Entry tags:

entitlement, fandom: harry potter, internet lawyers, person: jkr, plagiarism, this is the wank that never ends, this was no chicken

Epic burn
Previously on The Hundred Years' Wank: RDR demands to see JKR's notes, judge lols; RDR files its response; the NYT weighs in; grudgepuppet accuses TLC's Melissa of tax fraud, recipes ensue.

Leaky grudgewank hits the Times Union. Key sentence: "Fansites such as The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet have been selling ad space on their sites for years and some have cried fowl."* Includes wank in the comments.

* Which fowl? "TURKEY! PHEASANT! CHICKENNNN!"

And then: JKR/WB Respond in Lexicon Suit. From TLC: "This is the last filing before a hearing on March 13 to determine if a preliminary injunction will be granted. After that there still may or may not be a trial to determine if infringement has taken place." Key points:

The print version of the Lexicon is "nothing more than a recast of Ms. Rowling’s original text" and "does not create 'new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings' ";

"Attempts to cast it as a 'serious book' filled with 'scholarly commentary and analysis is merely an attempt to excuse blatant infringement' ";

" 'Alphabetizing' does not render a work transformative and that reorganizing work does not alone render a work in concert with fair use";

"It [...] says there is no original commentary or analysis or 'anything else rising to the level of scholarship.' It says RDR’s expert also agrees, citing the filing that says that the book’s chief point is not literary analysis";

"It counts 2,034 entries out of the book’s 2,437 entries that lift text directly from Harry Potter, and says the remainder 'merely [add] adverbs such as "unfortunately," "sadly," or "possibly" to descriptions' ";

"No plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate.” This is, by the way, the first time I recall the word "plagiarism" entering the discussion (has it come up before?). As we saw in the case of Cassie Edwards, plagiarism and copyright infringement can be, but are not always, the same thing;

"It also says that despite Steve Vander Ark claiming he used reference works, none are cited in the book or mentioned in the bibliography, and some appear to be taken from sources 'such as Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary without attribution' ";

“While there are many non-infringing books about the Series, books such as the Book are few in number and have been pulled from distribution as a result of Plaintiffs’ efforts.”

Also included:

>> JKR's declaration (in which she sticks up for fansites and is "troubled" by portrayals of the case);

>> Cheryl Klein’s declaration, which " addresses the RDR submission of a note she had written to Steve Vander Ark in 2005, complimenting his work, after the publication of Half-Blood Prince. It points out that Steve Vander Ark once said to Ms. Klein that one of the purposes of the Lexicon was to dissuade people from publishing unofficial encyclopedias, in deference to rights J.K. Rowling has reserved.... 'At no time did I ever say anything to Mr. Vander Ark to suggest that it would be acceptable for him to publish a Harry Potter encyclopedia' ";

>> Lawyer Emily Blumsack’s declaration, which "assesses each of the books that RDR claims is similar enough to the proposed Lexicon book to indicate that permission to publish such books has already been granted.... RDR recognized in a previous email that there was no clear competitor or book like the proposed Lexicon in print, and that every other book on the subject was out of date, which speaks against the RDR claim that there are other books like the Lexicon’s on the market." And for those of you wondering why the Lexicon entries are currently outdated, "RDR recognizes the advantage of being first to publish and advised Steve Vander Ark not to publish book seven contents on his Web site to avoid that content being co-opted by MuggleNet, who was considering publishing an encyclopedia at the time." Also: "She also mentions that RDR recognizes that Steve Vander Ark’s persona presents potential harm to JKR’s encyclopedia, by quoting an email from RDR that calls Steve Vander Ark a 'rock star' and 'Elvis like figure' at fan events";

>> Scholastic VP Suzanne Murphy’s declaration, which "speaks to RDR’s claim that a fan would buy both encyclopedias," noting that, while core fans tend to buy as many items as they can afford, "general consumers may not feel the need to have two Harry Potter encyclopedias. For a significant segment of the general book consuming market, if they buy the Infringing Book, when presented with a later opportunity to purchase Ms. Rowling’s encyclopedia, they will decline as their perspective will be that they ‘already bought one’ ";

>> University of Chicago Law School William Landes’ declaration, which "addresses the potential market harm of the Lexicon book," and

>> Exeter University professor Jerri Johnson’s declaration, which "refut[es] the claim that the book is scholarly or a research book, saying it does not meet the standards as set by the 'Modern Language Association in the U.S. or the Research Assessment Exercise for Higher Education in the U.K.' " also: "She points out that the opposing critic pointed to reference books on public domain works, like that of Shakespeare, and Tolkien or C.S. Lewis companion books that were written either by the author or with the author’s consent."

Whew. *goes to have a lie-down*

ETA: From karintheswede, "Methuen, the British firm set to publish the Lexicon if RDR/SVA win, is ' "fairly confident" the court will rule in RDR's favour,' according to The Bookseller."

ETA 2 from TLC: "Harvard Law Wayne State University faculty and copyright/IP professor Derek Bambauer says that a recent NYT article on the case "Foul[ed] Up Fair Use" and contains an "embarassingly simple mistake of copyright law."

ETA 3: The filings are finally up at Justia.

ETA 4: Most viewed new story on Yahoo News: Rowling bashes 'Harry Potter Lexicon.'

ETA 5: RDR Books speaks. In part:

In this action, a distinguished and tremendously successful novelist demands the suppression of a reference guide to her works. J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, asserts that this reference guide infringes both her copyright in the seven Potter novels and her right to publish, at some unidentified point in the future, a reference guide of her own. In support of her position she appears to claim a monopoly on the right to publish literary reference guides, and other non-academic research, relating to her own fiction. This is a right no court has ever recognized. It has little to recommend it. If accepted, it would dramatically extend the reach of copyright protection, and eliminate an entire genre of literary supplements: third party reference guides to fiction, which for centuries have helped readers better access, understand and enjoy literary works. By extension, it would threaten not just reference guides, but encyclopedias, glossaries, indexes, and other tools that provide useful information about copyrighted works. Ms. Rowling's intellectual property rights simply do not extend so far and, even if they did, she has not shown that the publication of this reference guide poses a sufficient threat of irreparable harm to justify an injunction. Her preliminary injunction motion should be denied.

Wankiest comments people have found so far:

>> At the Times Union: "She not only wants to control copyright laws and 'her' characters, but by continuing to fill in the blanks on every character and their every step in life, I feel she’s attempting to control the reader, as well.... In my opinion, she needs to let go of Harry."

>> At Leaky: "I might even go as far as to compare Steve to Moses who had to die, because he dared to say that it was him who gave food and water to his people."

In the news: It's hit the BBC and CNN (TV) as well?

ETA 5b: The Lexicon story hits Smart Bitches, Trashy Books.

ETA 5c: From ravenbell: an article from Cinematical: "Discuss: When Fans Go Too Far." Includes wank in the comments; I'm not really sure what's going on with the "bright shiny snowflake" comment.

ETA 6: Nora Roberts speaks:

Fan fiction doesn’t copy the author’s story and call it their own, but uses it or the characters, as a springboard for another story. And not for profit. Much different, to my mind, than what Edwards did over many years and with many sources.

But this suit seems to involve someone who IS taking the author’s words, without her permission, and trying to sell it for profit. I’d sue, too.

I don’t mind fan fiction (understand those authors who do), but when I find my work on the internet--for profit or not--copied and claimed by someone else, I shut it down.

NORA ROBERTS HAS SPOKEN.