News

« Headlines

Methuen banks on Potter lawsuit success

20.02.08 Tom Tivnan

Independent publisher Methuen is set to release a Harry Potter-themed encyclopaedia, pending the outcome of a lawsuit between J K Rowling and the book's American publisher.

In October, Rowling and Harry Potter film studio Warner Brothers filed a suit in New York against RDR Books, which had hoped to release Steve Vander Ark's The Harry Potter Lexicon. Rowling and Warner Brothers claim that the book, taken from Vander Ark's popular website of the same name (www.hp-lexicon.org), has "hijacked" her characters and violates copyright and intellectual property laws.

RDR, a small publisher from Vander Ark's home state of Michigan, is arguing that the book does not violate Rowling's copyright because it is "fair use"—that it is commentary, and therefore the intellectual property can be used without permission. The case is due to conclude in March.

Vander Ark, a former primary school librarian, has run the Harry Potter Lexicon since 2000. Rowling previously praised the lexicon in the "fan sites" section of jkrowling.com, calling it "a website for the dangerously obsessive, my natural home".

Methuen m.d. Peter Tummons said he was "fairly confident" that courts will rule in RDR's favour. He added: "We thought carefully over whether to acquire the book, and we think RDR has made a compelling case." Pending a favourable outcome, Methuen will release the book on 10th April.

The Harry Potter Lexicon (£12.99, p/b) promises to be the "authoritative reference canon" for all seven books plus Rowling's Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them and Quidditch Through the Ages. Each entry is annotated with abbreviations of book, chapter and source references.

Sales for Methuen are through Signature Book Services.

tom tivnan harry potter digital Copyright Methuen

Add comment

By posting on this website you agree to the Bookseller Comments Policy. Comments go direct to live, please be relevant, brief and definitely not abusive. Report any "unsuitable" comments by clicking the links.

Name

Comment

Email

Comments on this article

By abiadam

There are questions in the US from the volunteers who run the Lexicon site about how much Mr Vanderark actually wrote himself and how much was written by the volunteers who have gone wholly unacknowledged. It is also possible that technically Lexicon is not Mr Vanderark's site. It is not registered in his name but is registered to another US Potter site called the Leaky Cauldron.

20 Feb 08 23:32

Unsuitable?

By Pointed

Steve Vander Ark owns the HP Lexicon, and not the Leaky Cauldron. I was told by people who are on the Leaky staff that they do not own it. They have always allowed the Lexicon to be on the same server for free because they are members of the Floo Network. That is why Leaky was not mentioned in the RDR lawsuit.

21 Feb 08 07:04

Unsuitable?

By abi

Thank you Pointer. I was wondering whether there might be difficulties for UK publishers/firms because contributors to and volunteers on the Lexicon are posting on HP sites in the US that they were not consulted, that their work has not been acknowledged, that they will not apparently be renumerated, and their copyright may have been infringed by Mr Ark?

21 Feb 08 15:17

Unsuitable?

By anonymoose

The question of the Lexicon site ownership is pertinent, according the TLC. They own the registered domain name and host the site for FREE. Beyond that, along with RDR publishing there were 10 Does named as co-defendants. How are you so completely sure that TLC is not one of them? I think very little of publishers furtively collaberating and deliberately trying to keep info of the Lexicon book secret from the owner/publishers of the Harry Potter books. Yeah, that's what emails from Rapoport/RDR publishing shows. Advice to Methuen and Peter Tummons: Don't count your Basilisk eggs before they hatch!

21 Feb 08 16:42

Unsuitable?

By abi

It cannot be Fair Use if 2,034 out of 2,437 entries in the Lexicon book are directly lifted without commentary or analysis from the Harry Potter books according to Fair Use law can it? Also, if you read the book on Justia there is no analysis or original thinking so it cannot be a reference work either according to the legal definition? There seems to be a problem.

28 Feb 08 23:50

Unsuitable?

By Kashmir

Just a statement to let you know that I don't plan to buy the Lexicon's version.

02 Mar 08 05:53

Unsuitable?

By Cory Warren

I do find it interesting that they feel confident RDR Books will win, expecially when RDR Books has frequently contradicted itself in the various filings. That is not a stable case against jk rowling's owernship of the world she created by herself. also, oweing to the fact that the manuscript itself has been found to contain over 2000 entry out of nearly 2500 that were taken word for word from jk rowling's books without new insight or commentary. also including plagerised passages of other works such as encylopedia brittanica.

02 Mar 08 12:07

Unsuitable?

See Also