Hi everyone,

Since Part IV of this discussion has reached 50 pages we've closed it and opened this thread to continue the discussion. You can find Part I, Part II and Part III at the links just provided. You'll also find a thread titled "The Impact of this suit on Fandom" thread here.

We do ask that we all remember to remain calm, and fair in our discussion of this topic. We understand that this is a sensitive topic and just ask that before you post you look at your words with the eyes of an outsider.

Thanks everyone

This is a fairly long post, but I am trying to make some sense of the SVA/RDR vs. JKR/WB (Holy excessive acronyms, Batman!) case, as well as the many issues raised here in this thread.

Bottom line, there are two issues at stake here with the SVA/RDR case.

1) PROFIT: A website, like the Lexicon, does not cost a visitor/user anything. Even if there are ads everywhere, it's free to use. Whereas a published, printed book must be purchased. Maybe you can get one at a library, but it's unlikely to be so common as to find it in every local library, so you'd *have* to buy it in order to read it.

2) COPYRIGHT: Publishing the Lexicon book (which, despite conflicting accounts) is likely alphabetized encyclopedic information about the HP books. Which is, at its core, re-arranging content created and owned by JKR. (And while some may argue that publishing the Lexicon Book won't hurt a book published by JKR, given her worldwide success and popularity, one must take into consideration that allowing the Lexicon Book to be published may affect the rights of other less well-known authors and copyright holders who do not have JKR's success. Allowing the Lexicon to be published may set a standard for copyright infringement that could hurt others in future.)

(There's also the issue that the Lexicon book would be in competition with the official encyclopedia that JKR intends to create. Knowledgeable HP fans online may know about these nitty gritty details, but average people buying a gift for their child, grandchild, friend, co-worker, etc, won't necessarily know the difference. Buying the Lexicon Book would take away potential buyers of JKR's encyclopedia, the profits of which will go to charity.

On top of all that, the Lexicon (website and book) is bound to have inaccuracies in it, simply because Steve Vander Ark is *not* the authority on all things Harry Potter, JK Rowling is. I'm not sure whether or not that has any legal bearing in the matter, but it may not be that great for consumers who expect 100% correct information from an encyclopedia, and maybe JKR is entitled to protect consumers from that kind of misinformation and inaccuracy.)

It is clear, IMO, that Steve Vander Ark and RDR books are in the wrong by trying to publish such a book.

In the news post by Melissa, SVA's statement is quoted as saying the money made from Google Ads and Amazon links ($100-115/month) goes towards the costs of operating the website. In that same post, Melissa points out that the Lexicon is hosted for free by TLC.

As pointed out by Steve in his "What's New" update, helpfully quote in full by Melissa, website operating costs don't necessarily mean hosting costs. They can be things like software and books and other resources which may arguably be needed to maintain the site both in terms of technical needs and in terms of content and updating the site.

However, by including that note about TLC hosting the Lexicon, Steve interpreted that as Melissa indirectly insinuating that he was lying about where the money made from Google ads and Amazon links goes. I'd say that's an understandable interpretation, whatever Melissa's intentions were in restating that information at that point in the news post.

Melissa has made several long posts here explaining that she is bothered by the fact that Steve never asked if he could or should pay for hosting the Lexicon once he placed ads on the site. She finds this to be an act of disrespect.

Why? Because Leaky was doing them a favour by hosting the site for free. And in Melissa's view, once there was a change in circumstances (ie, ads on the Lexicon), SVA should have offered or asked if he should pay or contribute to the cost of hosting the Lexicon.

Melissa sees such an offer as an act of courtesy in an amicable working relationship. That, as she has pointed out, has little do with the legal issues at stake, but is important to her on a personal level. However, (n)etiquette in such matters isn't exactly universal: everyone knows CONSTANT CAPSLOCK is rude, but this is less common and more intricate. Steve may not have realized he was doing anything that Melissa would find hurtful or disrespectful, and there was nothing stopping Melissa/Leaky from discussing it with SVA, asking about the ads once she/they found out about them, and determining whether or not anything in their arrangement should change.

Since the issue of money (and what it is used for) was raised, SVA points out that compared to Emerson Spartz of MuggleNet (who allegedly makes a six-figure income off of all things MuggleNet), any revenue generated from advertisements on the Lexicon is fairly insignificant.

It appears as though SVA, in an attempt to defend himself, is convoluting the main issues at stake (Profiting off of the Lexicon Book and Copyright Infringement of JKR's work). Maybe he's trying to drag other websites that earn money (whether for profit or to "support the site") into the case, in order to better justify him making a profit off of his book.

I think that raises a very interesting point, which could have greater ramifications for fans and fandom at large. Websites like Leaky and MuggleNet have many ways of supporting their websites: through advertising on their sites and in their podcasts, selling t-shirts, merchandise, books, etc. Clearly, money gets produced by all of these things.

Emerson supposedly makes a substantial amount of money off of MN, and there's at least one article that reports Ben and Andrew as receiving a salary for their work at MN. Do salaries such as theirs count as profit, or supporting the site? It's hard to say. Paying staff to do the work that keeps things running could count as "supporting the site", but how does one draw the line between compensation and significant profit? Where and how does one decide who should be a paid staff member and an unpaid volunteer? That's a can of worms, I'm sure.

Does (or should) making money off of such a website count as copyright infringement? Both MN and TLC use images, videos, and information about HP on their websites. Both surely generate revenue from ads and selling merchandise. How much or how little of that revenue is needed to support the website's financial costs, and where does the leftover money (if there is any) go?

It could be argued that MN and TLC provide a news service and entertainment, and that they have every right to make a profit off of their websites. If so, they don't need to divulge any information about how much or how little profit they make and where or to whom that money goes. It's not our business, it's theirs. It may even be detrimental to such websites for financial information to be given to the public, especially if such a website draws popularity by presenting an image of being run by hardworking volunteers. (It may even be detrimental to the running of a site if there are a few paid employees and a large number of unpaid volunteers who are unaware that others working on the site are paid.)

