'Where The Wild Things Are' Runs $32.4M 
Oscar Can't Always Get What He Wants 
NBC Bright Spot Of Lousy GE 3Q Earnings; 4Q … 
Oops! Vivendi May Delay 20% NBCU Sale? 
65 Nations Vie For Foreign Language Oscar 
Elle's Women In Hollywood Power List 
HOW BIG IS BIG? AEG Predicts Michael Jackson … 
Sane Debt-Reduction Move By Redstone; But … 
EXCLUSIVE: Comcast Wants NBCU Deal Done … 
U.S. Federal Judge Robert Patterson Jr ruled today in favor of J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros in their lawsuit against RDR Books' unauthorized Harry Potter Lexicon. The judge agreed with Rowling that fan Steven Vander Ark violated her copyright with his plans to publish a "Harry Potter Lexiconause and it would cause her irreparable harm as a writer of the 7-volume beloved novels. The reclusive Rowling traveled from Scotland to NYC in April to testify when she sued Michigan-based RDR Books last year to stop publication of the lexicon. Vander Ark runs the unofficial Harry Potter Lexicon Web site. J.K. Rowling today issued the following statement: "I took no pleasure at all in bringing legal action and am delighted that this issue has been resolved favourably. I went to court to uphold the right of authors everywhere to protect their own original work. The court has upheld that right. The proposed book took an enormous amount of my work and added virtually no original commentary of its own. Now the court has ordered that it must not be published. Many books have been published which offer original insights into the world of Harry Potter. The Lexicon just is not one of them." Warner Bros had this to say: "We are obviously pleased with today's ruling by Judge Patterson supporting the position that the proposed lexicon book infringes on Ms. Rowling's rights. As a content company, it is imperative that we work vigorously on all fronts to protect the intellectual property rights of those who create the stories and characters, words, pictures and music that entertain and benefit the worldwide audience." And RDR Books said about the ruling in the Southern District Of New York: "We are encouraged by the fact the Court recognized that as a general matter authors do not have the right to stop the publication of reference guides and companion books about literary works. As for the Lexicon, we are obviously disappointed with the result, and RDR is considering all of its options."
Lawsuit By J.K. Rowling & Warner Bros Starts In U.S. Court Monday
Loading ...
Wow, J.K., don’t you have enough money? Meanie!
Sounds like she needs to consult a dictionary. Unless she means that she was unhappy she had to bother to go to court to crush a small, underfunded author who wanted his analysis published instead of using a magic spell to make the problem “disappear.”
She’s fast becoming the George Lucas of the book world.
Wow. Imagine an author having the TEMERITY to want to protect her work!
Here’s a newsflash: Steve VanDer Ark did nothing creative or unique. He simply took Jo Rowling’s work and shuffled it into different order. There was no original critique, no original insight. That might actually require WORK.
Sometimes it takes rich people to defend poor people on the rare occasion when they share interests — the poor people in this case being all of us who try to earn a living creating. This case is, along with Harlan Ellison’s successful suit against AOL (when they did not remove the illegal posting of some of his stories), important for those who don’t want others exploiting their work w/o permission. This is why SAG, WGA and DGA don’t want to allow the unfettered licensing of film clips, and musicains don’t want their music sampled. It is not “fair use” when somebody constructs a whole work (emphasis on whole) out of somebody else’s creative efforts. So what if Steven Vander Ark is small and underfunded? Even small and underfunded people can ask permission. Remember when George S. Kaufman found out that a theatre had produced one of his plays without permission? He called the manager and the guy said, “But we’re just a small, insignificant theatre.” Kaufman responded, “In that case, you’ll go to a small, insignificant prison.”
If you all would do your research, you would understand why she took action to begin with…
The lexicon is already online for free. The guy wanted to publish it and make some dough.
Problem is, JKR had already announced that she plans to write her own encyclopedia, if you will, as a reference to her books… with all proceeds going to charity. Like she did with her two mini-books for Comic Relief.
She would prefer only one reference book be published, by her, for charity and not to fill just one guy’s pocketbook, who wasn’t even going to provide any original content in it to begin with!
Wow, $6k. That’s such a lot of money to JKR, too.
@Crow
The lexicon did not offer any analysis at all. It simply repacked Rowling’s work for a profit. And for the record, all proceeds from Rowling’s encyclopedia go directly to charity.
@Santayana
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were in possession of the manuscript and had read it.
