I think a more accurate pie analogy would involve say...sharing a recipe for pie and having that recipe published in a cookbook without your consent. Although the HP series is too big to be just one recipe. Let's say it's a cookbook itself, full of recipes, and someone else comes along and takes those recipes, rearranges them, and publishes it as their own cookbook. Is that infringement? I don't know - there are a lot of awfully similar cookbooks out there.

What if the other person takes those recipes, includes a lot of notes about the origins of each dish and other uses for the same ingredients, and charts the evolution of each dish...would that constitute a new work, even though it is based on someone else's recipes? Again I don't know.

And I'm not asking anyone to tell me either, these are rhetorical questions.

I think a more accurate pie analogy would involve say...sharing a recipe for pie and having that recipe published in a cookbook without your consent. Although the HP series is too big to be just one recipe. Let's say it's a cookbook itself, full of recipes, and someone else comes along and takes those recipes, rearranges them, and publishes it as their own cookbook. Is that infringement? I don't know - there are a lot of awfully similar cookbooks out there.

What if the other person takes those recipes, includes a lot of notes about the origins of each dish and other uses for the same ingredients, and charts the evolution of each dish...would that constitute a new work, even though it is based on someone else's recipes? Again I don't know.

And I'm not asking anyone to tell me either, these are rhetorical questions.

We also have had a report on the qforquack blog of Steve writing in an E-mail I reported in the last thread that "Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she’s the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world." If this is true, it means that Steve knew he wasn't just copying a few recipes. I wonder what changed his mind?

A Harry Potter encyclopedia would have the name Neville Longbottom, and that name is owned by JKR.

A pie recipe would have flour, which can be used by everyone. A Harry Potter encyclopedia would have the name Neville Longbottom, and that name is owned by JKR. But the problem is not the one or two mentions of the things that JKR owns, it is that Steve has almost all of them in the Lexicon. So in this case it is not the recipe that is getting Steve in trouble, it is the ingredients.

We also have had a report on the qforquack blog of Steve writing in an E-mail I reported in the last thread that "Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she's the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world." If this is true, it means that Steve knew he wasn't just copying a few recipes. I wonder what changed his mind?

That same email, which may or may not be legit, mentioned he wanted to petition Jo after the last book and propose cowriting the definitive encyclopedia. What we understand from the various parties involved is that she said NO. All I can think is that this was a terrible blow to his self-esteem. Everyone involved with him seems to like him and defer to his wisdom. That the very architect of the Potterverse was unmoved by his offer must have bruised his ego.

Ok I'm going to continue the pie analogy form the end of the last thread and on why JK wont let SAV have a slice of the pie so to speak.

Ok you've baked this pie, you have put your time, effort and love into this pie and it will certainly be a delicious pie.
Now you have left this pie to cool on the window (yes isn't it just the ultimate cliché) A neighbour that your friendly with comes over seeing the pie and asks for a slice. You say no for whatever reason.
You turn your back and when you come back to the pie you see that this person has taken a slice. How would you feel finding this person you where friendly with has taken a slice of your pie after you said no. Now you could let the person take the piece after all they took the trouble to go get a knife and cut a good maybe even small slice of it. But then what would happen maybe someone else, another friend or whatever sees him with a slice of pie and asks for a bit to, but now you can't just say no I mean the other person has pie and you allowed it. Soon your left with no delicious pie that you spent time on left for yourself.

I making myslef hungry now mmmmmmmmmm delicious pie *drools*

nov 2nd me

lets put it like this then.
-You have baked a yummy cake and leave it on the window to cool.
-I steal it and put some icing (frosting) on it
-I then sell slices to passers by for $2 per slice.
Do i deserve the money or do you the person who has bought the ingredients and spent time baking the cake deserve it? (you were going to take that yummy cake and hand it out at the soup kitchen too, never mind you'd give the money to the soup kitchen anyway, but youd rather just have given them the cake...)

Now that makes me think of something interesting...what about a book of Potterverse name meanings, with separate entries for first and last names? JKR might own "Neville Longbottom" but does she own all references to "Neville" and "Longbottom" separately? (Nevilles of the world certainly hope not, I'm sure).

Not that I think anyone might buy such a book. But do our resident experts have a decision on that? If a book writer listed all the first names of HP characters and their name meanings, and then listed all the surnames of HP characters and their name meanings, would that be infringing?

Lidane, I avoided the Prophecy convention. But that YouTube clip is frightening. "Jo has quit; she is done... the fans are taking over now!" Did Steve say that before or after he was rebuffed by Jo?