So what does this all have to with our (former!) friend, Lexicon Steve? Is it arguable if that websites like MN and TLC can be legitimate profit-making businesses, maybe SVA/RDR has more of a case for profiting off of a book based on JKR's work? Again, I'm not sure. (I still think the point about a website being free to use, versus a book which one has to pay for, is very significant.)

A lot of fans put a lot of hard work and effort into various endeavours, and they do so without being paid. As a result, money is a very sensitive issue when it comes to fandom. A fan who makes money from their fandom work may be seen as breaking ranks and spoiling the fun (after all, if one person can make money off it it, why not you?). And as fans of something, concern for the rights of the creator's intellectual property arises as well.

However, if a fansite is not legitimate businesses, but instead a non-profit entity (which I believe The Leaky Cauldron claims to be?), don't they have a responsibility to be transparent about their finances? It is my understanding that a non-profit organization is meant to serve the public, so it may be in the public's interest to be assured that any profit made from such an organization is put to good and reasonable use.

In conclusion, the JKR/WB should win her case against SVA/RDR, and when it comes to fansites and money, it's very murky territory.

I'd like to add one more thing, if I may, after your excellent summary: Lexicon ownership.



That's not the first question I think of. The first question I think of is why Steve thinks that the work
of his many tireless associates is his to do with as he pleases, including publication. Not one word has
been said by him about compensatory agreements with these associates, because I suspect none exist. Also,
if he bases this supposedly assumed right to use the Lexicon material on his ownership of the site, again
in my mind I have to wonder if he does indeed own the site, or is he simply a webmaster and extremely
active volunteer who, much work as he did, has no actual rights of ownership over the content of the
site.

As far as I see, and have seen since the beginning, the only thing he has definite rights to
freely market is anything he wrote himself that is original- not quotation or paraphrasing of Jo's work
beyond a justifiable percentage, and not anything original to any of these tireless associates.

Maybe this is immaterial, however, it seems like a potential sticking point to me.

Also, isn't the issue of trademarks involved as well?

ETA:



I don't see why it should, in my opinion. Monies generated from, say, banner ads or click-through sales is money made by the site owner from their allowing use of their property- space on their domain and use of bandwidth they pay for- for a third party to advertise. The content of the website may be a reason for people to come to the site, which will then afford them use of these links and views of these ads, but that content is not what is being sold or what monies are gotten in exchange for. It's the privilege of being on the same page as this content for viewing. In RDR's case, however, the site content IS what is being exchanged for monies.

That is a very good point, indeed. If he wanted to publish a non-infringing book, a book of the Lexicon essays would be a great idea. (But in that case, many writers would be owed royalties, and not just SVA.) The encyclopedic work comes too close to regurgitation, rather than analysis.

Honestly, the best thing that Steve could have done when approached by RDR would have been to pitch his Harry Potter travel guide. At least the travel guide would have offered something unique. Showcasing the real locations where the books take place would have been interesting. Heck, he might have even been able to theorize about why a specific area was chosen by Jo for particular characters or places.

A book like that would have been transformative, since it would show the parallels between the real world and the HP one. And it would be something new, since as far as I'm aware, there aren't any books like it on the market. A repackaged, condensed version of the Lexicon site? Not so much. And when compared to the much more definitive encyclopedia that Jo could write, it's woefully incomplete.

It's a shame that SVA chose to try and publish the Lexicon site instead of something more original. If he'd gone with the travel guide, there might not be a lawsuit right now.

Hinoema - you write: "The first question I think of is why Steve thinks that the work
of his many tireless associates is his to do with as he pleases, including publication. Not one word has
been said by him about compensatory agreements with these associates, because I suspect none exist."
I wonder how that can be true, since apparently at least some of his associates are still helping him to run/update the HPL site? Also, I haven't heard anything about Steve's associates complaining about him or his treatment about them. Undoubtedly, however, there are things I don't know about the situation. Although SVA does not look very impressive to me at this point, it is nevertheless a measure of a person's character as to how his colleagues/"employees" (although I assume they're volunteers) treat him.

I know this is off-topic so please excuse me everyone ... I totally second the idea that SVA might write a travel guide to the HP world. It's a niche that is so far unfilled, as far as I know. If you are reading this, Steve, and if you can bear to do so when all this is resolved (in whichever way it happens), please consider the idea. I think you'd do a fascinating job and I for one would be glad to read it.

Right- that was definitely a 'to the best of my knowledge, from what's he's said publicly' sort of thing.

I just think it's odd that he seems to claim blanket ownership of the Lexicon site in it's entirety, considering, well, everything I do know and have seen. It's puzzling. It may be relevant to the case, as well, if it's brought up.

QUOTE(davidenglish @ Feb 14 2008, 12:58 AM)

I don't see that Melissa opened any doors to discuss things not pertaining to this lawsuit. [...] I don't see why Melissa should remain publicly silent about things that affect her and only comment in private while SVA can say whatever he pleases, whereever he pleases.

At the risk of sounding repeative and also in response to gypsyweasley's post with similar points, of course Melissa has the right to editorialize all she wants but as soon as she starts doing that, the claims of "neutral" and "unbiased" are no longer valid.

QUOTE(davidenglish @ Feb 14 2008, 12:58 AM)

I've bolded your comments about me above. I have been critiquing the manuscript of the 'lexicon' book. [...]
I take offense, however, at your claim that I have attacked the Lexicon staff. I defy you to show where I have done that.

I have seen posts in which you say that these are errors that occur on the website as well. I'm sorry that I don't have time to read through your many posts again. If I am remembering incorrectly, I sincerely apologize. If things are just copied and pasted from the website (of which I wouldn't be surprised), then I would guess that some of those things were prepared by Lexicon staff as well as SVA. And especially when you are talking about the website, I would think it would be considered a team effort and pointing out SVA's mistakes would also be pointing out staff mistakes. My main point is that you don't have to directly meantion "Lexicon staff" in a post in order for it to still be a slight to the Lexicon staff. I will also say again that it doesn't have to be said at Leaky in order for SVA's claim of insults to his staff to be true.

QUOTE(gypsyweasley @ Feb 14 2008, 01:15 AM)

Actually, there was a post shortly before Melissa's that copied Steve's blog exactly and put it on here. It's been frequently done before with Steve's comments on the blog from now and months earlier. So, personally, I think that it would have been discussed thoroughly as everything else seems to be done here. We respond to Melissa's post because it's Melissa. But we would have thought and discussed and posted about Steve's latest comments regardless. [...] Not saying who is wrong or right here, but I wish all there was to discuss was the case itself because that's what is truly important here.

I do agree that people would have talked about this no matter what but I believe Melissa's post is what changed the tone in how the update is discussed. SVA made a posts about a docement submitted to court. In my opinion, Melissa is the one that made it personal. I don't see anything wrong with responding to Melissa, as evidenced by the fact that I also have responded to Melissa. I do think that your comment that people respond to Melissa because it is Melissa highlights my earlier point that Melissa has a great reputation in the fandom and that people will immediately believe her accusations without evidence while SVA's earlier accusations about his staff being attacked are deemed unreliable.

Having no knowledge of the way the system works in the US appart from whats been said in this thread I have what may be a daft question. If it is I apologise. I am also trying to keep "personality" out of this as I do not want my question to be interpreted as getting at anyone, it is simply a request for information.

It is puzzling me but if in a case such as this one or more parties on on side of a case make public statements giving thier opinion on subjects germaine to the dispute could that action reach a point where a court would not accept them as a witness as thier evidence could be tainted by any response to the public statements?

my apologies if that is not clear I hope it is though.

I'm not sure how pointing out textual problems in the infringing book or even the on the website can be taken as a personal attack. I've read many of the update posts by the Lexicon staff and I think they're made of sterner stuff than that. And I certainly don't add slights to my critiques to make them personal.

Besides, this is not what SVA was talking about. He said "What has been the hardest are the personal attacks, blatant disinformation, and rushing to judgement that have been hurled our way." SVA said his staff had been "traumatized and disheartened". This refers, I'm guessing, to attacks about the infringing book. But, although one could certainly find attacks on SVA about his decision to go against Jo's wishes, one would be hard pressed to find a single slur against his staff.

Indeed, at the time this was posted, I asked if his staff had been consulted. What did they know and when did they know it? Did they approve? Did they sign releases? Did SVA indemnify them? Were they offered a share in the profits? Or, perhaps, were they as caught off guard as the staff at TLC?

I did not get an answer to any of those questions. And SVA did not provide any. Not on his What's New and not in any of the court submission. He implied that his staff wrote large parts of the infringing book. But, whereas WB/JKR's submissions contain a statement from Jo herself and from her editors, RDR Books offered no statement from the Lexicon staff, that elite team of librarians and scholars.

In theory, if SVA has no written waivers of copyright from his staff, they each might send RDR Books a Cease & Desist letter. Who knows? They may have done so. C&D letters aren't public documents. And, in the contract, RDR was indemnified by SVA against such claims made by people other than WB/JKR. What a mess!

I'd like to point out that SVA made the first claim about his finances in his court submission and on his What's New. For some unknown reason he's trying to claim that the Lexicon is a commercial venture. He's not very convincing. In one breath he says it's a commercial venture and then says he doesn't keep track of expenses and has never claimed it on his tax return. A very odd way to run a business!

If SVA wants to make a six-figure salary, I'm okay with that. But he can't do it by paraphrasing JK Rowling and saying it's his own creative work. He is writing a travel guide to HP places. I'm okay with that. He charges to lecture. I'm okay with that. If he wants to set up a website that has tons of ads, I'm okay with that. But he has to be upfront with what he's doing and why. And I expect him to be upfront with his staff and the fans about his desire to make a living off the creative work of others, not just in secret with some penniless publisher in Muskegon, Michigan.

It is puzzling me but if in a case such as this one or more parties on on side of a case make public statements giving thier opinion on subjects germaine to the dispute could that action reach a point where a court would not accept them as a witness as thier evidence could be tainted by any response to the public statements?

Actually, tgfoy, those public statements could be used to question or discredit them as witnesses. Anything that RDR/SVA prints or says can be brought into the lawsuit. In that regard, davidenglish hs made some excellent comparisons between SVA's self contradictory statements. Those statements certainly could be used to discredit SVA's testimony. I was once told by a fairly successful (non-criminal defense) lawyer, "I can defend anything as long as someone's telling the truth. Once you lie, it's over." SVA does seem a bit disingenuous in his statements.

At the risk of sounding repeative and also in response to gypsyweasley's post with similar points, of course Melissa has the right to editorialize all she wants but as soon as she starts doing that, the claims of "neutral" and "unbiased" are no longer valid.

Moriah: I think Melissa's trying to stay neutral and defend what she saw as allegations against her site. She let the readers know her response to a public statement posted by SVA; she admits she's trying to remain neutral despite a lot of personal knowledge. She's honest about having a bias that she's trying to keep that out of the stories. I think you've made your own bias and lack of neutrality clear. Pot meet kettle, you know how it goes.

We've already seen SVA throw his publisher in front of him to deflect the lawsuit. He's written a letter to another site attacking JKR. In one of the emails submitted by JKR's side, he makes a snide comment that can only be directed at Emerson. An agreement for the Floo Network was written into SVA's contract without consulting those in the network. The Lexicon site is part of the defense, raising a valid concern for those hosting the site. Why is Melissa wrong to worry that she/TLC might be dragged into this?

pointing out SVA's mistakes would also be pointing out staff mistakes. My main point is that you don't have to directly meantion "Lexicon staff" in a post in order for it to still be a slight to the Lexicon staff. I will also say again that it doesn't have to be said at Leaky in order for SVA's claim of insults to his staff to be true.

Ah, but part of the defense of the Lexicon book is that it points out all of JKR's errors which the defense claims JKR would never do herself. Again, it is SVA with his/his representatives comments who invite one to examine the validity of this statement. SVA is holding out the Lexicon and himself as the ultimate HP expert. So pointing out simple errors by the Lexicon is a valid response, not necessarily an attack. I do think it's a credit that the Lexicon site volunteers continue working despite all of this extra burden. Although, linden swallow, I wonder if they are loyal to SVA or loyal to the site, each other, and the fans.

(Holy excessive acronyms, Batman!)

Magicpants: Great line and great name! Your posts made me wonder if maybe profit is a huge motivator here. SVA quit his day job, for a variety of reasons and needs a source of income. He sees JKR rolling in dough; he sees Emerson making a good living and paying his staffers; he sees Melissa profiting and he sees other authors writing and publishing books. He has already been a paid speaker or comped guest at various conventions so perhaps he decided to parlay his hobby into a living. sort of a "Everybody else is making money off this. Why can't I?"

I intentionally made my own biases known from the beginning and never made any claim of neutrality so I don’t think the analogy applies.

I see the points everyone is making and I have reached the “agree to disagree” moment. I’m not ignoring any posts in response to me and will continue to read them but since I’ve already repeated myself and in an effort to avoid anymore beating of the dead horse, I’m going to try to step away from the discussion and just read what is said.

I am glad you realize there are slights directed at people in your posts but how else is anyone to take them who is on the receiving end of them? It is not a matter of sterner stuff, this debate is going on at other sites with even less civility than it is taking place here. After a while, it must get to you.

I am surprised that you think there are some ways that are moral and acceptable to earn a living off of Rowling 'scholarship'. That has been my biggest issue with this - that there are plenty who are doing the same. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, people who live in glass houses, etc.....
I loved your summary Magicpants, even though we don't agree on everything, we don't have to. It seems fairly balanced. There should be some transparency in non-profit organizations, if they are indeed non-profit.

Personally I see no problem with Melissa expressing her opinion on this. A simple "I'm speaking for myself here, this is my opinion..." and similar are quite sufficient.

I am still, to bring up past conjecture, wondering who this expert witness will be.

[quote name='wondering' date='Feb 14 2008, 01:38 PM' post='1541940']
It is puzzling me but if in a case such as this one or more parties on on side of a case make public statements giving thier opinion on subjects germaine to the dispute could that action reach a point where a court would not accept them as a witness as thier evidence could be tainted by any response to the public statements?

Actually, tgfoy, those public statements could be used to question or discredit them as witnesses. Anything that RDR/SVA prints or says can be brought into the lawsuit. In that regard, davidenglish hs made some excellent comparisons between SVA's self contradictory statements. Those statements certainly could be used to discredit SVA's testimony. I was once told by a fairly successful (non-criminal defense) lawyer, "I can defend anything as long as someone's telling the truth. Once you lie, it's over." SVA does seem a bit disingenuous in his statements.

Many thanks Wondering that clarifies my query.

I don't think there is going to be an expert witness, as that was in connection with RDR viewing Jo's notes and information on the Scottish book, and the judge rejected their request to see them.

Very nice post, magicpants. Very fair and balanced, a rarity around here.

Actually, this isn't true. Either copyright is violated or it isn't--the issue of whether or not money is being made off of it is irrelevant. It would affect damages only. That is a common misconception, though. People think that just because money isn't being made that they're okay. Not so. Therefore, JKR's argument that selling the book is a copyright infringement but the online Lexicon is not is incorrect. It's all or nothing--if the book violates, so does the website, if indeed the entire text of the book was lifted from the site. She can't look benevolently on the site but not the book...and the question becomes, did she waive her rights by allowing the website?



That is debatable. Copyright owners now have a stranglehold on their works. Allowing the Lexicon to be published will not relax the standards for copyright. The internet has done that all by itstelf. Everywhere you look on the internet are copyright violations, including thousands right here at LL. Just to this point in the thread, I've counted several.


This is BS, in my opinion. First of all, the encylcopedia hasn't been started yet. There is no indication as to when we might expect such a project. To claim that Steve's book will interfere with profits when her book may not be published for 5 or 10 years is absurd. And the charity argument is lame, too. If she cares so much, why wait to write the book? She's got more money than the Queen--she can donate some now.

This is about power, and no mistake. Philanthropy has nothing to do with it.


I'll bet a hundred galleons that any encyclopedia of JKR's would have had the same mistakes as the Lexicon. It's my guess that she intended to copy and paste right from the Lex into the encyclopedia. Not all of it, certainly, but lets face it, the Lex is one of the best resources for HP mania out there. It may not be 100% accurate, but neither is Encyclopedia Britannica.



If Melissa felt she was being disrespected, she should have contacted Steve and asked him to pay his share. It's not that difficult to do. You pick up the phone and do it. I think a lot of this could have been avoided had there been better communication.


No, that isn't what he's doing. What he's saying is that the pot is calling the kettle black. If he's being ripped to shreds because he chose to attempt to make a living off of the Lexicon, which is run by volunteers, then he is not the only one. Emerson has admitted that he makes a nice living from MuggleNet--the last I heard it was six figures. The same applies to others...maybe not quite as much, but enough to make a decent living. You don't quit your day job to run a website full time unless you're pulling in some serious cash--at least the amount you were making before. Quitting your job without an alternate cash flow doesn't make sense.

When did Steve quit his job? Not long before he moved to London, I'd wager. It's not like he quit last year or two years ago. He wasn't making enough money to justify it, it's plain and simple. Others within the fandom have been more fortunate, and it's a pretty good guess that Emerson isn't the only one.


My guess is that it depends on the tax status of the organization. You can file non-profit but still be required to pay tax, or you can be non-profit and tax exempt. I believe those records must be disclosed. If you are registered as a for-profit, I'm not so sure. However, here's the rub with that. If you are registered as a for-profit and an LLC, is your staff considered employees? If so, should they be paid?

An entity that's designated as an LLC must make that public. If it's an Inc., it can be either S Corp or C Corp. If it's an S, it's probably taxed like an LLC. Sorry, it's been years since I had business and media law; I might be wrong.

The whole purpose of a non-profit, as I stated in the last thread, is to ensure than no one person or shareholder accumulates all the money.


