The Unauthorized Harry Potter Lexicon Case: Could someone explain this to me, please?

[lillbet]

They mentioned the Harry Potter Lexicon case this morning on Today, but I didn't have time to wait for the segment. Basically, it sounds like some fan!guy (who publicized fake spoilers, by the way) wants to publish his version of a lexicon and Rowling has filed a restraining order and is upset because she was planning to publish an encyclopedia based on the books.

I have to say, after reading a bit about this online, that I am absolutely baffled at Vander Ark's audacity. He claims to love the series, and respect the author according to the open letter on his site, yet he is pretty much dicking Rowling out of her right to publish the definitive work based on her own ideas. And since it's unauthorized (ie being done without Rowling's approval), that should pretty much put the kibosh on it, I'd think.

Am I missing something?

If so, could someone explain it to me, using nice language and small words that won't hurt my brain?

Thank you. :)

Comments

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

d) The publisher of the Lexicon is called RDR and their lawyer appears to be a real jerk.

e) The cover - or maybe the preliminary mock-up of the cover, I can't tell - looks a lot like the British Harry Potter books. JKR/WB argues that it's trademark infringing.

f) Lawyers representing JKR found out about the book before it was published and asked for them to stop printing the book and for an advance copy of it. RDR refused to give them one. That right there is probably why a lawsuit was made.

g) Despite what most fantards will tell you, there have been plenty of encyclopedia-ish guides things of copyright books published, and it appears to be fair use if you go by what has been published before. This guy from Salon.com has some examples. (http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/11/13/harry_potter/) There's also been a lot of Harry Potter guides (http://rattlesnakeroot.livejournal.com/20960.html#cutid1) published in the past. "Harry Potter A-Z" is especially interesting because most people agree it was plagiarized from the Lexicon website (the wording is really close). The question basically is, why does Rowling object to the Lexicon and not to the other books?

h) There's the issue of the timeline on the CoS DVD. Steve was the first to point out that it duplicated a typo he had made in his timeline on the Lexicon site. Most people agree that the WB plagiarized it from his site, so ... there's that.

i) I think part of RDR's argument is going to be that JK Rowling has said before that she used the site as a reference when she was writing the newer Harry Potter books, and that likewise Steve got an email from Scholastic thanking him for keeping the website, because they found it helpful in the editing process. It's like h) - the official publishers were using Steve's work for free.

k) RDR's argument is that the Lexicon is "transformative" and scholarly, JKR's side hasn't proved that anyone would by the Lexicon instead of the phantom encyclopedia that may or may not be in the works, that the work is all in all fair use, and that JKR is a big meanie.

[kala-way.livejournal.com]

*wow* thanks redcoast! I've been kind of baffled by the whole thing, because there's obviously been tons of books out there about Potter. It's not like they're adding any additional info to the books, like publishing fanfiction would be, so I thought it was all a bit dumb. I guess it has more to do with stepping on toes and money (big surprise!) I've always loved the Lexicon, they do a great job of keeping everything organized and clear. *sigh*
but I absolutely adore your icons :)

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

but I absolutely adore your icons :)

Thanks!

I have to admit I'm really on the Lexicon's side in this case, so - bias that way, you know.

[lillbet.livejournal.com]

I have to admit I'm really on the Lexicon's side in this case, so - bias that way, you know.

Couldn't tell ;)

It's funny, but something about this rubs me the wrong way. I think because it just sounds unfair to Rowling- yes, I realize that "fair" is an outdated concept and that the woman now has more money than she knows what to do with, but I hardly think that Vander Ark should be allowed to benefit from her work. Yes, he asked if he could help with the encyclopedia and he was told no, but that's Rowling's prerogative and hardly qualifies as an open invitation to take this to the next level. It still gets me that Vander Ark has this affectionate open letter to Rowling on his site, and yet he went and did this anyway. Makes no sense to me at all.

To me, it's almost as if RDR'd broken into Rowling's house and started selling off her furniture without her permission- that's the sticking point for me. If she'd authorized it, it would be one thing, but it's totally competing with her interests in releasing a similar book.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Well, for one thing Steve might have been pissed that the WB put his timeline on their DVDs. And that "Harry Potter A-Z" plagiarized the Lexicon (anyway, Rowling didn't mind that one being published). I do think Steve still likes J.K. Rowling, he's said that he thinks if he could sit down and talk with her, they could work it out. *shrug* Steve probably had no reason to think that his encyclopedia would compete with JK Rowling's at all.

You know, the guy who runs the Mugglenet site says he makes a 6-figure income from it. Melissa from TLC makes money off the site, I don't know how much.

[lillbet.livejournal.com]

I'm putting my final word first: if they put the word UNAUTHORIZED across the cover then they can do what they want, in my opinion.

Well, for one thing Steve might have been pissed that the WB put his timeline on their DVDs...

So? He should take that up with them rather than taking it out on Rowling.

Steve probably had no reason to think that his encyclopedia would compete with JK Rowling's at all.

I really don't believe that at all. I may not know much about this case, but the lexicon is pretty good and you're not the only one to say "DAMN THE MAN!" on this one. The way RDR is going at this (I read the brief and it's ludicrous (http://www.rdrbooks.com/pdf/oppn_to_rowlings_PI_mtn.pdf) it sounds to me like he's bitter about his offer of help being snubbed and took that note from her publisher as license to do what he wants with property that really isn't his. He may still like Rowling, but he sure as hell doesn't seem to have a lot of respect for the woman.

You know, the guy who runs the Mugglenet site says he makes a 6-figure income from it. Melissa from TLC makes money off the site, I don't know how much.

You know, I've been checking all over Google and everywhere it says "allegedly" in regards to the "six figure income" (which, by dint of being in quotes, says volumes as well).

As Kim says, I think Rowling should have the first crack at writing a "definitive" encyclopedia, since it's her work that it's being written about.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

whoa html

[lillbet.livejournal.com]

Fixed it. :)

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Okay good now!

I didn't make that six-figure thing up. That's what Emerson said:

Although worried that his image as a businessman could tarnish his Potterhead status, Spartz tells BusinessWeek he pulls in "a six-figure income." (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2007/db20070622_592856.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech)

[lillbet.livejournal.com]

I've read that, thanks. And it's still "alleged" since no one's seen proof and one interviewer asked him where the money goes and he had no response- another issue altogether. I don't think it's the same thing. Emerson's not selling someone else's content repackaged for his profit- he's selling space to discuss the content.

Vander Ark is selling Rowling's ideas under his aegis. It's not authorized. I'd have to read more about it, but I think the argument that this is all fine because Rowling hasn't put her encyclopedia out in a timely fashion is specious at best. :P

[asouthernthing.livejournal.com]

You broke this down really well, and I agree with you.