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



cill_ros ([info]cill_ros) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2008-12-06 22:02:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Obsessed
Entry tags:doesn't mean what you think it means, fandom: harry potter, lawyerism, oh christ here we go again, plagiarism, this is the wank that never ends

It's over - but not really
This story has been out for a couple of days, but as it hasn't been brought to Fandom Wank yet, I thought I'd write it up. I hope that's okay.

As previously reported, RDR Books stated their intention of appealing the Lexicon verdict.

RDR Books have now withdrawn their appeal.

Lest anyone think that this is the end, however, RDR Books and Steve Vander Ark are going ahead with a "revised" version of the encyclopedia. E! Online quotes "the 50-year-old with free time to spare" as saying:

"We learned a lot at the trial about what was acceptable, what would follow the fair-use guidelines," he said. "That was not clear before. There was no law on the books that made it clear what was acceptable and what wasn't.

"Coming out of the trial, I had a much better idea of what should go into the book."


RDR's Roger Rapoport says that the book contains "a lot more critical commentary, which means more analysis", while the decision "to publish a different book prepared with reference to Judge Patterson's decision" has been welcomed by Neil Blair, a lawyer for Rowling's London-based agent, and also by a spokeman for Warner Bros. (The Associated Press.)

I haven't found any indication of whether J.K. Rowling's and Warner Brothers' lawyers have reviewed the entire content of the new encyclopedia. 10,000 copies are to be printed for a January 12 release.

ETA: Thanks to mariem_1 for some more information.

The Stanford Fair Use Project have commented:
... As it turns out, Vander Ark and RDR like the new manuscript much more than the old one, and they decided they are much more excited to publish the new manuscript instead of the old one.

Apparently, they're not alone. A representative of Rowling's literary agency released a statement saying they are "delighted" with the resolution of the case.

You might remember the Resurrection Stone (one of the Deathly Hallows) has the power to summon the dead, though not to bring them back altogether. Harry used the stone to conjure the spirits of his parents and friends to steel himself before his final encounter with Voldemort. Like Harry, the original Lexicon is gone. Nothing can bring it back now, but its spirit resides in a new and altogether better Lexicon, which will now help guide readers on their own journeys through the world of Harry Potter.


SVA supporter [info]rattlesnakeroot celebrates. Includes links to SVA's posts on the Leaky Lounge and other fun.

The report on the HP Lexicon site.

ETA 2: Thanks again to mariem_1 for this.

Via author/illustrator Matthew Holm (Harry Potter Lexicon Dispute Concludes with Worst Book Title Ever) here is a quote from a Publishers Weekly article:


... Instead, the company has announced plans to release a new unauthorized guide to the Potter series, The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Harry Potter Fiction and Related Materials. The book will include commentary that does not appear on Vander Ark’s Web site. RDR publisher Roger Rapoport said the new book “has a new focus and purpose, mindful of the guidelines of the court.” The $24.95 trade paperback is set to be released January 12.

Matthew Holm: "Wait.

"...Harry Potter Fiction and Related Materials?"

Um ... no offense, but ... hey, RDR, let me guess: Your lawyers wrote the book title, didn't they?"

ETA 3: From cleolinda: RDR Books:
Thank you for the heartwarming response to our announcement of Steve Vander Ark's new book, The Lexicon. As Publisher's Weekly reported on Friday this book will include material that does not appear on the Lexicon website. Orders received before December 31 will be autographed by the author and receive free media mail shipping in the United States. Please stay tuned for news on Vander Ark's tour schedule.



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]staroverthebay
2008-12-07 12:18 am UTC (link)
There was no law on the books that made it clear what was acceptable and what wasn't.

... Uh... Isn't plagiarism a Bad Idea anyway? You're telling me there's NO LAW WHATSOEVER to protect against someone profiting from plagiarizing someone else's hard work?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jupiterpluvius, 2008-12-07 09:23 pm UTC

[info]nevadafighter
2008-12-07 12:21 am UTC (link)
That was not clear before. There was no law on the books that made it clear what was acceptable and what wasn't.

So THAT'S his problem. He's a simpleton who needs everything spelled out in legal terms because obviously some common sense and basic reasoning skills can't possibly lead one to the conclusion that taking someone's words and repackaging them is not fair use.

I don't think this asshole could be any stupider, but there it is.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2008-12-07 12:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]irised, 2008-12-07 12:48 am UTC

[info]singe
2008-12-07 12:24 am UTC (link)
"Coming out of the trial, I had a much better idea of what should go into the book."

He's pressing on? I KNEW THIS CRAZY SHIT WASN'T OVER!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lilychan, 2008-12-07 04:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]singe, 2008-12-08 02:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lilychan, 2008-12-08 03:16 am UTC

[info]vzg
2008-12-07 12:32 am UTC (link)
"That was not clear before. There was no law on the books that made it clear what was acceptable and what wasn't.

Right. Except, you know, all the laws that got you in trouble, you whimpering nimrod.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]libelle, 2008-12-07 01:15 pm UTC

[info]irised
2008-12-07 12:37 am UTC (link)
RDR & Steve Vander Ark: Plagiarism's version of Whack-A-Mole.