Like you, I believe that a creator should be paid for their efforts. Unlike you, I don’t believe that an author has the right to block a reference book, for whatever reason, including large blocks of quotation. I think Ellison is jerk–so do a lot of people–but I respect his desire to paid for his work.
@Indil
Again, she shouldn’t have the right to block a reference work of any kind, for whatever reason.
Folks, this was just bullying, plain and simple. If any of you think she was looking out for all of the other authors out there, you are deluded.
This is definitely not a case of “rich meanie” vs. “starving proletariat”. This is “world renowned writer” vs. “fan who’s trying to mooch off of someone else’s creation, by publishing a work already available for free”.
For those who assume the little guy is in the right: would you like some schmuck to make money off of an original work you strove to create?
Oops, that already happens– it’s called Hollywood screenwriting.
Everyone knows JKR manipulated RDR into publishing the encyclopedia because she so wanted 6k!
Crow, have you read the opinion? You really should. It quotes extensively from the manuscript and explains in simple terms why it infringes on JKR’s copyright and fails the fair-use test. Please do try to make some effort to inform yourself before ranting about the subject.
@Crow:
There’s a difference between writing a reference, and lifting whole passages out of a work, and it’s not just called copyright infringement, it’s called plagiarism. SVA’s Lexicon lifted whole parts from the two companion book, Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, both by JKR herself.
But don’t just take my word for it. Read the judge’s decision yourself from the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/potterdecision.pdf
Crow –
Considering the manuscript was part of the court proceedings – submitted as Exhibits with RDR’s papers, and therefore available to be read on Justia.com if one took the time to do so (as I did last January).
If you bother to read the ruling, you’d see that you are correct – authors cannot block reference guides in general.
FYI JKR did not seek to ban or block “reference guides”. She sought to block this particular book because this particular book infringed her copyright. And the judge agreed – in the instance of THIS particular book.
But hey – one doesn’t need to be informed when spewing opinions.
Crow, you REALLY need to do your research. I’ve read the transcripts of the trial, and a staggering 98% of what he had was nothing more than copy, pasting and re-arranging. Plus he had information in the ah “reference book” that was absolutely wrong!
Crow –
You backed the wrong horse.
If JKR doesn’t stop this guy she opens the door to every plagerist who comes down the pike.
THE NEW YORKER had a piece on the trial a month ago which paints Van Der Ark as a complete knob, tries to talk to her while on the witness stand, etc.
Win the battle and lose the war: With this legal decision and Warner’s business decision to delay ‘half-blood prince’ it looks very, very callous.
Where was PR in the equation? The old adage of any publicity is good publicity is no longer true. Both JKR and Warners are lucky if angry fans don’t start scanning every HP page and pirating every HP film.
Crow,
Should we expect a “reference guide” from you in the near future?
Folks,
You can say I backed the wrong horse, or that I’m uniformed. I’ve read the opinion, and I still stand by what I say. This was bullying, plain and simple.
Is it plagiarism? I don’t think he ever said any of the creative work was his, just the collection and organization of the of the material.
Should Van Der Ark have rephrased every definition he included in the book, rather than using JKR’s words? Absolutely.
Would JKR still have gone after him if he had? I think so.
She says that this would have created a horrible trauma for her and she could never write another Harry Potter related book again if it were published. This is more about her need to maintain control than anything else. WB, more interested in their investment in IP than in anything else, were more than happy to lend a little legal muscle.
Not one of you believes, for a moment, that if she were to release a similar work, that it would fail to sell because of Van Der Ark. If you say you do, then you do not understand her draw as an author.
And before calling me anything more unpleasant than uninformed, just know that I have read and enjoyed all of her books. This was just tacky on her part.
While Ms Rowling might have won this copyright battle I am more than certain given the large amount of fan support Steven Vander Ark had online she may well have lost the war (for future $$$ from Harry Potter fans who will grow up and be less interested in her future output)
Metallica learned this one the hard way back in the mid-90s when it sued fans over illegally uploaded mp3s from its albums found on Napster and other Internet sites…in the long term it does not make sense to sue one’s core customers. Only now is Metallica starting to see pre-lawsuit levels of album sales and attendance at their concerts.
Just sayin’…
The people that think Steven Vander Ark is the victim in this case are the same people that will be attempting to rip off someone else’s work in the future just like that jackass. This case reaffirms the rights of the small much, much more than it does the rich and powerful and gives the inconsiderate the condemnation they deserve.