What on earth did he mean by "Jo has quit; she is done"?

I think a more accurate pie analogy would involve say...sharing a recipe for pie and having that recipe published in a cookbook without your consent. Although the HP series is too big to be just one recipe. Let's say it's a cookbook itself, full of recipes, and someone else comes along and takes those recipes, rearranges them, and publishes it as their own cookbook. Is that infringement? I don't know - there are a lot of awfully similar cookbooks out there.

What if the other person takes those recipes, includes a lot of notes about the origins of each dish and other uses for the same ingredients, and charts the evolution of each dish...would that constitute a new work, even though it is based on someone else's recipes? Again I don't know.

And I'm not asking anyone to tell me either, these are rhetorical questions.

We also have had a report on the qforquack blog of Steve writing in an E-mail I reported in the last thread that "Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she’s the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world." If this is true, it means that Steve knew he wasn't just copying a few recipes. I wonder what changed his mind?

Now that makes me think of something interesting...what about a book of Potterverse name meanings, with separate entries for first and last names? JKR might own "Neville Longbottom" but does she own all references to "Neville" and "Longbottom" separately? (Nevilles of the world certainly hope not, I'm sure).

oh! great minds think alike- either that or ill have to send you a cease and desist letter.... Isnt baking fun?

I don't know if you intended it, but the analogy of the recipes is strangely apt:

Food Fight: Jessica Seinfeld's "I Never Read That Book" Defense Smells A Little Fishy

The cookbook case seems far more clear-cut than the Lexicon case because it seems there was direct copy-paste going on, but just a funny coincidence, and perhaps an example of a different variety of copyright issues (such as that copying verbatim from a cookbook for your cookbook is not permissable).

The Harry Potter Lexicon, with a cover price of $24.95, was originally slated for a print run of 5,000. Rapoport said that figure may now be much greater because of the attention brought on by the lawsuit. Still, he told AL, "I'm very optimistic that this will have a happy ending, and that everyone will enjoy the book, including our opponents."

It would seem to me that RDR is quite shady. Why would Steve want to be associated with these folks who claim that JKR/WB was jumping the gun by assuming what would go into the Lexicon, but RDR couldn't be bothered giving them an actual copy of the manuscript. Just print the site, duh. Well, wouldn't that lead one to believe that a lot of copyright infringment would be happening? How are JKR/WB supposed to know what's going in and what isn't if they aren't told specifically which pages will be in the 400+ book? This is straight up shady and I would hate for it to happen to any of the fan fic authors I know if they ever got a break with an original work. I'm rambling, but I just want to understand the logic behind these statements. I want to know how Steve feels about these conflicting thoughts.

I swore I was done with this topic, but then someone sent me a link in response to my post - some book on Amazon called Harry Potter A to Z, which really is just a list of the name of every HP character and a description of them.

Well, one should read the one (count em, one) review of the A-Z book. It complains that it only covers characters and doesn't give enough details. And that's in a 180 page book! Which suggest to me plenty of padding. Fair Use doesn't have to mean that the original content is useful or insightful, just that it outweighs the copyrighted material.

As Melissa has already explained, Amazon still lists MN's encyclopedia even though it has been cancelled. So, I'm not sure how we should judge internet listenings. And the books that have been allowed to stand seem to meet Fair Use doctrine.

Guys, we've just remove the e-mail image (and all posts in reply) that was posted in order to investigate the privacy concerns that it brings up of all involved. Once the administrators have discussed it, we'll let you guys know in this thread what our decision is as far as whether to allow quotes or images of private e-mails like it. For now, please refrain from discussing any quotes or linking to copies of it until the administrators have come to a decision.

Thanks, everyone!

--NickTLC

So, this book was published before Deathly Hallows came out. Wouldn't that make it incomplete? I'm guessing there's no Teddy Lupin in this book (the A-Z book).

Something I don't understand from the RDR website. Looking at their FAQ section they say:

When will the Lexicon be published?
The 412-page Harry Potter Lexicon is scheduled for publication in late November. The entire book is drawn verbatim from the material that presently appears on Steve Vander Ark's website...

Then they say this:

A recently published article says Rowling's agents, the Christopher Little Agency, can't comment on whether the [i]Harry Potter Lexicon "would have really overlapped with J.K. Rowling's intended (Encyclopedia) because they haven't seen the book and this was why they wanted to review it." What is your reaction? [/i]
The 1,000 page plus Lexicon website, freely available for 7 years, makes it very clear what the print Lexicon would look like. Everything has been out in the open for years.

Then they added this:

Is the entire Harry Potter Lexicon websites in the book?
No, the book is 412 pages and does not include everything that is on the website. Attorneys for Warner Brothers and Ms. Rowling simply sifted through the website guessed what might be in the book and then alleged that these hypothetical sections are damaging the author. This is a good example of what happens when you sue to censor a book that you haven't read. The reason the plaintiffs did this is that they were trying to convince fans of the site that the book was in some way a violation of trade or copyright law which it is not.

Why didn't the plaintiffs wait to read the book before they sued?
Possibly because they knew that they couldn't win an injunction in court and that their best shot was to generate unfavorable publicity for the publishers and everyone associated with the book. The suit, filed on Halloween, was also designed to frighten the publishers and the authors.

Would it have been smart for Ms. Rowling to read the Lexicon before she sued?
Yes. Every law school professor will tell you that the last thing you want to do is to allege illegal action only to find out later that your complaint was not valid. Judges do not like this and it hurts your credibility on the witness stand.

And a spokesman had this to say in an interview with TLC:

RDR claims not to have given JKR’s people a copy of the book because “we don’t have a copy to give them…because the book hasn’t been published yet.” Asked why they didn’t hand over a manuscript, Mr. Harris said, “how would it benefit us in any way? This is the result of a barrage of letters from their lawyers in the last two months. Late i the game they came forward and wanted to see the manuscript, after they’ve been threatening to sue us and everything. How is it going to help us in any way to show them the manuscript except to provide them with more information. At this stage are they going to say, ‘Oh, we’re sorry?’ and go away? I don’t think so.”


It would seem to me that RDR is quite shady. Why would Steve want to be associated with these folks who claim that JKR/WB was jumping the gun by assuming what would go into the Lexicon, but RDR couldn't be bothered giving them an actual copy of the manuscript. Just print the site, duh. Well, wouldn't that lead one to believe that a lot of copyright infringment would be happening? How are JKR/WB supposed to know what's going in and what isn't if they aren't told specifically which pages will be in the 400+ book? This is straight up shady and I would hate for it to happen to any of the fan fic authors I know if they ever got a break with an original work. I'm rambling, but I just want to understand the logic behind these statements. I want to know how Steve feels about these conflicting thoughts.

Apparently, one thing that annoyed Warner Bros was being accused of infringing on the Lexicon's Timeline. You know, pot calling kettle black. There's certainly a lively debate about this point on other blogs and forums. And one can google it and get a sampling of theories. It would seem the Timelines are not identical and the alleged "proof" offered by HP Lexicon can be disputed because SVA's timeline theory involves inserting or deleting days of the calendar to make the canon fit a real calendar year. If one doesn't use SVA's imaginary days, the "proof" disappears.

Fandom depends on the generosity of the copyright/trademark holders. Fandom can't afford a lawyer to vet every posting. So Fandom usually is given some latitude by copyright/trademark holders and, when asked to take down a posting, Fandom usually complies and no harm is done. The HP Lexicon is very big and this unpleasantness makes it difficult for all the Fandom.

Apparently, one thing that annoyed Warner Bros was being accused of infringing on the Lexicon's Timeline. You know, pot calling kettle black. There's certainly a lively debate about this point on other blogs and forums. And one can google it and get a sampling of theories. It would seem the Timelines are not identical and the alleged "proof" offered by HP Lexicon can be disputed because SVA's timeline theory involves inserting or deleting days of the calendar to make the canon fit a real calendar year. If one doesn't use SVA's imaginary days, the "proof" disappears.

Well, I find the choice of a small Michigan publisher rather odd. I also think it curious that they were projecting a print run of only 5000 copies.

Jo made headlines in Britain when the US rights to the first Potter book were auctioned. Yes, a rights auction. Melissa interviewed Arthur Levine for Pottercast in 2006: read it here. It offers some insights into how publishing works.

Now, I mention this because, for reasons I don't fully understand, WB included the JKR's rags to riches story in the lawsuit they filed. Perhaps this is to counter what RDR is now portraying as a "David and Voldemort" battle. (I kid you not, they're implying WB/JKR are the Dark Lord to Roger Rapoport's David.)

But Voldemort??? That's right on the RDR webpage. Honestly, you'd think one would have seen enough Warner Bros cartoons to know where this kind of behaviour leads one.

I get the impression that RDR is running a badly managed public relations campaign, not a legal campaign. That is the only thing that makes sense. Actually, it doesn't make sense for them to do it, but it would explain the strange things that keep popping up on their web site.

