Zak
10th May 2008, 01:24 AM
I'm posting this outside Entertainment because I'm not here to discuss HP itself, it's more of a debate about the ongoing Vander Ark trial you probably heard about, that's been going on since early/mid-April (It's actually already over but they have yet to reach a decision).
Full story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/books/14potter.html
By MOTOKO RICH
Published: April 14, 2008
J. K. Rowling’s public appearances usually take place in bookstores and theaters, before thousands of her fans. But on Monday, Ms. Rowling, the author of the wildly popular Harry Potter series, is expected to turn up in a much different place: on the witness stand in a Lower Manhattan federal courtroom, testifying against a small publisher looking to bring out an encyclopedia based on her work.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Harry Potter
Enlarge This Image
Librado Romero/The New York Times
J.K. Rowling arrived at court on Monday in Manhattan to testify in a lawsuit.
Ms. Rowling’s books about the boy wizard have spawned countless fan Web sites and chat rooms, as well as dozens of companion books that seek to analyze every minute detail of the seven titles in the series, which ended in July with “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.”
Ms. Rowling has supported much of the fan output, doling out awards to Internet sites and granting interviews to Web masters. But when RDR Books, a small publisher in Muskegon, Mich., announced it was planning to publish a print version last fall of a popular fan Web site called “The Harry Potter Lexicon” (hp-lexicon.org), Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers, the movie studio that has adapted her books into films, balked. Their objection is that the book merely repackages Ms. Rowling’s work and, unlike the free fan sites, is intended to make money for its publisher.
In October Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers sued RDR for copyright infringement, and in November the company suspended publication so that Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr., of the Southern District of New York, could assess the merits of the suit.
The case is scheduled to go to trial on Monday, with Ms. Rowling flying over from Scotland to testify. At stake is whether authors other than Ms. Rowling have the right to publish books that rely substantially on her work as source material, and whether the “Harry Potter Lexicon” in particular sufficiently adds to and transforms the content of her books to be protected by copyright law.
The case also explores the line between free Web content created by fans and a commercially published book. Ms. Rowling has openly praised the Web site on which the Lexicon is based, giving it a “fan site award” in 2004 and commenting in interviews that she even relied on the site — which provides an annotated catalog of characters, spells, magic potions, locations and events in her books — while writing. It was only when RDR decided to transform the site into a book that she objected.
In court papers Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers have argued that the Lexicon, which is being written by the Web site’s founder, Steven Vander Ark, and three other writers, “merely compiles and repackages Ms. Rowling’s fictional facts derived wholesale from the Harry Potter works without adding any new creativity, commentary, insight or criticism.” (Mr. Vander Ark is not a party to the suit.)
What’s more, Ms. Rowling said the proposed Lexicon book flouted her plans to write her own encyclopedia and donate the proceeds to charity. She argues that Mr. Vander Ark’s book could deter fans from buying hers.
Roger Rapoport, publisher of RDR Books, said he believed that Mr. Vander Ark’s work and Ms. Rowling’s encyclopedia could both exist. “We don’t think we’re a threat to J. K. Rowling,” Mr. Rapoport said in an interview. He said he paid Mr. Vander Ark a “tiny advance” for the book last August and was planning to print about 10,000 copies.
In court filings RDR argues that Mr. Vander Ark’s book “provides a significant amount of original analysis and commentary concerning everything from insights into the personality of key characters, relationships among them, the meaning of various historical and literary allusions, as well as internal inconsistencies and mistakes in the novels.”
The publisher said the Lexicon follows a long tradition of literary commentary. “For hundreds of years everybody has agreed that folks are free to write companion guides,” said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford Law School and one of RDR’s lawyers. “This is the first time that anybody has argued seriously that folks don’t have the right to do that.”
Mr. Vander Ark said he had initially worried that a book might constitute copyright infringement. “I honestly can’t tell you the origin of that belief,” he said. But when RDR assured him it wasn’t a problem, he said he assumed that because the material was available online and had never been challenged by Ms. Rowling, the book wouldn’t be either.
On her Web site (jkrowling.com) Ms. Rowling says she does not object to authors publishing literary criticism or reviews of the Potter books. That, she wrote, “would be entirely legitimate — neither I nor anybody connected with Harry Potter has ever tried to prevent such works from being published.”