No, it isn't. And Steve is not a former friend. He is still a big part of the fandom. Just because he doesn't toe the party line and sing to JKR's Tune of the Month doesn't make him a fan's enemy. He is doing what most people would do (and are doing)--and it's too bad that people aren't honest enough with themselves to admit that.

Oh, I thought the expert witness was Professor Janet Sorensen. She gave that strangely irrelevant and muddled statement regarding lexicons. She makes much of Sir Walter Scott who offered his own references yet did not contest other works about his books. She points out that Scott was an "avid protector of his copyright" and goes on to expostulate about the value of other reference works over his. I imagine she would be called upon to cite the superiority of SVA's work to JKR's.

Much of Sorensen's text cites examples dating from the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Yes I know "we do well to remember that as far back as 1710 the Statue of Anne had established new, important terms of authorial copyright" but wouldn't it be more relevant to dwell on examples produced under modern copyright laws rather than mention them in passing? When comparing between the Narnia and Middle Earth reference works she distinguishes between collaborations with the author/copyright holder and independent works. However, she doesn't mention whether those "completely independent productions" received permission from the copyright holder. In fact, the Robert Foster book thanks Christopher Tolkein for his help. To me, that implies permission sought and granted.

After reading her paper several times, I concluded that Sorensen is their expert on the scholarly value of lexicons. I assumed(!) that Sorensen would examine JKR's notes and then offer an example as to whether SVA's work would differ substantially or offer a valuable viewpoint unavailable to the author.

I think you should be asking the same question of other sites before you cast that stone, Hinoema. I think you'll find that others aren't paying their "associates" either. Or if they do, it's only a few of them, and the others don't know about it.

If Steve created the Lexicon, chances are good he owns it. Not necessarily, but that would be my guess. The domain name www.hp-lexicon.org is registered to Melissa, but that could just be the fact that she hosts it and if she's paying for it, it would explain why it's registered to her.


Well, if they are loyal to Steve and their work, any slight against Steve or the Lexicon could be construed as a slur against them.



Again, don't cast that stone without being sure of what you're saying, davidenglish. You're once again vilifying him without considering that there are plenty of others who have done the same thing. Where is the criticism for them?


I agree.

why do you care that JKR is rich? Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they lose their rights. And she has donated huge sums to charity (like the 30 million from the 2 companion books, plus Beadle the Bard, plus founding the childrens charity), etc.




Where did this assumption come from? What's your evidence? Why make an accusation which you cannot in any way substantiate?
As for the lexicon being one of the best HP resources, some of us would strongly disagree.
Harry Potter has never been a collaborative effort for JKR. If she needs some help with something, I would imagine she asks those whom she knows, like someone from Bloomsbury or Scholastic.

Well, I'm not sure who, beyond SVA or RDR Books, I have directed "slights" at. My harshest words were directed at Roger Rapoport, who truly seemed like he stepped out of an Alan Ayckbourn farce. My comments on SVA have actually softened over the past three months --though I'm sure no one has noticed-- but I've become more pointed in my criticism of the actual logic of his words.

There is a huge difference between personal attacks and deliberative criticism. One might be shocked to hear SVA accused of greed, but the desire of RDR Books to make a quick buck is actually in the Complaint. SVA has made a number of statements regarding this case that conflict with either words he has said elsewhere or with his actions; It is not mean and petty of us to point this out.

Over eight years SVA carefully built up a reputation as a loyal Harry Potter fan who championed the author and her books. He provided a wonderful interactive website, he was a popular speaker at conventions, and he was publicly praised by JKR and the people around her. But in three short months he's thrown that all away. And I don't doubt he wonders how it happened. Well, he tried to rebrand. He tried out a new persona and, like New Coke, it wasn't popular. Can he go back to Lexicon Steve Classic? I wish it were that simple.
Um, of course there are moral and acceptable ways to earn a living off of scholarship. Don't you think so? It's called education. The whole point behind a Fair Use defence is that education and scholarship are considered valuable aspects of our culture. SVA is free to pursue this avenue. He could write a series of books about Harry Potter if he wanted to and, as long as he knew he was within the bounds of Fair Usage, he'd not be sued.

When you say "there are plenty who are doing the same", I take it you mean "scholarship" in quotation marks, that is, immoral and unacceptable. I don't think there are. Emerson Spartz hasn't done anything illegal. Indeed, he was going to publish an encyclopedia similar to the 'lexicon' book, but he was asked to pull it and he did. Guess what? No frontpage headlines, no attacks on that "copyright hog" from the NYTimes, no fans firing volleys of abuse back and forth. Nope. Instead, MuggleNet thrives.

It's understandable if some people are possessed by the green-eyed monster. If SVA had wanted a website like MuggleNet, he could have created one. He didn't. He wanted something on a much smaller scale that would satisfy his hobby of cataloguing and indexing. It was a point of pride with him that his website carried no ads. And it earned the respect and indulgence of JKR, her publishers and Warner Bros because it was so very non-commercial.

Do not make the mistake of attacking me, Jeyelan. Attack my argument. I personally don't care if she's rich or not. She's written 7 bestselling books and obviously deserves that. What I object to is hiding behind a facade of sweetness and light. If she wants money, she should just say so.


Because for all these years she's loved the Lexicon. She called it "her second home." She gave it a Fansite Award. All of a sudden it's not okay? Yes, yes, I know the reason, but I think there's more going on here than meets the eye. Do you really think JKR would say that outright?


You do now. Now that it's obviously on the outs with JKR. I can't help but wonder how many people loved it prior to this lawsuit.

I loved, and still do love, the HP Lexicon...online. It's an outstanding resource, and has helped me out more times than I care to count. It's convenient, and free. My objection is over a for-profit book. My objection has never been, nor will it ever be, over the website. I'm not even sure I'd be upset if he charged membership to use his site. What JKR/WB object to, from my understanding, isn't even that SVA wants to publish an encyclopedia...it's that SHE wants to do it, for charity. And she sees the "competition" as potentially damaging to her effort. Since it's her IP, I don't blame her, and that's why I support her side on this case. But I will always be supportive of the HP Lexicon online...even if I lose respect for it's webmaster along the way.