There have been thousands of instances where outside authors have created a lexicon of a popular work, with no claims of infringement by the original author. Putting a literary work in A to Z order, or chron, or whatever other indexing system the new author chooses to apply is original enough to satisfy the standards of copyright law. This case would be good for cert. where the U.S. Supreme Court will certainly reverse, by a vote of 5 to 4 of course.
I don’t care how rich she is. She’s right. it’s her creative work and it should be protected.
It’s nice to know some people were able to examine the materials in question. I was very curious whether Rowling was suing an authored concordance with references or a cut and paste job. Now I know!
As someone who knows Mr. VanderArk personally, the way the story goes down (after talking with him and a review of all the various case materials available online) is this…
As recently as 18 months ago when he was first approached by RDR to publish the Lexicon, VanderArk himself told RDR is would be a copyright issue to take the website and put it in book form. RDR’s legal hacks assured him that this was NOT the case and that the Lexicon could be published. VanderArk did NOT seek out a publishing deal. He was talked into it by the publisher. VanderArk was skepical of their claims as to the legality of publishing this in book format which is why he made sure he was protected legally from prosecution. RDR would assume all liability in this matter if this went to court.
And everyone keeps saying that JKR sued VanderArk… read the documents again. WB sued RDR Books. JKR and VanderArk were witnesses in the case and nothing more.
Everyone wants to talk about fact checking but so far, everyone here seems to have missed all those points.
As for VanderArk’s online fan support there is none. His name is mud in the fandom community as far as Harry Potter is concerned. He no longer is invited to speak at Harry Potter conventions… traffic to his website for the Lexicon has dropped dramatically. The only real support he has at all comes from his friends who have known him for over 20 years.
This case has ruined him and his reputation.
No amount of bickering here or on any other website is ever going to be able to change that.
“VanderArk did NOT seek out a publishing deal. He was talked into it by the publisher.”
That’s hilarious! EVERY participant on NBC Daateline’s “To Catch a Predator” makes this EXACT argument. I suppose that all people of ill repute have the same thought process and hence the same excuses.
I suppose another claim would be that this was his “first time” ever trying to monetize her (or anyone else’s) work. All of the guys on “To Catch a Predator” make that argument too.
“That’s hilarious! EVERY participant on NBC Daateline’s “To Catch a Predator” makes this EXACT argument. I suppose that all people of ill repute have the same thought process and hence the same excuses.
I suppose another claim would be that this was his “first time” ever trying to monetize her (or anyone else’s) work. All of the guys on “To Catch a Predator” make that argument too.”
Harold – Exactly the kind of comment I’d expect from someone who is probably watching “To Catch A Predator” to make sure his house isn’t under surveilance. Feel free to respond if you want to have an intelligent discussion and not a series of assassinine comments intended to make you feel superior.
If you go read the court documents at http://www.justia.com its all there. RDR Books and their represenatives admit to that much. Regardless of your snide comments, the facts are in the court documents. RDR Books talked VanderArk into the book deal. And for the record, I never said that VanderArk was without blame, just pointing out some of the “facts” that were missed by others.
Comment by Harold — September 9, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Well said Harold. I am glad Rowling won the case. There is justice in this world after all. It is after all an infringement of her materials. If Shakespeare is alive today, I am sure he too would have felt the same, knowing his very own idea was being used by others for their own personal gains.
Comment by Crow — September 9, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Crow, this is not the case about the big rich man versus the small poor man. It’s about the rights of the materials that belong to the one that owns it, the one who thought of it, and the one who painstakingly worked on it. Your views on this matter is simply un-uniformed and may I say, just plain uneducated..
“‘Should Van Der Ark have rephrased every definition he included in the book, rather than using JKR’s words? Absolutely’ “
How different is this from him doing the same to plagiarize the original material that was first and foremost created by Rowling?
“And before calling me anything more unpleasant than uninformed, just know that I have read and enjoyed all of her books. This was just tacky on her part.”
I think you’ve been reading the wrong book and def not any from Rowling. The one you’ve been reading is titled ‘How to steal ideas from others and then call them your own & attempt to sell it for millions’ by Steven Vander Ark
Comment by Biodredd — September 9, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
VanderArk should have known better than to ‘greedily’ agree with the publisher to even consider having his work published. Is he THAT stupid or naïve to think he will be doing it for nothing, that the publisher won’t charge a dime to those who bought it, that they both are not going to earn money from this scam? How stupid is he (I do think he is very actually) to assume that his work will be accepted by others as his own and that the owner of the material would gladly relinquish her rights over to him.