Neil Blair, a lawyer for the Christopher Little Literary Agency, which represents Ms. Rowling, said he was aware of only two similar lawsuits filed by her and Warner Brothers against other publishers, including a plagiarism case in the Netherlands and a suit against a book in Germany that simply summarized the plots of the Harry Potter books. He said he believed that they had also brought an administrative proceeding against a Chinese encyclopedia.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Harry Potter
A call to Ms. Rowling’s press agent in Scotland was not returned. Mr. Blair referred any inquiries to a publicist in Los Angeles who is coordinating media contacts for Warner Brothers and Ms. Rowling.
In a number of cases Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers have pushed publishers of other planned Harry Potter reference books in the United States to withdraw them from the market, though without filing suit. Ben Schoen, manager of operations at mugglenet.com, one of the most popular Potter fan Web sites, said that when a publisher asked editors of the site to write an encyclopedia, Ms. Rowling objected, and the publisher did not proceed. “If she asks us to do anything, we basically comply with it,” Mr. Schoen said.
Though the case pits a billionaire author against a tiny publishing house, the Potter fan base seems to have little sympathy for RDR. Melissa Anelli, Web mistress of the Leaky Cauldron (the-leaky-cauldron.org), another popular fan site, said her board had voted to sever ties with the Harry Potter Lexicon site because of the lawsuit and comments Mr. Vander Ark has made about it.
“You’re put in the position of having loved the site all these years,” Ms. Anelli said, “and then having to understand why J. K. Rowling had to take an action.”
David Hammer, another lawyer representing RDR Books, said he believed that Ms. Rowling was acting out of vanity. “She wants to be the only one to write this encyclopedia about Harry Potter,” he said. “She’s determined to write it, and she doesn’t want competitors.”
Mr. Vander Ark, who is now living in England, is finishing up another companion book, “In Search of Harry Potter,” a travel memoir about places in Britain that served as the basis for some of the fictional locales in the novels. It is being published by Methuen in July, though neither the company Web site nor amazon.co.uk currently mention the book. A spokesman for Methuen said it was keeping a low profile because of the pending trial but did not expect any problems.
And the follow up http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2008/04/15/potter-rowling-lawsuit.html
The Harry Potter fan behind an unauthorized encyclopedic guide of the hit series broke down on the witness stand in Manhattan on Tuesday.
Steven Vander Ark, the man behind the popular fan site Harry Potter Lexicon, testified on Tuesday in the suit brought last year by author J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros., the studio behind the Harry Potter movies and rights holder of all intellectual property related to the franchise.
Vander Ark became emotional when asked to speak about what the case has done to his reputation in the greater community of Potter fans worldwide.
"It's been difficult because there has been a lot of criticism, obviously, and that was never the intention," he said, stammering and wiping away tears.
"This has been an important part of my life for the last nine years or so."
The former school librarian discovered J.K. Rowling's books and started his website in the late 1990s. He has spent close to a decade studying, discussing and posting information about the novels on his site, of which Rowling herself has admitted to being a fan in the past.
However, his decision to turn parts of his site into book form — to be published by Michigan-based RDR Books — has drawn fire from the powerful author, who is attempting to block the book's publication.
Vander Ark acknowledged on Tuesday that he had been worried that publishing the book would infringe on Rowling's copyright.
He testified that RDR representatives talked him into writing it. The publisher's lawyers have argued that the book should be considered a scholarly reference guide to Rowling's vastly detailed novels and, as such, should be considered fair use.
Rowling took the stand on Monday and criticized the book as "wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."
She also said that the proceedings have "decimated [her] creative work" on a new novel and possibly on a Potter encyclopedia, with proceeds earmarked for charity, that she had already started as well.
Rowling fought back tears on Monday as she described how much her books, the characters and the world she created mean to her. Though now wealthy, she began writing the stories when she was an impoverished single mother living on welfare.
"I really don't want to cry because I'm British, you know," she told the federal court.
"These books, they saved me, not just in the very obvious material sense, although they did do that … I would have to say that there was a time when they saved my sanity."
So what do you think? I like HP but honestly I am disgusted by this woman's actions, sure there may be a few things Vander Ark can fix but seriously, she seems to be going overboard and being a media emo/attentionwhore claiming the book is causing her "emotional distress". God forbid should he make money off this thing when there are plenty of other reference books. Maybe I'm a little biased over what I heard last summer about her making a big deal how at the book release parties they sell all this homemade HP merchandise and make money off them. Yeah... like she has any room to complain about that.
