Steve Vander Ark Interview
Here's a longer version of the interview with Steve Vander Ark of the Harry Potter Lexicon. The publishers of a planned print version of the Lexicon, RDR Books are currently being sued in the US by JK Rowling and Warner Brothers Entertainment. More background on that here, here and here
We did ask for an interview from Rowling's publishers. They declined our request to speak, but the essence of their position is contained in the statement J.K. Rowling made outside the court Monday excerpted below:
If books that plagiarise other works are permitted, authors, fans and readers stand to lose. There are lots of books in many languages that comment on or criticize Harry Potter, and that's fine. But the book in this case is different. It provides no analysis and virtually no commentary. It takes far too much and it offers precious little in return.
Views reiterated in a subsequent statement Wednesday in which she said, "The book at the heart of this case has overstepped a boundary so unreasonably that I have been forced, regretfully, to take legal action. Authors have a right to protect their works from misuse. Do I have fewer rights because many people read my books? If this book is published" While legal process continues, the Judge hearing the case, has encouraged both sides to attempt to reach a settlement.
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~09~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
All things aside I really agree with Jo and WB. If as I have read in several articles about this case. I guess if you say I am chosing sides then so be it.. I love the books she has written over the years and the joy I see in childres who read them and see the movies come to life. So no I do not feel that Mr. Van Ark should win.
Complain about this comment
I was disappointed that iPM gave the time to Steve Van Ark - tho' if you tried to talk to JKR's publishers, I guess it was fair.
Nonetheless, given that the golden rule was that anything included in the lexicon website was 'canon' - that is, came from the books or other sources directly created by JK Rowling, the publishers don't appear to have any grounds for publishing without consent.
For me, the most interesting part of the site was the essay section, with analysis, commentary and criticism. These essays are not to be included in the published work, perhaps because the publishers at least might have to pay other copyright owners? So, the only part of the site that might have been acceptable was dropped.
JKR could have shut this and other websites down, but she seems to have enjoyed the variety of ways that people enjoyed her work online. It's unfortunate that her generous spirit has been repaid in this way.
Though not affecting the case, I gather that when Mr van Ark, a librarian from California, with a history of list making (starting with Star Wars) heard that JKR was planning her own encyclopaedia, using her notes to augment what was in her books, he offered his services as co-creator, if she would fly him to Europe at her own expense and employ him. When he was turned down, he seems to have accepted the offer to publish, no doubt to establish his own 'creative' reputation as well as to make money.
Complain about this comment
I'm on Team Steve, sorry. I can understand Jo's point completely, but I doubt that her charity would lose any money - if someone is dedicated enough to buy a book done by a fan on the subject of Harry Potter, chances are they'll buy the official encyclopedia done by Jo, too.
It seems that most of the HP fandom has turned against Steve -I'm not one of them. Steve has contributed so much, I respect that immensely.
Complain about this comment
I agree with lilyevans1957, and want to point out Mr. Vander Ark was a librarian in Michigan, not California.
I would like to add my disappointment in some of Mr. Vander Ark's comments. Several of his answers do not match completely to his testimony, either in court or in his legal declarations turned into the court. Furthermore, in court, his testimony was shown to have credibility issues. That makes what he says during BBC's interview somewhat hard to take without a grain of salt. In the US, we call what he is doing "spin".
Complain about this comment
Posting an afterthought:
One non-court testimony example of Mr. Vander Ark's "spin" was his reply to the interviewer's question about making money off his book. Mr. Vander Ark used examples, such as wand-makers and wizard rock bands, to prove that it is acceptable to make money off of Ms. Rowling's original work. However, what he fails to mention is that these examples are not comparable to his proposed "lexicon" (and, when necessary, they sought and received permission from Ms. Rowling and/or WB). In his case, he is basically reprinting words Ms. Rowling wrote, without adding any thoughts or words of his own. 91% of his proposed book is directly taken from her words. On the other hand, the examples he listed take Ms. Rowling's original work as a starting point, and expand from it with creativity into new directions; a song, for instance. This is the crux of the case. Not that Mr. Vander Ark infringed on Ms. Rowling's copyright, but that he did it so much that he didn't change her work into something beyond what Ms. Rowling already did or is in the process of doing.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS