Latest Site Notices

EmmaRiddle · #1 (**permalink**) 01-17-2008, 10:32 AM

Yesterday we told you that J.K.Rowling and W.B. had filed the full injunction request against RDR Books to prevent them publishing a print version of the Harry Potter Lexicon. More information from that document has emerged.

The papers can be found here with examples from the book here, here, here and here.

The document details that; the publishers claimed responsibility for any copyright infringement rather than the author, that Steve Vander Ark's profit from the book would be more than usual when copies were sold through the Lexicon website (or those linked with it), that W.B. are seeking to clarify that the Hogwarts timeline on the DVDs doesn't infringe any copyrights, that the contract for the book was signed on August 23rd 2007 with a September 1st deadline for the manuscript, that J.K.Rowling's name has been used on the book & marketing materials, that profit is the book's only purpose as it doesn't provide new information and that RDR Books purposely instructed agents not to pitch the book to Jo's publishers (Scholastic, Bloomsbury, Raincoast etc...).

Comments included come from Jeri Johnson (academic dean at Exeter College, University of Oxford), Neil Blair (solicitor for the Christopher Little Agency), William Landes (the Clifon R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School), Diana Birchall (story analyst for WB) and Melanie Bradley (counsel at WB's law firm).

Also included is the cease & desist letter sent to W.B. by RDR Books regarding the Hogwarts timeline on the DVDs. It is asserted that the Harry Potter Lexicon has no copyright claim over the timeline, and that even if it did, W.B. has not infringed those rights. It is also asserted that the book was to be sold via children's bookstores, refuting any claims that it was to be academia. Uncertainty with authorship is also mentioned as Ark claims to have written the book himself, but an email from someone else claims there were twenty contributors.

You can read more on the history of the case at the links below.

J.K. Rowling files lawsuit

J.K. Rowling’s statement

RDR Publisher’s statement

The Lexicon’s statement

Judge issues restraining order

Stanford Law School defends RDR Books

Jo & WB file full injunction request

Source: The Leaky Cauldron

Eclipsed · 01-17-2008, 11:15 AM

Hmm, this is taking forever to clear up, isn't it? Hope it all blows over soon.

hpluvr037 · 01-17-2008, 12:06 PM

Ah.. What is the world coming to? Poor Jo. Hope this mess clears up soon.

EmmaRiddle · 01-17-2008, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by football_chick

Hmm, this is taking forever to clear up, isn't it? Hope it all blows over soon.

Most disputes such as this do. It'll carry on for a few months still, I think. I feel really sorry for Jo, it must be so disheartening.

Emma C.D. Watson · 01-17-2008, 12:55 PM

cant this ppl ever get it into their heads tht jkr's in charge of her books her rights and her ideas??
i mean,yes u wanna expand on them,tht's ok-but why make a profit?tht's so silly,they're cashing in on somehting tht jkr made famous,on her own!

urrggghhh....give it a rest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaRiddle

Yesterday we told you that J.K.Rowling and W.B. had filed the full injunction request against RDR Books to prevent them publishing a print version of the Harry Potter Lexicon. More information from that document has emerged.

The papers can be found here with examples from the book here, here, here and here.

The document details that; the publishers claimed responsibility for any copyright infringement rather than the author, that Steve Vander Ark's profit from the book would be more than usual when copies were sold through the Lexicon website (or those linked with it), that W.B. are seeking to clarify that the Hogwarts timeline on the DVDs doesn't infringe any copyrights, that the contract for the book was signed on August 23rd 2007 with a September 1st deadline for the manuscript, that J.K.Rowling's name has been used on the book & marketing materials, that profit is the book's only purpose as it doesn't provide new information and that RDR Books purposely instructed agents not to pitch the book to Jo's publishers (Scholastic, Bloomsbury, Raincoast etc...).

Comments included come from Jeri Johnson (academic dean at Exeter College, University of Oxford), Neil Blair (solicitor for the Christopher Little Agency), William Landes (the Clifon R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School), Diana Birchall (story analyst for WB) and Melanie Bradley (counsel at WB's law firm).