Asking why you care about JKR's personal income is not an attack. It's a valid question. Your whole argument seems to drip with righteous indignation that anyone should be so vulgar as to *gasp* earn a living making money. And saying she's hiding behind a facade of sweetness and light is a personal attack that is without merit.

Good heavens! Were you out of the room when this "all of a sudden" happened? It's called a print version of the website that's to be sold at a profit without the consent of the copyright holder. SVA made the first move, not JKR. And, last time I check Jo's website, the HPLexicon still had her Fansite Award and the praising blurb. I think your Timeline is in need of adjustment.

Actually, it is entirely within her rights to allow a fansite to exist and still contest the publishing of said website. Copyright allows the holder to determine what medium their works appear in, who can distribute those works, etc. If she says her books may appear in audio format but not ebook format, that is her legal right. If she says her books may be copied into every language with the exception of *insert language here* that too, is her right.

Jo allows fanfiction/fan art on the net so long as it is family friendly. If not, C&Ds are sent whenever inappropriate images and stories are located, and the offending material removed. Some Potter sites have been closed due to copyright issues. Some HP domain names have been surrendered due to copyright issues.
I disagree. Use of copyrighted material for the purposes of commentary/discussion is not a violation of copyrights. Simply because the internet makes it easier to violate copyright doesn't make it any more legal to do so or give anyone the go ahead to do so without fear of reprisal.
It does not matter whether the Scottish book has been started or not. For years Rowling has made various statements of intent to publish it. In fact, in a post from 2000, Steve himself comments upon it and expressed the wish that he could be part of it.

If just one person opts to purchase his book rather than hers [as quite a few of Steve's supporters have claimed they will do], then that does affect her sales. According to court documents, a study shows that 38% would purchase the book thinking it was endorsed by Rowling while 55% would have assumed it to have been written by JK herself, that IS significantly misleading as to be financially damaging.

It does not matter what she intends to do with the proceeds of the books. What matters is how her sales could and would be affected by a book that infringes upon her works.
This is indeed about power and philanthropy, but not on Jo's part. She's exercising her legal rights to protect her property.
That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Now show me one instance where Rowling herself has copied anything from the Lexicon, and please not the timeline thing. That would have been WBs doing and not Rowling.
Melissa should not have to force a colleague and friend to do the right thing. He's a big boy and he's responsible for his own actions. Should there have been a dialogue about it? Yes, I think so. Should it have been fleshed out more, from a legal standpoint? Yes, most definitely! Should he, at any point in the past six months have informed Melissa and the other Floo Network webmasters that he intended to use links to earn profits for himself and RDR via links in the Floo Network. Absolutely!!!! Why should that information come out of the blue, a complete and utter shock, a slap in the face---from court records and NOT from the man himself? I noticed he didn't even attempt to address that issue.

Emerson did admit he makes a nice living off of his site, this is true...a six figure income. He also stated in that interview that the overhead for operating that site is *gasp* a six figure amount {$125,000 + per year}. He also has a lot of advertising links, as well as a successful book that was published, and other things that have been sold via his site. That makes the bulk of the income, I'd wager. I'd also point out that Mugglenet has received lots of C&Ds for WB/JKR and have worked with WB/JKR to find a solution, even if that solution means removal of merchandise offered or stopping publication of intended books because of infringement issues.

Also, it's important to note that neither TLC or Mugglenet are selling the contents of their sites, unlike the Lexicon website.
Steve may not be a former friend to you or his other supporters, but a majority of the fans believe otherwise. I don't consider him a friend. I won't purchase his book [in the highly unlikely chance it is published]. I personally will never attend another conference that includes Steve in attendance. I've boycotted the Lexicon site on principle.

I disagree that Steve is doing what others are doing. What others have done have not violated Jo's copyrights. What others have done have been original works of true analysis not slavishly copied text and paraphrases from books/interviews arranged in alphabetical order.

But this is about the legal, not personal, aspects of the case. I can certainly understand why people would be angry and hurt, but that's not what this thread is about.

But, Arianhrod, you seem to be making this very personal. Whether you agree with davidenglish or disagree, his posts about SVA's contradictory staments are backed up with the citations. This does go to the heart of the case, SVA's credibility. Many of the other posters are using the court documents or SVA's postings to strengthen their statements. These are not personal attacks as much as professional criticisms.

This is about power, and no mistake. Philanthropy has nothing to do with it.
It's my guess that she intended to copy and paste right from the Lex into the encyclopedia.

These unfounded statements are more along the lines of personal attacks directed against JKR. If you can offer proof, I'd consider them differently. How are these statements any different than the comments against SVA? He wanted to be a BNF and make money off his reputation in fandom. He knowingly embarked on a course that challenged JKR's next project. (Choice and taking responsibility for those choices, it's a big theme in the series.) He and his publisher refused to modify the book until after lawsuits were filed. Steve has chosen a course and there are consequences.

If he's being ripped to shreds because he chose to attempt to make a living off of the Lexicon, which is run by volunteers, then he is not the only one.

Again, this is your personal view of what is going on here. I have no problem with him making a living off the Lexicon site. In fact, the comments about Emerson and Melissa prove that it's a viable option. However, taking someone elses work, repackaging it and selling it as your own offends me (and apparently other posters).

Either copyright is violated or it isn't--the issue of whether or not money is being made off of it is irrelevant. and later
To claim that Steve's book will interfere with profits when her book may not be published for 5 or 10 years is absurd. And the charity argument is lame, too. If she cares so much, why wait to write the book? She's got more money than the Queen--she can donate some now.

More personal attacks. But if the issue isn't who is making money and how much money stand to be made, why raise it? Why is okay for Steve to want to make money from this venture but not okay for JKR to raise the issue of money?

You don't quit your day job to run a website full time unless you're pulling in some serious cash--at least the amount you were making before. Quitting your job without an alternate cash flow doesn't make sense.

