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
2008-01-24 09:34 pm UTC (link)
There's a new posting in the case. It's an 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.

This action arises out of the Defendant RDR Books' willful and blatant violation of Plaintiffs' respective intellectual property rights ... and the misuse of Ms. Rowling's name in advertising materials without her consent in violation of the Copyright Act, the Lanaham Act, and New York State Law.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]auralan
2008-01-24 10:06 pm UTC (link)
Page 17 contains a doozie:

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.

OUCH!

*giggles*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]txvoodoo
2008-01-24 10:48 pm UTC (link)
I...keep trying to think of how to say it and fall short. The batshit, it burns.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]auralan
2008-01-24 11:06 pm UTC (link)
*nods*

You know it's bad when the lawyers provide smackdown that roughly translates to "You! Out of my fandom!"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rustybitch
2008-01-27 04:01 pm UTC (link)
That part, combined with JKR's statement that the Lexicon simply doesn't meet her standards, tickles my mockitymock-bone in the most delicious way.
DRD/SVA should buy themselves matching latex bondage outfits to go with the smackdown.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rowanberries
2008-01-25 02:53 am UTC (link)
Oh, burn!

>:D

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]cleolinda
2008-01-24 10:22 pm UTC (link)
Should I make this a new entry? My instinct is to just put on an ETA, but...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]auralan
2008-01-24 10:29 pm UTC (link)
*shrugs* Some of the quotes in this are great, but there aren't any major revelations. An ETA is probably plenty. I'm sure there will be more new wankery when RDR Books responds in another week or so.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]cleolinda
2008-01-24 10:39 pm UTC (link)
Hmm. Well, I've split the difference and posted a link here on my personal JF, and I'll mention it again when the next big thing happens.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]wonapalei
2008-01-26 12:47 am UTC (link)
It tickles me bright blazing magenta to find out that the email address of David Hammer, Esq., the renowned lead counsel representing RDR Books, is davyh at AOL dot com. *howls with laughter*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map