Where's the Grey? (was: That case and that book)

[Carol]

Goddlefrood wrote:
> 
> > It may be that JKR is concerned that the Lexicon is substantially
similar to her proposed encyclopaedia, and that certainly appears to
be the case from the evidence at the hearing.

LeeK. replied:
> OK, I admit I haven't read the text of the actual legal complaint
(legal documents bore me to distraction). But what you seem to be
suggesting is the core of JKR/WB's complaint is that Steve's lexicon
violates the copyright of a manuscript that a) is unpublished (and
presumably unavailable to Steve); and b) is more recent than the website.
> 
> As the text of the lexicon is (apparently) substantially copied from
the website, it predates JKR's encyclopedia (prossibly even any rough
drafts she may have made). Arguing that a pre-existing text could
violate the copyright of a text that didn't even exist at the time the
lexicon was written seems strange indeed. Any coincidence, in that
case, between the newer text (JKR's encyclopedia) and the older text
(the lexicon) would strongly suggest it is JKR who is in violation of
copyright, unless you believe in time machines. <snip>

Carol responds:

I doubt that JKR would be in violation of copyright since I doubt that
she intends to quote from the Lexicon (maybe she would have done so
had it not been for the lawsuit, but that's neither here nor there).

I agree with the rest of the quoted portion of Lee's post, and I'd
like to add that there appears to be little or no resemblance between
JKR's contemplated HP encyclopedia, the so-called Scottish Book, and
the Lexicon, which she has criticized for its rearrangement of her
materials. (She's called it alphabetical, but as I've said several
times, it's actually organized by categories, with alphabetical
listings within subcategories.)

JKR's contemplated book, in contrast, will not only contain material
not yet published that Steve V. and his collaborators (whose work may
not even appear in the printed version of his book, or the manuscript
that now exists) can't possibly have access to (some in JKR's heavily
guarded notes, some still in her head and perhaps not even thought out
yet, such as her explanation for the "missing twenty-four hours" that
she's not even sure are missing); it will also have a completely
different arrangement. In an interview after DH came out, she
described the arrangement that she's contemplating but has not yet
committed herself to:

"JN: Now, I have to ask, <snip> when you do go back and you do, in ten
years, so be it, do The Scottish Book, are you thinking more in line
of a, like an account of events or more like small stories for things.

"JKR: To be honest, John, at the moment, I'm not gonna say "don't hold
me to this", but you know, I'm just gonna say "this might change". But
I imagined it as half of it, I mean maybe on facing pages, but that
might be difficult to do just through layout. But the ideal would be,
to have, say, on the left-hand side you've got a page showing all your
back story, extra details on characters, or an entry on wands showing
what every character's wand was, and all of this stuff. And then I
think also, it might be interesting to have information about the
actual writing and what I discarded. So on one side, it's acting as
though the whole world is true and I'm giving you extra information on
that real world, and on the other side, we're admitting that it's
actually fiction and I'm showing discarded plots, characters that
didn't make it, problems in the plot. I think both lots of information
are interesting, so it would be nice to unite both of them.

"JN: Absolutely. That sounds like a student's textbook...

"JKR: Yeah! Yeah.

"JN: ...where in the margins, they have, you know, fact tables and
things and then there's also snippets of stories that they rescued
from things and then...

"JKR: Well, it's actually--To be honest, I think the point of doing
it, if I'm going to do it, it's about doing the absolute, definitive,
giving-people-everything guide. <snip>"

Anelli, Melissa, John Noe and Sue Upton. "PotterCast Interviews J.K.
Rowling, part one." PotterCast #130, 17 December 2007.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1217-pottercast-anelli.html

Carol again:
Needless to say, the Lexicon is not "the absolute, definitive,
giving-people-everything guide," nor does it claim to be any such
thing. (I doubt that JKR can possibly give her readers "everything,"
either, especially given some of the conflicting information in the
various books, but her *intention* is clear.)

And the layout, with "back story, extra details on characters, or an
entry on wands showing what every character's wand was, and all of
this stuff" on one page and "information about the actual writing and
what I discarded" on the facing page, is completely different from the
Lexicon, which is, essentially, a compendium of fictional "facts" in
the arrangement I've already described.

Obviously, the Lexicon can't copy a work that doesn't yet exist The
question is whether the Lexicon could rob her not yet extant
encyclopedia of readers and the charity she intends to donate the
profits to of revenue. (That last, I think, is an emotional appeal,
and I doubt that the judge will consider it relevant.)

At any rate, I think that the same people who buy the Lexicon (or
would have bought it if the case hadn't come to trial) will also buy
JKR's Scottish Book if it ever comes out. Both are geared toward
hard-core HP fans, the only people who care about such things. And
people who don't need or want the Lexicon because it's already online
in a handy, easily accessible format or who are upset with Steve V.
for "plagiarizing" or with RDR for its less than admirable conduct in
numerous respects will still buy the Scottish Book because they will
regard it as definitive. Even I will probably buy it just because it
will be regarded as "canon" on HPfGu and give us something new to
discuss. (I'm not about to accept her views on the characters as
definitive because readers have every right to read critically and
analytically and to arrive at their own canon-based conclusions which
may differ in some respects from the author's expressed views, but if
she gives me a list of who had what wand, or explains that Dumbledore
did indeed know that Basilisks can Petrify as well as kill their
victims, that information will be interesting and possibly useful.

Anyway, sorry to bring in my views on critical reading here; my point
is simply that the books (one of which doesn't even exist yet) are not
particularly similar. It's perfectly reasonable for a reader to want
both, but no one, or almost no one (unless they're thoroughly
disillusioned with JKR as a person but still interested in the
Potterverse and its characters) is likely to buy just the Lexicon
under the delusion that it's in any way definitive.

Just possibly including the word "unauthorized" on the cover and title
page and indicating in a preface that the book in no way substitutes
for JKR's intended Scottish Book might solve that problem before it
starts. In any case, if there's a prospective customer of the Lexicon
who isn't aware of the trial, that person must be rare indeed.

Carol, longing for happier days