. I read two books and that's as far as I got. (Reply to this)(Parent)

*not a lawyer... obviously*

sheep
2007-11-07 02:20 am UTC (link)

I'd assume because we are talking about the books as a whole. Not just some sections. I don't know how much is taken from the Lexicon in the whole book, or whether they also have other material elsewhere in the book.

It has unofficial on the front, and looks nothing like an official HP book.

Did they aprove it, or did it just fly under the radar?

Also, I don't know if this would have an impact on the legality, but SVA and the lexicon are very, very well known in fandom. It has far more potential to make a profit and take profit from JKRs work. The already published book rating is only 439,165 on Amazon, compared to the Lexicon which has reached as high as around 6,000. Lastly, that book was written before the series ended. So it isn't a complete encyclopedia.

I don't know how many of those are relevent to the courts.

Either way, while I don't believe it works for trademarks, I think Jo gets to say what passes and what doesn't as far as her IP goes.

Some possibilities anyway. I'd rather Praetorianguard would write something lol.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: *not a lawyer... obviously*

sententia
2007-11-07 02:26 am UTC (link)

Oh, I agree that Jo should always have the last say. I also think she's allowed to change her mind - a couple of years ago the Lexicon content may have been acceptable to her in book form, now it might not be. Tough luck for the Lexicon, but there really isn't anything you can do about that sort of thing. I don't think he was wrong to assume they wouldn't oppose the publication based on past policy regarding publications, but once she actually said no he should have dropped it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: *not a lawyer... obviously*

cleolinda
2007-11-07 04:04 am UTC (link)

I don't know how much is taken from the Lexicon in the whole book, or whether they also have other material elsewhere in the book.

Just for the hell of it, I picked some random entries to compare:

Bellatrix Lestrange: Nothing alike (even considering that it was published before DH came out. I mean, seriously, nothing alike)

Ginny Weasley: Much shorter, some original material, some directly reworded sentences

Cho Chang: More rewording/plagiarism, although somewhat shorter

Cedric Diggory: A teensy bit of rewording, mostly original

So it's not just someone printing out the Lexicon and sending it to a publisher, although I'm sure a more thorough reading would probably turn up a lot of damning evidence. Oh, and someone has now pointed out that this may be the book SVA mentioned suing in that earlier Lexicon post of his.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	mistal 2007-11-07 02:20 am UTC (link)
	Personally I think it goes down to "a couple of sentences" (the others) compare to the whole book (this one). (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Elanor has posted auralan 2007-11-07 02:56 am UTC (link)
	That seems quite likely. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	agent_hyatt 2007-11-07 02:40 am UTC (link)
	Maybe WB/JKR didn't know in advance that the book had plagiarized the Lexicon? It's not like they know the Lexicon articles as well as Steve, and they had no reason to check for plagiarism from that source when reviewing the manuscript because, as you say, the Lexicon was not part of the equation as far as they knew. (Reply to this)(Parent)

julian_black
2007-11-07 03:16 am UTC (link)

Warners/Rowling thought that the material was obviously fine when it was published (word for word) by someone else otherwise they would have sued them/served them with a C&C order, so why should they sue when Steve uses those exact same words?

I teal-deered about this earlier. Short version? In part because the book Elanor linked to made it clear that it was unauthorized--the title is The Unofficial Harry Potter Encyclopedia. RDR Books failed to make that distinction with The Harry Potter Lexicon. That it came out before Book 7 and was incomplete, and that it only listed characters in the HPVerse and not detailed plot summaries, may have helped.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

julian_black
2007-11-07 03:27 am UTC (link)

Oh, and as for the plagiarism thing, the author of the book plagiarized the Lexicon, not JKR herself, so it's not really Rowling's problem.

The substance of the book--character descriptions--may have fit JKR's (and the law's) criteria of what is allowable in an unauthorized book, so she didn't try to stop it.

That the wording of that substance was plagiarized from the Lexicon probably went unnoticed by her. But since she's not the copyright holder on the Lexicon's prose, it's not her problem.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

cleolinda
2007-11-07 01:53 am UTC (link)

That's something I'm wondering as well--just the why does WB have to sue on SVA's behalf part. Aside from plagiarism of Lexicon work, though, the question of why some works that really may be too close to regurgitation get to skip by but the Lexicon doesn't--that issue probably should remain in play. Of course, the book she linked to has "Unofficial" in the title, and we'd also need to have that book on hand as well as SVA's to see what the difference is.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sententia
2007-11-07 01:58 am UTC (link)

Sorry about that, it seems as though I worded it all a bit wrong. To avoid repeating myself, I reworded it a little better (hopefully) above in response to Toxictattoo's comment.

I wonder how much the owner could have avoided by marking it very clearly as an unofficial guide. The cover is just too close to the official work for it not to be associated by the general public as an official guide, and I have a feeling his attempt at a 'clever' marketing ploy is one of the things that has played a big part in his downfall. That and his attitude.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	auralan 2007-11-07 02:58 am UTC (link)
	Yes, the attitude is definitely an issue. Just coughing up a book would have probably gone a very long way. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	cleolinda 2007-11-07 03:03 am UTC (link)
	Oh, no, I'm totally agreeing with you. Just restating the point ~~don't sue me~~. : ) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mindset 2007-11-07 02:16 am UTC (link)
	Hubby? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	sententia 2007-11-07 02:18 am UTC (link)
	Oops, sorry. I thought they were married. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	thecheese 2007-11-07 07:04 am UTC (link)
	No, he's married just not to her (Reply to this)(Parent)

andra_dodger
2007-11-08 03:04 pm UTC (link)

A copyright holder can ignore every single infringer except one and still successfully sue the one unlucky bastard. Your copyright doesn't diminish at all just because you choose not to enforce it.

The fact that other people have been copying Steves work has no impact on his right to exploit JKR's property.

I can understand him saying "JKR was allowing other people to do it, so I thought she would let me do it too," but that won't fly since the publisher asked for her permission and was specifically denied.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -