ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON THE LEXICON CASE
• J.K. Rowling's Dark Mark --
Why She Should Lose Her Copyright Lawsuit Against the Harry Potter Lexicon,
by Tim Wu, Columbia University Law Professor
• A view from copyright attorney for Google, Attorney William J. Patry
• Attorney J. Craig Williams' article on the case
• An article from Salon.com
• An open letter from librarian and independent scholar Brenda M. Williams
• Another interesting commentary on the Harry Potter Lexicon controversy from Yatterings
• An article on the letigiousness of JK Rowling from the Portland State University Vanguard
• A commentary by University of Arizona Emeritus Professor Ken Goodman, Past-President of the International Reading Association, The National Conference in Research in Language and Literacy and the Center for Expansion of Language and Thinking.
April 14, 2008
TRIAL BEGINS IN HARRY POTTER LEXICON CASE
A federal court in New York will hear opening arguments today over whether an independent book publisher has the right to publish the Harry Potter Lexicon, an unofficial reference guide to the Harry Potter series of books and movies.
In a trial that is expected to last two to three days, attorneys from the Fair Use Project of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, along with co-counsel from New York and San Francisco, will argue that their client, RDR Books, has the right to publish the Lexicon under the fair use doctrine. The doctrine safeguards the use of copyrighted material so long as it is used transformatively and does not damage the market value of the original work.
The suit began on October 31, 2007, when Warner Bros., which owns the film rights to the Harry Potter books, and Harry Potter author J.K Rowling filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to block the book's publication.
"J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. are asserting a startling claim," said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project and counsel on the case. "The right to create literary reference guides like the Lexicon has remained nearly unquestioned for hundreds of years. The Lexicon is a valuable resource that helps people better understand and enjoy the Harry Potter books. It's exactly what copyright law should encourage, not suppress."
Falzone and Fair Use Project associate director Julie Ahrens join RDR's lead trial counsel David S. Hammer, a former federal prosecutor, and RDR's long-time counsel Lizbeth Hasse, founding partner of the San Francisco-based Creative Industry Law Group.
"All of the material that's going to be published in the Lexicon has been available on the Harry Potter Lexicon website for a long time without objection from Ms. Rowling or anyone else," said Hammer "To suggest that the Lexicon might affect the market for a companon guide Ms. Rowling plans to publish some day, perhaps years for now, is inconceivable given her stature and reputation."
RDR Books planned to release the Lexicon in the United States on November 28, 2007. The 400-page book is a print counterpart to the fan-created website, The Harry Potter Lexicon, which includes information on the series' characters, places, animals, magic spells, and potions along with atlases, timelines, and analyses of magical theory. Created in 2000 by librarian Steve Vander Ark and several contributors, the site has an estimated 25 million annual visitors and the content is free of charge. Among the site's supporters is J.K. Rowling, who bestowed the HPL with a Fan Site Award in 2004 and wrote on her website: "This is such a great site 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)."
"The importance of this case goes beyond the world of Harry Potter and its fans. This decision could have a far-reaching impact on the literary landscape, and beyond, to discussions of any fictional work in any medium," said Lawrence Lessig, founder and director of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society and the C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law, who is co-counsel on the case. "It's essential for copyright law to leave room for others to build on creative works. That's the point of fair use."
The suit filed on October 31, 2007 claimed that RDR Books and unnamed defendants misappropriated Rowling's "fictional characters and universe" in violation of the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, and New York state law. On November 8, 2007, Judge Robert B. Patterson Jr. issued a temporary restraining order, voluntarily entered into by both parties, delaying RDR's completion and distribution of the book.
"It is important the voices of lesser known authors like Steve Vander Ark and small publishers like RDR be heard," said Lizbeth Hasse. "Copyright law recognizes their right to research and comment on popular works."
The case, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al v. RDR Books et al, is being heard by Judge Patterson at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in New York, N.Y.
More details about the case can be found on Anthony Falzone's blog. Case documents are available here.
Read RDR Books' Opposition Brief filed by our attorneys David Hammer, Lizbeth Hasse, Anthony Falzone, Julie Ahrens and Robert Handelsman. Also filed was expert witness testimony on the Harry Potter Lexicon by
Professor Janet Sorenson of the English faculty at the University of California
at Berkeley. Have a look at this exhibit, a thank you note from Scholastic Books Potterologist and editor Cheryl Klein to Steve Vander Ark.
December 04, 2007
Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project to Represent RDR Books in 'Harry Potter' Copyright Lawsuit
The Fair Use Project of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society announced today that it is signing on as co-counsel to defend an independent book publisher's right to publish The Harry Potter Lexicon, an unofficial reference guide to the Harry Potter series of books and movies. Warner Bros., which owns the film rights to the Harry Potter books, and Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling filed a lawsuit on October 31, 2007 against Michigan-based RDR Books to block the publication of the lexicon, claiming that it violates copyright and trademark law and infringes on Rowling's plans to publish her own companion book. RDR Books contends it has the right to publish the encyclopedic reference book under the fair use doctrine, which safeguards the use of copyrighted material so long as it is used transformatively and does not damage the market value of the original work.
"The public has long enjoyed the right to create reference guides that discuss literary works, comment on them, and make them more accessible," said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project, who will serve as counsel on the case. "J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. are threatening that right. We intend to demonstrate that the fair use doctrine protects the Harry Potter Lexicon."
Joining Falzone as co-counsel is Stanford's Lawrence Lessig, founder and director of the Center for Internet and Society and the C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law. They join RDR's lead counsel David S. Hammer, a former federal prosecutor.
The 400-page Harry Potter Lexicon is a print counterpart to the fan-created website, The Harry Potter Lexicon [www.hp-lexicon.org], commonly known as the HPL—that is widely considered to be the most authoritative reference to all things Harry Potter. The site includes information on the series' characters, places, animals, magic spells, and potions along with atlases, timelines, and analyses of magical theory. Created in 2000 by librarian Steve Vander Ark and myriad contributors, the site has an estimated 25 million annual visitors and is maintained by Vander Ark and a team of volunteer fans. Among the site's supporters is J.K. Rowling, who bestowed the HPL with a Fan Site Award in 2004 and wrote on her website: "This is such a great site 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)."
RDR Books planned to release The Harry Potter Lexicon, authored by Vander Ark, in the United States on November 28, 2007. On October 31, 2007, Warner Brothers and Rowling filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District to halt the book's publication. The suit claims RDR Books and unnamed defendants misappropriated Rowling's "fictional characters and universe" in violation of the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, and New York state law.
On November 8, 2007, Judge Robert B. Paterson Jr. issued a temporary restraining order, voluntarily entered into by both parties, delaying RDR's completion and distribution of the book.
A preliminary injunction hearing is set for March 13, 2008.
"The Harry Potter Lexicon draws material and inspiration from the Harry Potter series but is an entirely new piece of work," said David S. Hammer, co-counsel for RDR Books. "It is a companion to Rowling's work, not a substitute for it. No one is going to buy the Lexicon instead of a Harry Potter book, or instead of seeing a Harry Potter film."
"This book is a reference work based on more than seven years of research by a distinguished volunteer team of librarians and academics," explained co-counsel Julie Ahrens, associate director of the Fair Use Project. "Fair use protects scholars' rights to create such companion guides. It simply is not the case that authors can exploit copyright law to prevent analysis and commentary on their work."
About the Fair Use Project
The Stanford Center for Internet and Society's Fair Use Project ("the FUP") was founded in 2006. Its purpose is to provide legal support to a range of projects designed to clarify, and extend, the boundaries of "fair use" in order to enhance creative freedom. The FUP represents filmmakers, musicians, artists, writers, scholars, and other content creators in a range of disputes that raise important questions concerning fair use and the limits of intellectual property rights. In doing so, it relies on a network of talented lawyers within the Center for Internet and Society, as well as attorneys in law firms and public interest organizations that are dedicated to advancing the mission of the FUP.
About Anthony Falzone
Anthony Falzone is executive director of Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project. He is an experienced intellectual property litigator who has represented technology and media clients in a wide array of intellectual property disputes including copyright, trademark, rights of publicity, and patent matters. He is also a lecturer in law at Stanford Law School, teaching Fair Use in Film. Prior to joining Stanford Law School, he was a partner in the San Francisco office of Bingham McCutchen LLP.
About Julie Ahrens
Julie Ahrens is associate director of Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project, where she represents writers, filmmakers, musicians, and others who rely on fair use in creating their art, documentaries, scholarship, critiques, or comments. Before joining Stanford, Julie was a litigation attorney in the San Francisco office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
About the Center for Internet and Society
Founded by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig in 2001, the Center for Internet and Society is a public interest technology law and policy program at Stanford Law School which engages students, academics, technologists and policy makers in exploring the interactions between technology, law, and society.
About Lawrence Lessig
Lawrence Lessig, founder and director of the Center for Internet and Society and the C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, and leading figure in the United States and abroad in intellectual property law. An advocate for the "innovation commons," a free space where culture, ideas and expression can flourish, Lessig chairs the Creative Commons project at Stanford.
About Stanford Law School
Stanford Law School is one of the nation's leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision makers in law, politics, business, and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, and write books and articles for academic audiences, as well as the popular press. Along with offering traditional law school classes, the school has embraced new subjects and new ways of teaching. The school's home page is located at www.law.stanford.edu.
November 08, 2007
RDR BOOKS AGREES TO DELAY PUBLICATION OF HARRY POTTER LEXICON
On November 8th, New York Federal Court Judge Robert Patterson accepted an order proposed by RDR Books, agreeing to temporarily withhold publication of Steve Vander Ark's Harry Potter Lexicon.
The order delays the publication of this 400-plus-page book until Judge Patterson can preliminarly determine the merits of the lawsuit initiated by J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. In a complaint filed on Halloween, the plaintiffs contend that the proposed Lexicon violates Ms. Rowling's copyright, an allegation RDR Books denies.
Plantiffs' papers in support of its request for a preliminary injunction are due January 7. RDR's response is due January 22. The hearing on the plantiff's request for a preliminary injunction is set for March 13. The Lexicon, which is now in preparation, will not be published until the book is ready to be examined by the court, which will decide if it violates the rights of Ms. Rowling, one of the world's best known authors. Ms. Rowling has suggested that the Lexicon could hurt the performance of her own encyclopedia, which she has not begun writing.
We have discovered that the complaint was based on a complete misunderstanding as to the contents of our proposed Lexicon. The plaintiffs now claim that they are carefully studying the proposed Lexicon book to see if they can find anything which infringes on their rights.
It is plain to us that the critical study which we plan to issue has not in any way ever infringed on the Harry Potter copyrights. In the last analysis we feel certain that we have not violated any of Rowling's rights and that the court will agree that we were acting and producing this book in accord with the well established doctrine of "fair use". Our author has written a scholarly and critical discussion of the materials which have previously been on the Lexicon website. We are pleased to note that many students and scholars agree with us and support our case including librarians , copyright attorneys and first amendment advocates.
The Lexicon is enthusiastically used by more than 25 million visitors annually including academics, critics and Harry Potter readers.
"It is ironic that publication of Steve Vander Ark's Lexicon is being threatened by Ms. Rowling after he has joined other librarians to fight organizations that have attempted to ban or curtail Ms. Rowling own work," says RDR Books publisher Roger Rapoport. "It is our wish that Ms. Rowling join Mr. Vander Ark in his campaign for literary freedom and free expression by dropping her complaint against a book we are confident she would enjoy reading. We will continue to defend our author and the Lexicon in this David and Goliath battle with an eye toward protecting the rights of readers and writers everywhere."
"This is such a great site 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). A website for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home."
When will the Lexicon be published?
The 412-page Harry Potter Lexicon has been voluntarily
delayed by RDR Books pending a New York federal court hearing March 13 on a request for an injunction by J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. Judge Robert Patterson will rule on the plaintiffs request for an injunction that could last for three years while a trial and potential appeal go forward. If the injunction request is denied, RDR Books will then be able to publish the book without prior restraint. The entire book is drawn verbatim from the material that presently appears on Steve Vander Ark's website, http://www.hp-lexicon.org, which he has operated with the full awareness of J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. continuously since the year 2000. Knowing that the Harry Potter novels have had a profound effect in encouraging literacy among young people around the world, we believe that publishing the website content in printed form will make its information available to underprivileged children and those in impoverished nations, who may have no access to computers or to the World Wide Web.
What is your response to J.K. Rowling's November 2 allegation that the Harry Potter Lexicon aims to "re-organize their characters and plots?"
As the plaintiffs including Ms. Rowling know from their use of the Harry Potter Lexicon for the past seven years, this is a non-fiction critical reference work. Never in its history have the reference librarians and academic scholars at the Harry Potter Lexicon attempted to reorganize fictional plots or characters.
What about Ms. Rowling's allegation on November 2 that "from what I understand this book is not criticism or review."?
In fact as millions of readers of the Lexicon including the plaintiffs know, the entire website is nonfiction "criticism and review" similar to that in at least 46 other books already in print. A reading of the site upon which the book is based will confirm this.
At the same time these statements are being made the attorneys for Warner Bros. and Ms. Rowling are working overtime to make sure that this book is blocked from publication. Not content to try their case in court they are trying to preempt public opinion with a vast international publicity campaign designed to make it appear that censorship of a critical reference work is in the public interest. In fact, the authors of the Lexicon have donated thousands of hours of their own time on a volunteer basis for seven years to help readers benefit from reading the Potter books.
Diane Nelson of Warner Bros. said on Nov. 2 that her company has made "numerous efforts to help make sure the book could be published without complaint." True or false?