When did Steve quit his job? Not long before he moved to London, I'd wager. It's not like he quit last year or two years ago. He wasn't making enough money to justify it, it's plain and simple. Others within the fandom have been more fortunate, and it's a pretty good guess that Emerson isn't the only one.

Yes, quitting your job without an alternative income source doesn't make sense. Yet, Steve appears to have planned to move to England and continue teaching, at least from the one email he sent to Emma. He explains that plan didn't work and requests employment with JKR. So he was planning to quit his job long before he planned to write this book. Again, he made a choice to quit his job and move before settling his income issue. Why is that anyone's problem but his? If someone from a lower economic level came to your house and began to remove your possessions and money, you would object. If they told you they were taking your things because you had too much, you would call the police and file charges. That's the same way I see this case. SVA went to JKR's house and stole her property. Of course, the courts might rule differently and, depending on their reasoning, it might change my opinion.

Lastly, you accuse many here of slavish devotion to JKR. You, to me, seem over-embracing of SVA. I'm not trying to be inflammatory...that's just the way I read your position. Perhaps you too have a history of which I am unaware. Perhaps you are nothing more than an outsider crusading for a perceived underdog. You talk of throwing stones while standing in a glass house.

Hi Everyone,


First, I've changed the name of this topic to reflect the entire topic at hand.

While I understand we all might have to agree to disagree on our thoughts/feelings on this case, please remember that this thread is to discuss this merits of law in this case and to discuss our opinions on this law.

This is not a thread to call out members who have opinions that differ from your own. We will continue to use this thread to discuss the facts from the case, those involved, and any breaking news about the case.

Thanks for being so understanding,

Doris

I think that is a misunderstanding of the book Jo intends to write (in fact this is one of the places where I think JKR/WB's case is wrong, as these books aren't really direct competitors except possibly in the "confuse one book for the other" market which will be very small). She won't be using the Lexicon (except possibly for the occasional crosscheck) because her book will mostly be stuff that isn't in the Lexicon because it hasn't been in the books, and thus she will mostly be working from her own notes.

Well, I think there is some point to JKR/WB's issue. If the Lexicon is issued, as seemed to be intended, as a definitive encyclopedia of all things Harry Potter then that does, on the most basic level, stand in direct competition with The Scottish Book which obviously has the same general description.

From JKR's description of her intended book, hers will be far more thorough, will include a great deal of information unavailable to SVA and will be (at least to me) more interesting because of its covering of evolving story lines and of character back stories.

However, the point for the legal case seems to be that both are simply encyclopedic references of the Harry Potter world. In this simplistic view then yes, the Lexicon is a direct competitor.

Personally I don't think it's a major point in the case. I think the issue of intellectual rights, of copyright is far more important. Money is a side issue. This is about the right of an artist to their creative work. As someone said above, this case is important not only for JKR but for other artists who do not have the ability, the money and the power to fight for what is theirs.

Righteous indignation? That's rich, DE, coming from you of all people.

I don't care how much money JKR makes. Why would I? She's obviously earned it and I doubt anyone begrudges her that. And as far as saying that I think anyone should be so vulgar as to **gasp** make a living, that's what you've done to Steve. It is exactly the same thing.


The fact that the fansite award is still up is totally irrelevant. That would be like stripping an athelete of a gold medal before the test results are in.

"All of a sudden" means that as soon as she found out that Steve was publishing a book it wasn't okay. There hasn't been a good thing to say about it since then.


Professional criticisms from non-lawyers?

I'm not making this personal. In between all of the so-called "legal" posts are personal criticisms directed at a man who, although naive, isn't a monster. I fail to see how I've made it personal yet others can say similar things--only it's Steve they're talking about, so it's okay.


I'm not saying they are. But notice I did say, "My guess is [...]" I at least never stated it as fact.


Hmm. Wait a second. You're upset that Steve wants to make money by selling his book, but it doesn't bother you in the least that other people are also profiting off of the success of HP?


I can't answer that. I have no idea but a BFN is.


Because they didn't have to. A Cease and Desist is not a court order that forces them to do anything.


I think the judge will decide that. With all due respect, whether you're offended or not isn't the issue.


I didn't raise the issue of money and nor did I say it was wrong of JKR to bring it up. I don't know where you got that from. That was brought up in the last thread. But for the upteenth time, if Steve is going to be criticized for turning this into an opportunity to make money, others must be leveled with the same charges. He's being singled out while no one asks, "Hey, who else is profiting off of JKR's hard work?" Why is wrong for Steve and no one else? I fail to see the logic in applying this to him and only him.

Whoa, wait a minute. That's an unwarranted assumption from what I can tell. You say, "He planned to move to England and continue teaching" and then you say, "He was planning to quit his job long before he planned to write a book." That doesn't make any sense and you're contradicting yourself. Your second part doesn't follow the first. Obviously, when you move you either transfer or quit your job...and the fact that he planned to continue teaching tells me that he wasn't planning to quit his job altogether. He was quitting in order to move, not to jump into the Lexicon full time. And the reason is probably because he didn't make enough money from the Lexicon to do it.




An outsider? Look at my post count, wondering, before you say that. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

If I have a history, you are quite free to look it up. I won't even send you a Cease and Desist.

Can we please just stop all the personal attacks directed at specific people on this thread, like DorisTLC asked? It's getting old. Real old. We're getting nowhere in this discussion.

This would be a good time for me to thank whoever posted the link to the site outlining 'Bloom's Taxonomy'. It's a fascinating reference, and very apropos, I think.

My main interest at the moment is how Judge Patterson will apply the tests of fair use- in what proportion- and what the outcome will be. I have a feeling these other factors that have been discussed may only be particularly relevant if this step doesn't yield a definitive position on the viability of the Book Lexicon as a publishable work.

I second Hinoema's post....I'd never heard of the Bloom's Taxonomy, and I found it very interesting.