Also included is the cease & desist letter sent to W.B. by RDR Books rregarding the Hogwarts timeline on the DVDs. It is asserted that the Harry Potter Lexicon has no copyright claim over the timeline, and that even if it did, W.B. has not infringed those rights. It is also asserted that the book was to be sold via children's bookstores, refuting any claims that it was to be academia. Uncertainty with authorship is also mentioned as Ark claims to have written the book himself, but an email from someone else claims there were twenty contributors.

You can read more on the history of the case at the links below.

J.K. Rowling files lawsuit

J.K. Rowling’s statement

RDR Publisher’s statement

The Lexicon’s statement

Judge issues restraining order

Stanford Law School defends RDR Books

Jo & WB file full injunction request

Source: The Leaky Cauldron

SlytherinSissa · 01-17-2008, 04:10 PM

RDR is risking much more than the loss of the book if they keep this up. They're going to lose their credibility as a publishing house and Vander Ark is going to lose all credibility as an author. The damage has been done to reputations already. It's really getting ridiculous now. It's getting down to a means of dirty lawyers slipping through loopholes in order to make a quick buck. After all of this mess, do they really think the "sales" from that book are going to even out with the cost to print, not to mention all the lawyer and court fees they're currently racking up, not to mention possible counter suits by Rowling, WB, Scholastic, Bloomsbury and who knows who else? Eek.

And months to clear this up? This could drag on for years. It all depends on how dirty the lawyers are for RDR and Ark.

EmmaRiddle · 01-17-2008, 04:40 PM

^ I was being optimistic. It's pretty clear they don't have a leg to stand on. If they've got any sense they'll back off and apologise like crazy.

Little Trooper · 01-17-2008, 05:18 PM

Poor Jo. Hope it gets cleared up soon.

dancerbookl · 01-17-2008, 06:07 PM

I hope something happens soon. Blows over or somethin like that

griffin_girl · 01-17-2008, 09:01 PM

this is just annoying now. do they not realize that if it weren't for Jo's imagination, they wouldn't have come up with this fanfic? they should not publish it and apologoze for even thinking of publishing it!

Mrs_Molly_Weasley · 01-17-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by griffin_girl

this is just annoying now. do they not realize that if it weren't for Jo's imagination, they wouldn't have come up with this fanfic? they should not publish it and apologoze for even thinking of publishing it!

I for one completly agree..

OtterySt.Catchpole · 01-18-2008, 01:44 AM

Quote:

It is asserted that the Harry Potter Lexicon has no copyright claim over the timeline, and that even if it did, W.B. has not infringed those rights.

That totally doesn't make any sense since they don't own the characters or the described events so ...

technically they own a bunch of dates because you can't claim the characters or the events ... just doesn't ... compute. Fail ... SOL ... :smash: and the proper way to start that sentence Emms is "If"

But on a more soap box note ... See what your evil capitalist ways get you? See what greed and the adoration of money have brought about? Jo creates this beautiful universe we all love to play in and someone else who compiles her ideas tries to profit from them ... giving nothing and taking everything ...

Quote:

that Steve Vander Ark's profit from the book would be more than usual when copies were sold through the Lexicon website

I say thee nay! Repent! Repent! *Thumps Steve with a copy of DH* I don't begrudge him that he has spent hours and time on his labor (I love the Lexicon I mean who doesn't ... even Jo does) but he's not the sole person and it has to be understood such a labor is a labor of love, no profit should ever have been expected or attempted ... and it's sad to see something so beautiful (like the Lexicon) perverted by avarice and capitalist greed ... *see below.

Quote:

that J.K.Rowling's name has been used on the book & marketing materials, that profit is the book's only purpose as it doesn't provide new information and that RDR Books purposely instructed agents not to pitch the book to Jo's publishers

EmmaRiddle · 01-18-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by griffin_girl

this is just annoying now. do they not realize that if it weren't for Jo's imagination, they wouldn't have come up with this fanfic? they should not publish it and apologoze for even thinking of publishing it!

It's not fanfic. If anything, fanfic would be more legitimate because at least it would have some form of originality.