(Reply to this)


[info]vitalitat
2008-12-07 12:47 am UTC (link)
I don't know about anyone else, but I totally imagined that Joel McHale was reading that out loud as if it were being featured on The Soup, haha.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2008-12-07 05:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]vitalitat, 2008-12-08 10:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2008-12-08 11:27 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vitalitat, 2008-12-09 01:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2008-12-09 01:23 am UTC

[info]nonnyeve
2008-12-07 01:01 am UTC (link)
So...do they get that their book would not need to be "revised" so much as entirely rewritten?

Or I should say entirely written, since re-writing would imply they actually wrote something the first time.

(Reply to this)


[info]dejana
2008-12-07 01:22 am UTC (link)
That's a hell of a fast revision. How much different could it possibly be, assuming it's not going to be stripped down to a bound collection of hastily vomited essays? We may be in for Round 2.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mariem_1, 2008-12-07 01:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dejana, 2008-12-07 01:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rudemistress, 2008-12-07 01:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]peachespig, 2008-12-07 05:02 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mmanurere, 2008-12-07 06:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sesana, 2008-12-08 05:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]msmanna, 2008-12-07 11:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sgaana, 2008-12-07 06:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]pyratejenni, 2008-12-07 08:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]quantumreality, 2008-12-07 09:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lakme, 2008-12-08 05:15 pm UTC

[info]miss_eponine
2008-12-07 01:34 am UTC (link)
I realize that SVA is kind of well known and now the book has notoriety and such and that I know next to nothing about publishing, but doesn't 10,000 copies seem like a lot for this type of book?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]thespie, 2008-12-07 03:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]thespie, 2008-12-07 03:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jupiterpluvius, 2008-12-07 09:24 pm UTC

[info]mer1973
2008-12-07 01:44 am UTC (link)
JKR and WB haven't seen the updated book?

whoo-ho!

*grabs popcorn*waits for WB filing*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cill_ros, 2008-12-07 01:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]insanitys_place, 2008-12-07 05:20 am UTC

[info]deliciouschaos
2008-12-07 02:08 am UTC (link)
Oh, no. Just...no.

(Reply to this)


chironstar
2008-12-07 02:11 am UTC (link)
...

D:

*facepalms*

(Reply to this)


[info]drakyndra
2008-12-07 02:14 am UTC (link)
Truly, the wank that never ends.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]aka_paloma, 2008-12-07 08:44 am UTC

[info]mariem_1
2008-12-07 02:32 am UTC (link)
I think that this post by [info]rattlesnakeroot should be linked in the main report. There are 123 comments and plenty of wank, stupidity and Leaky Lounge bashing from SVA aupporters here.

There is also a statement from Anthony Falzone and the Stanford Fair Use Project Lexicon Resurrected:

As announced yesterday and reported first by the Leaky Cauldron and then the Associated Press, RDR Books has withdrawn its appeal from the Court's decision enjoining the publication of the Lexicon, and will publish a new Lexicon instead.

Following the trial and the Court's decision, Steve Vander Ark created a new Lexicon manuscript. That manuscript addressed some of the concerns expressed by J.K. Rowling at trial, and those expressed by Judge Patterson in his thorough and detailed decision. As it turns out, Vander Ark and RDR like the new manuscript much more than the old one, and they decided they are much more excited to publish the new manuscript instead of the old one.

Apparently, they're not alone. A representative of Rowling's literary agency released a statement saying they are "delighted" with the resolution of the case.

You might remember the Resurrection Stone (one of the Deathly Hallows) has the power to summon the dead, though not to bring them back altogether. Harry used the stone to conjure the spirits of his parents and friends to steel himself before his final encounter with Voldemort. Like Harry, the original Lexicon is gone. Nothing can bring it back now, but its spirit resides in a new and altogether better Lexicon, which will now help guide readers on their own journeys through the world of Harry Potter.

Look for the Lexicon to hit bookstores in January.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cill_ros, 2008-12-07 02:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mochibuni, 2008-12-07 03:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2008-12-07 11:05 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]darkling, 2008-12-08 04:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]azazello, 2008-12-07 11:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kuromitsu, 2008-12-07 01:41 pm UTC

[info]beejium
2008-12-07 02:53 am UTC (link)
Well, I know what I won't be asking for for my birthday this January!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]rhrsoulmates, 2008-12-07 06:06 am UTC

[info]hypno_jango
2008-12-07 03:13 am UTC (link)
Vander Ark said he never intended to offend Rowling, but rather wanted to give her books "deeper meaning."

