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]silentspeaker
2008-01-18 03:20 am UTC (link)
Maybe someone can clarify this for me. SVA arranged, in his contract with RDR, that "If this particular person sues for copyright infringement, you bear the lawyers' fees" and this did not set off big gonging alarm bells for RDR that the person in question had a copyright that was being infringed? I mean, why would RDR ever agree to a clause like that? My niece would probably see through it in like a minute and she literally WAS born yesterday.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rustybitch
2008-01-18 01:20 pm UTC (link)
That puzzled me too. I think it's virtually unheard of in publishing contracts.
Usually the writer has to swear up and down that the material produced for publishing is original content.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]shadwing
2008-01-19 04:29 am UTC (link)
Agreed, and if it's not your content they will drop you like a ton of bricks and sue your butt off. Either SVA had a VERY VERY VERY good lawyer or RDR had a very very very bad one

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]talec
2008-01-19 05:00 am UTC (link)
If I remember correctly, RDR had no lawyer before Cousin Vinnie!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rustybitch
2008-01-19 11:16 am UTC (link)
You know, this case seems so obviously slam-dunk-smack, and RDR/SVA are behaving so unfathomably stupid, I almost can't help going into conspiracy-country. Like, what the hell do they know that we don't?
Or are they really skipping merrily through the minefield wearing pink tutus and little ballerina-shoes, waving plastic wands and thinking the opposition will smile and let it go? 'Cause that's not a good plan.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mistressrenet
2008-01-19 02:10 pm UTC (link)
They also appear to have cut an absurd royalty deal.

I think maybe they saw "Harry Potter" and their eyes turned to dollar signs and their brains to mush.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map