And I don't know if anyone's done this yet, but have any of the lawyers out there took a look at the actual cases that RDR cited in their response to see how relevant they are to this? I remember one particular lawyer (and, I'm sorry I don't remember who that was) saying that they thought RDR had a chance after reading the response and I wondered if that was based off the cases they cited or their argument re: Fair Use. The only cases that I actually looked up were the ones about the Seinfeld book (disallowed) and then the parody book of Gone with the Wind (which was allowed, but the authors had to pay damages to the Mitchell estate).

And Happy Valentine's Day, everyone...love thy neighbor and all that, right?

I've read quite a few of rulings cited, but disagree that RDR has a chance because of any of them.

The Pickett vs. Prince ruling is a strong case precedent in favor of WB/JKR.
http://www.projectposner.org/case/2000/207F3d402/

Well, although Jo has joked that her encyclopedia might not be published for ten years, she actually began work on it 17 years ago. All those notebooks filled with backstory, plot points, character studies and the like are as much rough draft material for the encyclopedia as they were for the novels. Indeed, the book she described on PotterCast would seem to incorporate much of this unused material from the past 17 years. So I think when she has started or when she'll finish the Scottish Book is irrelevant. An encyclopedia is a Derivative Work and so only Jo can license a rival to her own.

It is also irrelevant to this discussion how much JKR makes or how much is made by other websites. It's irrelevant whether staff are paid or unpaid, full-time, part-time or volunteer. The question is whether a site is a commercial venture and, if it is, does its content infringe on JKR's copyrights and/or WB's trademarks. If it does infringe, it then is a question of whether that infringement is tolerated or whether the site owner is willing to make changes upon request. MuggleNet has an encyclopedia, but all advertising generated from those pages goes to Amnesty International.

I am confused by the paradoxical attitude toward the commercial nature of the infringing book. I hear defenders say It's okay to make lots of money off it because everyone is doing it or It's okay because he wouldn't really make much money. I have nothing against SVA making money. I just think he has to earn it off his own creative efforts.

Paraphrasing JKR's work is not creative. When David Langford did a quick check of the HPLexicon website, he thought the direct quotation used by HPL on Dumbledore's entry was "risky" and that an expanded page on Dumbledore contained a "suicidal" amount of direct quotation. He found the 'lexicon' book to have less than the "risky" amount, but he called it "fragmentary". He wasn't checking for indirect quotation or paraphrasing.

SVA and his staff have worked hard to provide fandom with a useful quick reference on Harry Potter and his world. We all appreciate that. But it isn't scholarly and it's not transformative. That's okay in a free fan website. I have no problem with DH10 as a reference on the HPL. However, that's not acceptable in an academic reference work.

In order to earn a living from his knowledge of Harry Potter, SVA has to transform that knowledge into something that shows his own creative and original contribution. Simply changing the story from a narrative arc to an alphabetized catalogue doesn't cut it. I'm sure SVA's friend John Granger would have been more than happy to explain to him how to write a companion book that was both legal and popular.

And, again, accusing Jo of being hypocritical is not fair. I quote from her website:And also:I have bolded the sentences to indicate that JK Rowling is perfectly aware that some books about her world are perfectly legitimate without her permission. She also doesn't insist that the book need be quashed. She only speaks of the book "in its present form". There is no reason to think that a negotiated settlement could not have been reached. After all, there are many companion books on the market. That RDR Books didn't want to wait for a revised and rewritten guide to Harry Potter by SVA is truly sad. It's even sadder that SVA didn't press RDR to wait for a revised book. I mean, the contract allowed for up to a year until publication.

The following is OFF TOPIC, but I had to address the information in the following quote.
The following quote is from Arianhrod


An entity that's designated as an LLC must make that public. If it's an Inc., it can be either S Corp or C Corp. If it's an S, it's probably taxed like an LLC. Sorry, it's been years since I had business and media law; I might be wrong.

The following are excerpts from the IRS website:
What is the difference between non-profit and tax-exempt status?

Non-profit status is a state law concept. Non-profit status may make an organization eligible for certain benefits, such as state sales, property, and income tax exemptions. Although most federal tax-exempt organizations are non-profit organizations, organizing as a non-profit organization at the state level does not automatically grant the organization exemption from federal income tax. To qualify as exempt from federal income taxes, an organization must meet requirements set forth in the Internal Revenue Code. See Types of Tax-Exempt Organizations or Publication 557 for more information.
A limited liability company (LLC) is an entity formed under state law by filing articles of organization as an LLC. Unlike a partnership, none of the members of an LLC are personally liable for its debts. An LLC may be classified for Federal income tax purposes as if it were a sole proprietorship (referred to as an entity disregarded as separate from its owner), a partnership, or a corporation.
Employees of all LLCs are subject to withholding taxes.

Some corporations may meet the qualifications for electing to be S corporations. For information on S corporations, see the instructions for Form 1120S, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation.

An eligible domestic corporation can avoid double taxation (once to the shareholders and again to the corporation) by electing to be treated as an S corporation. Generally, an S corporation is exempt from federal income tax other than tax on certain capital gains and passive income. On their tax returns, the S corporation's shareholders include their share of the corporation's separately stated items of income, deduction, loss, and credit, and their share of nonseparately stated income or loss.

Sorry for the long post, the IRS is not known for brevity. If anyone wants to start a thread about the various tax statuses I will be glad to participate after May 15. To check the above excerpts, just to www.irs.gov. The search engine is pretty good.

The LLC staff issue: my understanding is that staff would be considered employees whereas owners are considered members.

Does it show that I’m a Tax Accountant?
Vicky

Sorry for double-posting, but rotfang07 posted the following just before the flames errupted. I think it is very good tongue in check humor & I think we all could do with a chuckle right now


Fantastic post. How does one become a member of the MLIB?

edited to merge two consecutive posts

extreemly detailed, but still able to almost (but not quite) make my eyes glaze over.

Nope, your not a Tax Accountant, I'm still awake after reading all that.

I promise to do a long post - at least two pages - after tax season. IRS regulations & rules & the Tax Law behind them are great cures for insomnia

I read the posts to re-awaken my brain after reviewing tax worksheets & tax returns.

<