How could RDR argue Copyright Abandonment when SVA has gone on record as always respecting Jo's copyright. That's kind of a Bait & Switch routine, isn't it?

Shard: You know what I find odd is that Steve even wants to produce an incomplete product, there are many entries that are not finished. Like how Ron hasn't been updated since OOTP and yet we have a Pius Thickness page.

The problem is the bad PR and their continued gaffes make them look like rank amateurs.

On October 31 Rowling and Warner Bros. asked for an injunction to halt sale of the book. This motion will be heard in federal court in Manhattan on November 19. RDR Books has repeatedly offer to settle this case to Ms. Rowling's satisfaction and publish the book.

Spot the paradox!

The following is from RDR Books' website:Did you spot the paradox?

Bonus point for catching a grammatical error.

JKR doesn't own 100% copy right to the meterial in her books.

Take, for example, the Weasley family, JKR choose to name them all after Arthurian legend. 90% of their names (Arthur, Molly, Charley, Bill, Percy, Fred, George, Ron and Ginny) are common domain and 10% (Weasley) is Copy righted.

This is ture for the witches/wizards and beasts. Most of which she took from history and mythology. The threads in Obcsure Books proves just how much JKR borrowed from other sources. So if you concidered what the Lexicon staff wrote themselves + common domain the book will not be a reprint of JKR's copy righted work at all. All of the definitions are the Lexicon's own interpretation or common domain.

I think although we have access to some of the information about this suit, we really still only have a small peice of the pie, and lets not forget, We are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

That's actually reserved for criminal trials, not civil ones. It's called the presumption of innocence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

This lawsuit between JKR/WB and RDR Books is a civil trial. That's a whole different animal.

Sorry, my point was how Steve himself has been vilified, and where Steve himself fits into all of this.
I realize that the suit at hand has not named Steve as of yet, but people have made him out to be a "bad guy" with out all the facts. He is being treated like a criminal.
Is he bad??? Could be
Did he make a mistake??? Could be

Thats my point we dont know, so he is innocent until proven guilty.

I realize that the suit at hand has not named Steve as of yet, but people have made him out to be a "bad guy" with out all the facts. He is being treated like a criminal.
Is he bad??? Could be
Did he make a mistake??? Could be

Thats my point we dont know, so he is innocent until proven guilty.

I agree with this. People are rushing to conclusions with a very incomplete view of the facts. All we have is two necessarily biased views from the publisher and Warner Bros. We don't really know what is actually in the book, nor anything about the relationship between Steve and his publisher, so there is probably much more to the story than we are aware of.

Given the number of times Harry rushes into conclusions without know the full facts (eg. Snape being after the Philosopher's Stone and Sirius being the betrayer of his parents) I would have thought HP fans would be a little more cautious about such things.

I do believe JKR has every right to protect what is hers, but The Lexicon staff has every right to be compensated for the work they have done. JKR has no right to use their reseach for her books/movies for free.

I do believe JKR has every right to protect what is hers, but The Lexicon staff has every right to be compensated for the work they have done. JKR has no right to use their research for her books/movies for free.

If WB copied the timeline directly from the Lexicon, that's plagiarism, and that's wrong. Whether they did or not, however, does not affect whether the Lexicon book does or does not constitute copyright infringement. Two wrongs and all that...

Actually just because right click is disabled doesn't mean (Crtl+C) isn't. Really I find it funny that they do that when the material really isn't there's to begin with.

Also again Steve did contact Jo, and was told No so really I feel this has been sneaky and underhanded that he went ahead anyways. Hopefully they can come to a amiable conclusion to all this, I certainly hope so.

Also again Steve did contact Jo, and was told No so really I feel this has been sneaky and underhanded that he went ahead anyways. Hopefully they can come to a amiable conclusion to all this, I certainly hope so.

I do believe JKR has every right to protect what is hers, but The Lexicon staff has every right to be compensated for the work they have done.

JKR has no right to use their reseach for her books/movies for free.

wow i learned something new
i learned about the right click because i wanted to open a new window on something and go t the message.
I hope it gets settled soon and nothing serious happens to fan sites, etc.

The armor worn by the 501st is all fan-constructed and distributed, and is usually made out of ABS, vinyl or fiberglass. As the costumes worn by the 501st are often not licensed Lucasfilm products, George Lucas can (and has) sought legal action on those who sell armor. However, LFL has sanctioned the wearing and presentation of the costumes providing that the participants are not reimbursed financially for their appearances, and that they represent the franchise in a positive and respectful manner. In 2005, George Lucas accepted an honorary membership from the organization.