I hope that doesn't mean it'll be like those "Harry Potter Hint" books that used "deep analysis" before the 7th novel came out. I bet the author of the one I read was really embarrassed to be that wrong. Snape is 100% evil because I hate the character so he can't be working on the good side! Neville's grandma is trying to kill him! Luna shouldn't be trusted be she stares a lot. ...yeah.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]vzg, 2008-12-07 05:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hypno_jango, 2008-12-07 05:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]peachespig, 2008-12-07 05:37 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hypno_jango, 2008-12-07 05:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]peachespig, 2008-12-07 05:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mechanicaljewel, 2008-12-07 07:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fallingmallorn, 2008-12-07 07:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mornmeril, 2008-12-10 07:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]influencethis, 2008-12-07 11:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]cazrolime, 2008-12-08 12:28 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]singe, 2008-12-08 02:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mechanicaljewel, 2008-12-08 04:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mechanicaljewel, 2008-12-08 04:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]vzg, 2008-12-07 06:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]trinity_destler, 2008-12-07 11:09 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hypno_jango, 2008-12-07 03:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]plazmah, 2008-12-07 09:42 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]vzg, 2008-12-07 10:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cazrolime, 2008-12-08 12:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tarash, 2008-12-07 02:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]selene_avis, 2008-12-07 04:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]tarash, 2008-12-07 06:06 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]darlingpoppet, 2008-12-08 07:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hypno_jango, 2008-12-08 06:15 pm UTC

[info]greenconverses
2008-12-07 03:20 am UTC (link)
Let's all remember that this was NEVER about the money.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]stnky605, 2008-12-08 10:36 am UTC

[info]mochibuni
2008-12-07 03:26 am UTC (link)
So when is the movie version due to come out?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]killer_gopher, 2008-12-07 04:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]wolfsamurai, 2008-12-07 04:56 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]vzg, 2008-12-07 05:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]watersword, 2008-12-07 05:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]peachespig, 2008-12-07 05:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]wolfsamurai, 2008-12-07 05:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fools_game, 2008-12-07 09:50 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mornmeril, 2008-12-10 07:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lilychan, 2008-12-07 04:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]socker, 2008-12-09 01:13 pm UTC

[info]cassildra
2008-12-07 04:12 am UTC (link)
Oh God, [info]cleolinda, I'm sorry.

reposted for html fixin'z

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2008-12-07 05:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jkefka, 2008-12-07 08:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]msmanna, 2008-12-07 12:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]staroverthebay, 2008-12-07 08:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]paladin, 2008-12-07 09:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2008-12-08 03:58 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mornmeril, 2008-12-10 08:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cleolinda, 2008-12-10 09:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]staroverthebay, 2008-12-11 05:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mornmeril, 2008-12-11 07:14 pm UTC

[info]vanya_elda
2008-12-07 04:51 am UTC (link)
a) Whining until you get your way. b) Tenacity.
One of these things is not like the other.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]evilsqueakers, 2008-12-07 05:57 am UTC
Finally, I can use my Dumbles icon again.
[info]lilychan
2008-12-07 04:58 am UTC (link)
Vander Ark said he never intended to offend Rowling, but rather wanted to give her books "deeper meaning."

By "deeper meaning", he means a "deeper" reach in her purse.

(Reply to this)


[info]watersword
2008-12-07 05:00 am UTC (link)
"We learned a lot at the trial about what was acceptable, what would follow the fair-use guidelines," he said. "That was not clear before. There was no law on the books that made it clear what was acceptable and what wasn't. we bothered to read."

Fixed that for ya, Steve.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dragonsong12, 2008-12-08 04:18 pm UTC

[info]peachespig
2008-12-07 06:03 am UTC (link)
Ugh, Stanford Fair Use Project. Any time any of these turdblossoms compares their officially illegal manuscript to JKR's characters and ideas — the Lexicon is like the Resurrection Stone! The Lexicon survived Avada Kedavra! It's the Book that Lived! — they need to just step away. On the surface it comes across as good-natured, but really it's just them reminding us that they think she ought not to have any control over how anyone uses her ideas in any context. It's creepy and it's gross.

(Reply to this)


[info]selene_avis
2008-12-07 06:54 am UTC (link)
You might remember the Resurrection Stone (one of the Deathly Hallows) has the power to summon the dead, though not to bring them back altogether. Harry used the stone to conjure the spirits of his parents and friends to steel himself before his final encounter with Voldemort. Like Harry, the original Lexicon is gone. Nothing can bring it back now, but its spirit resides in a new and altogether better Lexicon, which will now help guide readers on their own journeys through the world of Harry Potter.


Wait, isn't the whole point of the Resurrection Stone that the dead it summons are naught but mere shadows? Which is to say, once someone is dead, they can never truly be brought back. Which is to say, once the Lexicon book is dead, it can't be resurrected. Which is to say, there being a new and better Lexicon book with the spirit of the old would defeat the whole idea behind the Resurrection Stone.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2008-12-07 07:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mechanicaljewel, 2008-12-07 07:30 am UTC

[info]folledesmots
2008-12-07 10:08 am UTC (link)
So, how much of the new version is going to be barely-disguised essays from the Lexicon? As in, more repackaging of stuff he did not write?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]pathology_doc, 2008-12-07 02:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jupiterpluvius, 2008-12-07 09:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dreamer_marie, 2008-12-09 03:03 pm UTC


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map