But I actually don't think it's really about money, it seems more like she wanted to do an encyclopedia and he's beating her too it, but still... cry me a river.
I could sort of see her side on some points though, but it's kind of weak.
Full story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/books/14potter.html
By MOTOKO RICH
Published: April 14, 2008
J. K. Rowling’s public appearances usually take place in bookstores and theaters, before thousands of her fans. But on Monday, Ms. Rowling, the author of the wildly popular Harry Potter series, is expected to turn up in a much different place: on the witness stand in a Lower Manhattan federal courtroom, testifying against a small publisher looking to bring out an encyclopedia based on her work.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Harry Potter
Enlarge This Image
Librado Romero/The New York Times
J.K. Rowling arrived at court on Monday in Manhattan to testify in a lawsuit.
Ms. Rowling’s books about the boy wizard have spawned countless fan Web sites and chat rooms, as well as dozens of companion books that seek to analyze every minute detail of the seven titles in the series, which ended in July with “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.”
Ms. Rowling has supported much of the fan output, doling out awards to Internet sites and granting interviews to Web masters. But when RDR Books, a small publisher in Muskegon, Mich., announced it was planning to publish a print version last fall of a popular fan Web site called “The Harry Potter Lexicon” (hp-lexicon.org), Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers, the movie studio that has adapted her books into films, balked. Their objection is that the book merely repackages Ms. Rowling’s work and, unlike the free fan sites, is intended to make money for its publisher.
In October Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers sued RDR for copyright infringement, and in November the company suspended publication so that Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr., of the Southern District of New York, could assess the merits of the suit.
The case is scheduled to go to trial on Monday, with Ms. Rowling flying over from Scotland to testify. At stake is whether authors other than Ms. Rowling have the right to publish books that rely substantially on her work as source material, and whether the “Harry Potter Lexicon” in particular sufficiently adds to and transforms the content of her books to be protected by copyright law.
The case also explores the line between free Web content created by fans and a commercially published book. Ms. Rowling has openly praised the Web site on which the Lexicon is based, giving it a “fan site award” in 2004 and commenting in interviews that she even relied on the site — which provides an annotated catalog of characters, spells, magic potions, locations and events in her books — while writing. It was only when RDR decided to transform the site into a book that she objected.
In court papers Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers have argued that the Lexicon, which is being written by the Web site’s founder, Steven Vander Ark, and three other writers, “merely compiles and repackages Ms. Rowling’s fictional facts derived wholesale from the Harry Potter works without adding any new creativity, commentary, insight or criticism.” (Mr. Vander Ark is not a party to the suit.)
What’s more, Ms. Rowling said the proposed Lexicon book flouted her plans to write her own encyclopedia and donate the proceeds to charity. She argues that Mr. Vander Ark’s book could deter fans from buying hers.
Roger Rapoport, publisher of RDR Books, said he believed that Mr. Vander Ark’s work and Ms. Rowling’s encyclopedia could both exist. “We don’t think we’re a threat to J. K. Rowling,” Mr. Rapoport said in an interview. He said he paid Mr. Vander Ark a “tiny advance” for the book last August and was planning to print about 10,000 copies.
In court filings RDR argues that Mr. Vander Ark’s book “provides a significant amount of original analysis and commentary concerning everything from insights into the personality of key characters, relationships among them, the meaning of various historical and literary allusions, as well as internal inconsistencies and mistakes in the novels.”
The publisher said the Lexicon follows a long tradition of literary commentary. “For hundreds of years everybody has agreed that folks are free to write companion guides,” said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford Law School and one of RDR’s lawyers. “This is the first time that anybody has argued seriously that folks don’t have the right to do that.”
Mr. Vander Ark said he had initially worried that a book might constitute copyright infringement. “I honestly can’t tell you the origin of that belief,” he said. But when RDR assured him it wasn’t a problem, he said he assumed that because the material was available online and had never been challenged by Ms. Rowling, the book wouldn’t be either.
On her Web site (jkrowling.com) Ms. Rowling says she does not object to authors publishing literary criticism or reviews of the Potter books. That, she wrote, “would be entirely legitimate — neither I nor anybody connected with Harry Potter has ever tried to prevent such works from being published.”
