Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Cleolinda Jones ([info]cleolinda) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2008-01-16 17:13:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:entitlement, fandom: harry potter, internet lawyers, this is the wank that never ends

JK Rowling, Defender of Fandom
Apologies to folks sick of Lexicon wank, but--from [info]jedi_dwh: JKR Files Full Request for Injunction of HP Lexicon. "A rule against JKR/WB would harm the fan community by 'necessitating more monitoring and restriction of fan activity by copyright owners afraid of compromising their rights against infringers.' "

It's a huge post and I haven't read it all yet--and apparently it's part one of two. The sentence "The text of the e-mail string between Steve Vander Ark and the Christopher Little Agency requesting employment on the official encyclopedia is included in the document [and reprinted in the post]" jumped out at me, though.

ETA from [info]white_serpent: "Oh, and you can read the whole text of the requested injunction yourself here."

ETA 2: Part two is up. There's interesting stuff in there, but at the very end:

Claims that the book is an academic resource are rebuffed by a piece of evidence showing Roger Rapoport's instruction to a colleague to focus on children's bookstores for sales.

The question of authorship arises here as well: Steve Vander Ark has said the Lexicon was "created, edited, written and maintained primarily by one person, me," and the book has listed only one author; however an e-mail from Roger Rapoport says the book was the result of 20 academic scholars and reference experts' work.

Also, being discussed in the comments here:

>>  [info]lidane: "Remember the fans that contacted Steve about publishing an encyclopedia? Well, they've both filed official statements in the court documents that JKR/WB submitted."

>> [info]auralan: "Thus, rather than being a work of scholarship or research, the Lexicon simply takes Ms. Rowling's intellectual 'furniture,' catalogues it through descriptions that have either been lifted or synthesized from Ms. Rowling, and rearranges it in unoriginal alphabetical order. She's read the Lexicon according to her declaration. I'd say this answers the question on the inclusion of the essays. They're not in there."

ETA 3: More discussions of note:

>> Cassie Edwards-style comparison between Lexicon entries and related JKR text in court documents.

>> WB tech guy's declaration that he did, in fact, try to print the Lexicon website.

ETA 4, from [info]auralan: a Plantiffs' First Amended Complaint ("This is basically the initial filing updated now that they've seen the book. The lawyers seem mighty cranky now that they've done some discovery and have some smoking guns"):
Ms. Rowling and Warner Bros. are concerned about the Infringing Book not only because of the infringing material it contains, as is discussed below, and not only because it will undermine the companion guide that Ms. Rowling herself intends to write, but also because RDR Books has confirmed -- through its refusal to be above-board about its intentions and engage in reasonable discussion about the Infringing Book -- that it cannot be trusted with one of the most beloved children's book series in history.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]auralan
2008-01-17 03:08 am UTC (link)

This comes from Jeri johnston, Senior Tutor (Academic Dean) of, and Ashby Fellow and Lecturer in English at, Exeter College, University of Oxford:

Thus, rather than being a work of scholarship or research, the Lexicon simply takes Ms. Rowling's intellectual "furniture," catalogues it through descriptions that have either been lifted or synthesized from Ms. Rowling, and rearranges it in unoriginal alphabetical order. There is nothing original or creative about organizing someone else's information alphabetically, and regardless of such rearranging, the fact remains that the furniture still is Ms. Rowling's.


She's read the Lexicon according to her declaration. I'd say this answers the question on the inclusion of the essays. They're not in there.

Now, back into the vast quantities of filings to see who else has fun stuff to say.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

DUDE
[info]emiweebee
2008-01-17 03:16 am UTC (link)
I fucking love that doc.

"This is what constitutes scholarship. This is what does not. Where does the Lexicon fall?"

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]auralan
2008-01-17 03:23 am UTC (link)
While digging, this one stands out for having lots of RDR's emails and communications:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/37/13.html


*wades back into the mess*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]pyratejenni
2008-01-17 04:01 am UTC (link)
I love how they want people to contact them to use material from the book....

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]velvet_mace
2008-01-17 03:33 am UTC (link)
I first read "furniture" as "failure" and thought this was a rather scathing assessment of JK Rowling.

*Head/desk*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]auralan
2008-01-17 03:42 am UTC (link)
Even more fun, they include as exhibits several other unauthorized books as examples of what additional original scholarly material is. It's a glaring difference. These lawyers are not subtle.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]auralan
2008-01-17 03:45 am UTC (link)
*must stop giggling*

This just gets funnier. RR, in one of the many emails trying to see international rights mocks "The Complete Idiot's Guide" to Harry Potter. They included excerpts of that guide in the good examples of scholarly works attachments.

Not only are they not subtle, but they had fun with that smite button.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eilisliana
2008-01-17 05:06 am UTC (link)
The lawyers must be giggling and punching the smite button like there is no tomorrow.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Dead Brother-in-law, can't respond...
[info]arrogantsage
2008-01-17 05:28 am UTC (link)
Was it Roger Rapaport who had the dead brother-in-law on the 3rd of October? Because in those emails, he's busy sending out copies of the Lexicon flyer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Dead Brother-in-law, can't respond...
[info]lil_miss_stfu
2008-01-17 05:46 am UTC (link)
I believe that was mentioned in earlier Lexicon!wank posts, but I'm not certain if its been bought up in the lawsuit itself as a sign of Rapaport being a total n00b.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Dead Brother-in-law, can't respond...
[info]auralan
2008-01-17 06:51 am UTC (link)
Yup. He was overwhelmed with a dead brother-in-law, sending accusations of timeline infringement to WB, and trying to sell international rights. He was far too busy to respond to some silly emails sent by some lawyers.

Then the lawyers got a really big smite button.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]auralan
2008-01-17 05:43 am UTC (link)
Neil Blair has also pretty much confirms that the essays aren't in it:

Having now seen the proposed manuscript of the Harry Potter Lexicon ... The manuscript does not contain any of the fan fiction, art, essays, or analysis that appears on the Lexicon website. Instead, the manuscript is comprised solely of an alphabetical list of the people, places and things from the Harry Potter books. The manuscript contains no analysis, no criticism and no commentary -- just a mere re-relling of fictional facts related to each entry.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]tofuknight
2008-01-17 11:22 pm UTC (link)
fictional facts

That phrase made me giggle. I present boobies to JKR and the WB lawyers watching all this!*


*-Disclaimer: No boobies were harmed in the making of this icon.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]auralan
2008-01-17 06:01 am UTC (link)
Diana Birchall, soty analyst for WB, has also read the Lexicon. Again, she saw no essays:

... the Lexicon does not attempt to analyze the Harry Potter characters, identify or comment on themes from the Books, compare the Books to any other literary works or place the Series in any social context.

Instead, the Lexicon in effect retells the story set out in Ms. Rowling's seven books. The Lexicon employs three devices in order to achieve this effect: (1) detailed plot summaries, (2) extensive paraphrasing, and (3) verbatim quoting.

It goes on to explain that the character entires are often several pages long and simply restate the entire story-arc of that character. It also says none of those entries add anything in way of analysis or commentary. They are reported to be straight recreations of the stories from the books. Snape's 6 pages is exhibit C (see the right-hand column of the link above for the exhibits). Examples of verbatim quotes are in some of the other attached exhibits.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map