For someone who knows VanderArk personally, you should have warned him of this attempt to sucker on others work. What he did was unforgiving for a fan that he was and now is known as someone who was trying to get rich stealing from others.
He has no reputation to begin with, if not for Rowling books in the 1st place. What he has earned now is a reputation as a thief and no amount of sorry here or on any other website is ever going to change that.
This is a classic case of the biting the hands that feeds.
Comment by Rory L. Aronsky — September 8, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
She is the lawful owner of her work, just like Lucas whom thought of, created, wrote and directed Star Wars.
If not for people like Lucas, Rowling, Shakespeare and Stan Lee, we will never know and enjoy movies such as Star Wars, Harry Potter, Romeo and Juliet and X-Men.
So what is wrong with these people wanting to protect what is theirs? You’re telling me you are ok for others to gain from your hardwork and creativity? I wonder how you would react if someone were to take credit for your work.
Those who oppose to the owners of their materials not allowing it to be shared or copied by others, first you need to understand the term ‘copyright’. (www.whatiscopyright.org) Hopefully you will learn something there.
Armand – VanderArk was cautioned. He was warned by friends and family to not let the publishers manipulate him.
Again, I’m not saying he is without blame. He does play a role in the events that occured because of the decisions he made. I’ve never said he was without blame. I don’t believe that for a moment.
Its just that its so easy for people who have never met the man to say the most vile, hateful things because they are insulated by a computer screen. People get awfully brave when they don’t have to look someone in the face.
Ultimately all I really hope for is that VanderArk learned a valuable lesson and if there is a possibility of a next time he will take the advice of friends and family over a publisher that has nothing but dollar signs in their eyes.
Comment by Biodredd — September 10, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Right! So from now, we should get to know the thieves that stole from us, why they did what they did, pity them for their foolishness, for their mistake
He see it thru the end of the suit, hoping against hope that it would have gone his way.
Do I care to know what kind of person is he? Well, a blind, deaf or mute man can tell already. He is greedy and he knows it deep inside that what he did was wrong.
‘Its just that its so easy for people who have never met the man to say the most vile, hateful things because they are insulated by a computer screen. People get awfully brave when they don’t have to look someone in the face”
I have not see any apology from him to Rowling so far. Infact, in the midst of the trial, he should have known better to quit and drop the entire thing, for he is sure to be NOT that stupid. Why don’t he come out from hiding and offer an aplogy to all. The story would have been different then. His refusal to do this further proves a point, he knows what he did was wrong.
Educated people make educated and informed decision, based on the actions of the guilty. Those who needs to be see them in real life does more for curiosity sake rather than anything else.
Please show him this column. Hopefully he will learn and understand how he has dissapointed his many fans for his stupidity and greed.
By the way, I have no sympathy for the devil!
Armand -
“In fact, in the midst of the trial, he should have known better to quit and drop the entire thing, for he is sure to be NOT that stupid.”
It would be tough for him to stop the trial when he was simply a witness and not the party being sued. The lawsuit was between WB and RDR Books, not WB and VanderArk.
Have you actually read any of the transcripts or do you just go around throwing out uninformed opinions?
VanderArk made a mistake, yes. I agree. But he had no power to stop the preceedings in the capacity of a witness. Only the litigants have that authority.
RDR Books might have been able to stop the preceedings, but based on their steadfast attempts to see the book through to publication makes me skeptical that it was a consideration for them at all since they continued to try to sell the book overseas after numerous requests to not do so until the matter could be settled.
Steve VanDer Ark did nothing creative or unique. He simply took Jo Rowling’s work and shuffled it into different order.
No, even worse. He created a site and encouraged others to contribute their work, out of love for the characters and to (supposedly) feed the commons.
He then takes the countless man-months of others’ labor obtained under false pretenses, shuffles it over to a book publisher and tries to profit off of it. Keeping the money for himself.
…Hardly the actions of a struggling artist facing off against The Man. VanDer Ark is The Man. Just a poor, pathetic, thieving man.
I won’t even bring up the fact that Rowling’s Pottercyclopedia’s profits – all of them – go to children’s charities. So in addition to stealing from unpaid contributors, he’s stealing from underprivileged kids, too. Whoops, too late. I just did.
He’s a despicable worm wrapping himself around the false mantle of artistic freedom.