The Lexicon, which is non-profit, with only its operations paid for by advertising, quickly became a favorite for fans of the books, including Rowling herself, who claimed on her website that "I have been known to sneak into an internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter, which is embarrassing.
"[2] In August 2007, Vander Ark was contacted by Roger Rapoport, President of RDR Books, and asked about the possibility of publishing a for-profit print version of the site.
To further pacify Vander Ark's concerns, he added an addendum to the contract that stated that RDR Books would act to defend him in any future lawsuits.
[5] In their suit, Rowling's lawyers also asserted that, as the book describes itself as a print facsimile of the Harry Potter Lexicon website, it would publish excerpts from the novels and stills from the films without offering sufficient "transformative" material to be considered a separate work.
[6] On her website, Rowling said, "Despite repeated requests, the publishers have refused to even countenance making any changes to the book to ensure that it does not infringe my rights.
"[7] On his website, Vander Ark responded, I have worked diligently with everyone associated with the books to make sure we don't violate copyright.
There have been a number of times when I have talked with Jo's people and held back information they didn't want published or modified material on the Lexicon to make sure they approve.
[8]"There have been a huge number of companion books that have been published", said Neil Blair of Rowling's literary agency, Christopher Little, "Ninety-nine percent have come to speak to us.
Ms. Hasse then asked a group of intellectual property lawyers at Stanford Law School to help defend RDR Books' right to publish.
Fair Use Project Executive Director Anthony Falzone said the Lexicon is protected by U.S. law which has long given people "the right to create reference guides that discuss literary works, comment on them and make them more accessible.
Defendant's attempt to cloak the Infringing Book in the mantle of scholarship is merely a ruse designed to circumvent Plaintiffs' rights in order to make a quick buck.
[11]On 25 January 2008, RDR submitted a request to Judge Robert Patterson, United States District Court that Rowling and her publishers hand over to them all potential source material for the planned encyclopaedia, including, "The notes that JKR has made on the seven novels ... Cheryl Klein's [the novels' continuity editor] full index ... Bloomsbury's 'comprehensive bible'" and "The 'further material from Ms. Rowling's creative mind'".
[12] In February 2008, Vander Ark, in an interview with the British fan magazine Ansible, said[13] The book is not simply a cut and paste of the Lexicon website.
While I was working on the Lexicon book, I received assurances from several copyright and intellectual property experts that the book we were creating was legal.Vander Ark dismissed Rowling's claim to copyright: Part of the problem all along has been the automatic assumption on the part of many that Rowling has the right to completely control anything written about the Harry Potter world.
And if she doesn't, what's to stop the next person from taking this legal precedent to even more dangerous places?On 8 February 2008, RDR Books published their official memorandum in response to Warner Bros injunction, saying, in part, "[Rowling] appears to claim a monopoly on the right to publish literary reference guides, and other non-academic research, relating to her own fiction.
[17][18] During her testimony, Rowling reiterated her claim that the Lexicon contained minimal commentary and merely recycled her writing, adding nothing other than "facetious asides and etymologies of the easiest kind.
In sometimes emotional testimony, Rowling recalled beginning the Potter books when she was an impoverished 25-year-old single mother, nearly coming to tears when saying, "These characters continue to mean so much to me over a long period of time.
[18] Wary of the consequences of a legal ruling, the presiding judge, Robert P. Patterson, Jr., urged the parties to settle, saying, I'm concerned that this case is more lawyer-driven than it is client-driven.
[22] Ms. Jeri Johnson, senior tutor in English at Exeter College, Oxford, spoke as an expert witness in literature for the plaintiffs, decrying Vander Ark's work as unscholarly, and claiming that there was enough material in Rowling's world for serious academic analysis.
[23] Rowling's lawyers said that, unlike those guides, the Lexicon consists largely of information taken from the books and contains little interpretation or analysis.
"The Lexicon's verbatim copying of ... highly aesthetic expression raises a significant question as to whether it was reasonably necessary for the purpose of creating a useful and complete reference guide.
[28]The Stanford Law School fair use project, which had represented RDR, said, We are encouraged by the fact that 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.
[29]On their website, the group clarified their position: In a thoughtful and meticulous decision spanning 68 pages, the Court recognized that as a general matter authors do not have the right to stop publication of reference guides and companion books about literary works, and issued an important explanation of why reference guides are not derivative works.
I should think that her time in New York was horrible, exacerbated by a lack of support caused, no doubt, by deeply unattractive sourness over her wealth.
[37] Matthew Rimmer, an Australian law expert, commented that the ruling, is an important precedent in respect of the defense of fair use and it represents a victory of authorial rights over the freedoms of secondary users of copyright works ...
The case leaves the way open for future conflict over derivative works, character merchandising and fan fiction based upon the Harry Potter series.
The court rejected Rowling's argument that the Lexicon is not transformative because it fails to add these elements ... Third, copyright holders cannot exert exclusive control over the market for reference works.