Neil Blair, a lawyer for the Christopher Little Literary Agency, which represents Ms. Rowling, said he was aware of only two similar lawsuits filed by her and Warner Brothers against other publishers, including a plagiarism case in the Netherlands and a suit against a book in Germany that simply summarized the plots of the Harry Potter books. He said he believed that they had also brought an administrative proceeding against a Chinese encyclopedia.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Harry Potter
A call to Ms. Rowling’s press agent in Scotland was not returned. Mr. Blair referred any inquiries to a publicist in Los Angeles who is coordinating media contacts for Warner Brothers and Ms. Rowling.
In a number of cases Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers have pushed publishers of other planned Harry Potter reference books in the United States to withdraw them from the market, though without filing suit. Ben Schoen, manager of operations at mugglenet.com, one of the most popular Potter fan Web sites, said that when a publisher asked editors of the site to write an encyclopedia, Ms. Rowling objected, and the publisher did not proceed. “If she asks us to do anything, we basically comply with it,” Mr. Schoen said.
Though the case pits a billionaire author against a tiny publishing house, the Potter fan base seems to have little sympathy for RDR. Melissa Anelli, Web mistress of the Leaky Cauldron (the-leaky-cauldron.org), another popular fan site, said her board had voted to sever ties with the Harry Potter Lexicon site because of the lawsuit and comments Mr. Vander Ark has made about it.
“You’re put in the position of having loved the site all these years,” Ms. Anelli said, “and then having to understand why J. K. Rowling had to take an action.”
David Hammer, another lawyer representing RDR Books, said he believed that Ms. Rowling was acting out of vanity. “She wants to be the only one to write this encyclopedia about Harry Potter,” he said. “She’s determined to write it, and she doesn’t want competitors.”
Mr. Vander Ark, who is now living in England, is finishing up another companion book, “In Search of Harry Potter,” a travel memoir about places in Britain that served as the basis for some of the fictional locales in the novels. It is being published by Methuen in July, though neither the company Web site nor amazon.co.uk currently mention the book. A spokesman for Methuen said it was keeping a low profile because of the pending trial but did not expect any problems.
And the follow up http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2008/04/15/potter-rowling-lawsuit.html
The Harry Potter fan behind an unauthorized encyclopedic guide of the hit series broke down on the witness stand in Manhattan on Tuesday.
Steven Vander Ark, the man behind the popular fan site Harry Potter Lexicon, testified on Tuesday in the suit brought last year by author J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros., the studio behind the Harry Potter movies and rights holder of all intellectual property related to the franchise.
Vander Ark became emotional when asked to speak about what the case has done to his reputation in the greater community of Potter fans worldwide.
"It's been difficult because there has been a lot of criticism, obviously, and that was never the intention," he said, stammering and wiping away tears.
"This has been an important part of my life for the last nine years or so."
The former school librarian discovered J.K. Rowling's books and started his website in the late 1990s. He has spent close to a decade studying, discussing and posting information about the novels on his site, of which Rowling herself has admitted to being a fan in the past.
However, his decision to turn parts of his site into book form — to be published by Michigan-based RDR Books — has drawn fire from the powerful author, who is attempting to block the book's publication.
Vander Ark acknowledged on Tuesday that he had been worried that publishing the book would infringe on Rowling's copyright.
He testified that RDR representatives talked him into writing it. The publisher's lawyers have argued that the book should be considered a scholarly reference guide to Rowling's vastly detailed novels and, as such, should be considered fair use.
Rowling took the stand on Monday and criticized the book as "wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."
She also said that the proceedings have "decimated [her] creative work" on a new novel and possibly on a Potter encyclopedia, with proceeds earmarked for charity, that she had already started as well.
Rowling fought back tears on Monday as she described how much her books, the characters and the world she created mean to her. Though now wealthy, she began writing the stories when she was an impoverished single mother living on welfare.
"I really don't want to cry because I'm British, you know," she told the federal court.
"These books, they saved me, not just in the very obvious material sense, although they did do that … I would have to say that there was a time when they saved my sanity."
So what do you think? I like HP but honestly I am disgusted by this woman's actions, sure there may be a few things Vander Ark can fix but seriously, she seems to be going overboard and being a media emo/attentionwhore claiming the book is causing her "emotional distress". God forbid should he make money off this thing when there are plenty of other reference books. Maybe I'm a little biased over what I heard last summer about her making a big deal how at the book release parties they sell all this homemade HP merchandise and make money off them. Yeah... like she has any room to complain about that.
But I actually don't think it's really about money, it seems more like she wanted to do an encyclopedia and he's beating her too it, but still... cry me a river.
I could sort of see her side on some points though, but it's kind of weak.