Harry Potter Lexicon trial date
p2pnet news | Freedom:- By way of an update to the JK Rowling / Warner Bros Entertainment vs Steve Vander Ark’s Harry Potter Lexicon case, New York federal district court judge Robert Patterson has scheduled a trial for March 24, 25 and 26, says RDR Books, the would-be hard copy publisher.
Says RDR in a statement >>>
The judge consolidated a previously scheduled injunction hearing with the trial. The plaintiffs want to block publication of librarian Steve Vander Ark’s Harry Potter Lexicon. Here is the RDR Books statement on the case:
In this action, a distinguished and tremendously successful novelist demands the suppression of a reference guide to her works. J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, asserts that this reference guide infringes both her copyright in the seven Potter novels and her right to publish, at some unidentified point in the future, a reference guide of her own. In support of her position she appears to claim a monopoly on the right to publish literary reference guides, and other non-academic research, relating to her own fiction.
This is a right no court has ever recognized. It has little to recommend it. If accepted, it would dramatically extend the reach of copyright protection, and eliminate an entire genre of literary supplements: third party reference guides to fiction, which for centuries have helped readers better access, understand and enjoy literary works. By extension, it would threaten not just reference guides, but encyclopedias, glossaries, indexes, and other tools that provide useful information about copyrighted works. Ms. Rowling’s intellectual property rights simply do not extend so far and, even if they did, she has not shown that the publication of this reference guide poses a sufficient threat of irreparable harm to justify an injunction. Her preliminary injunction motion should be denied.
Click here to read RDR Books’ opposition brief filed by company attorneys David Hammer, Lizbeth Hasse, Anthony Falzone, Julie Ahrens and Robert Handelsman.
Also filed is expert witness testimony on the Harry Potter Lexicon by professor Janet Sorenson of the English faculty at the University of California at Berkeley.
Click here for an exhibit from Scholastic Publication ‘Potterologist’ and editor Cheryl Klein to Steve Vander Ark, and here for background information on the Harry Potter Lexicon lawsuit.
(Thanks, Jill)
[NOTE - p2pnet is running a special reader's survey. It only takes 20-30 seconds and it'd be a huge help if you'd fill it in. Please click here. Cheers! And thanks ... Jon]
Also See:
Harry Potter Lexicon case – Not 1, but 2 new Harry Potter movies, March 13, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:43 am
This is a stupid case, wouldn’t this like make Fansites and sites like IGN.com close, being they dont always have ‘rights’ to post images of game play ans such?
March 14th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Fansites generally aren’t trying to use the work they are fans of to make money. If they are then I’d expect to see them sued and closed down.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Rincewind, you’ve obviously never visited the reference section of your local book store or library have you?
April 11th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Wow, someone doesn’t know the difference between free-to-view online material and pay-to-read published material.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
check trailer here http://hotwn.com/index.php?vid=harry-potter-lexicon
April 15th, 2008 at 12:15 am
I’m on JK’s side. At the very least, this Vander Ark guy should have asked Rowling for her permission to have the book published. It all came from her, anyway. Vander Ark would never have anything to write if not for Rowling’s work. Besides, no one knows if this book contains any misinformation that could affect the book’s essence. Rowling should have a say on this one.
July 9th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Vander Ark said at one point that he would never turn his site into a publication because it would be breaching copyright laws, and now he’s doing it? Makes no sense to me. He never asked Jo’s permission nor Warner Brothers’ permission to publish the book, RDR denied the request of Warner Brothers to see a copy of the book, I think it’s only fair that Warner Brothers and J K Rowling should sue them, I mean come on, denying them a request to see a copy of a book about her own material? If they had shown her a copy, and then maybe she could suggest some changes and they could make them, this case might never have gone to trial. All RDRs fault in my opinion.