Neither Warner Bros nor J.K. Rowling, plaintiffs in this case, has ever said in any communication with RDR Books that there was any way that this book could be published without complaint. In fact the plaintiffs have done everything possible to block publication of this book. As Ms. Rowling, who has fought book banning in the past points out in her own statements, she does not want this book to be published for the benefit of her own fans. This is also true of Warner Bros. which has consistently attempted to censor publication of this book and is now in court seeking an injunction to block its publication.
What about Ms. Nelson's statement that "J.K. Rowing doesn't have a problem with people publishing or commercially gaining from commentary or analysis but reconfiguration of her work doesn't apply?"
As readers of the Harry Potter Lexicon and the plaintiffs know, the website is not engaged in "reconfiguration" of any Potter novels. Even a young reader who looks at the Lexicon can plainly see that there is no "reconfiguration." If this were true the plaintiffs would have never cooperated with the authors of the nonfiction site for seven years, bestowed coveted fan site awards or even considered highly recommending the Lexicon to fans as their "natural home."
Summarizing Ms. Nelson's view, one reporter wrote that Warner's "cease and desist letters constituted an attempt to open a dialogue." How could that be?
This is obviously a contradiction in terms. How does threatening to censor the publication of a reference book "constitute an attempt to open a dialogue?" In fact it was RDR Books that proposed settlement in a friendly letter to the CEO of Warner Bros. about the use of Mr. Vander Ark's copyrighted time on millions of Warner Bros DVDs. Our company proposed working toward a constructive settlement that would be a magical "win/win" for both sides. We expressed eagerness to avoid costly, pointless and time consuming litigation that could benefit no one except the plaintiffs attorneys who charge vast sums of money at the same time they are filing complaints alleging that publication of our book would limit the ability of their billionaire clients to donate to charities. An answer was promised in a letter from the company's vice-president of intellectual property. This promise was broken, no answer was received and the plaintiffs responded with a demand for a censoring injunction.
Since the content of the book has been on the website for years and because the plaintiffs have never previously objected to any of the Lexicon's literary analysis, it appears that this rush to judgement is motivated by a frightened reaction to the bad news that some of Mr. Vander Ark's original and copyrighted Hogwarts Timeline material has made its way on to millions of Warner DVDs without permission or compensation. RDR Books will vigorously defend itself and its author as well as the readers who wish to have a print version of the celebrated Lexicon website.
Is Ms. Rowling working on her own reference encyclopedia?
In a recent Reuters story, Ms. Rowling said she has not started working on such a book. No such book is scheduled for publication or release.
Would publication of the Lexicon hurt sales of Ms. Rowling's planned encyclopedia?
No, in fact the Lexicon actively promotes sales of Ms. Rowling's work to more than 25 million visitors, who are encouraged to buy her books and see the movies. It is not possible to make constructive use of the Lexicon without owning all seven of her novels, and readers are encouraged to do so. It would be impossible for any book by any author to hurt the sales of any work by Ms. Rowling, certainly the biggest brand name in book publishing. Any book she writes or publishes will have its own unique market, as evidenced by the success of her most recent novel, which came out at a time when dozens of other similar readers' guides and other reference books were already in print.
Does the Lexicon appear to have Ms. Rowling's blessing?
No, the Lexicon makes it perfectly clear that this unique reference resource is in no way endorsed by Ms. Rowling or Warner Bros. In fact, this is clearly spelled out to the reader. It is an original book with a vast array of independently written scholarly reference materials.
Why do Warner Bros. and Ms. Rowling want to censor the Lexicon book when dozens of other reader's companions are on the market?
At the moment, books published by Penguin (The Idiot's Guide), Mugglenet.com, Sparknotes, Broadway, Hampton Roads, Ulysses Press and many other publishers are in print around the world. At least 46 such books are presently available in bookstores and libraries. Obviously, none of these books have been enjoined by the courts, including books that have borrowed word for word from the Lexicon without the author's permission. In addition, countless magazine and newspaper articles have appeared about the Harry Potter books.
Hours before RDR Books even received copies of the proposed censorship injunction, Warner Bros launched a vast international smear campaign designed to damage the professional reputation of Mr. Vander Ark and RDR Books who had the gall to publish an encyclopedia that would help sell Potter novels.
We are not sure why J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. have decided to sue an independent small-town publisher when dozens of other publishers around the world have put out similar books. We believe the superior quality of this book and the fact that the Lexicon is apparently J.K. Rowling's favorite website may also have been among the considerations.
How do you know that Warner Bros. used the Lexicon's Hogwarts timeline?
There is no timeline in any of the Harry Potter Books. Mr. Vander Ark created this Hogwart's timeline and updated it every time a new book came out. The timeline was copied with small changes and, in some cases, word-for-word on each of the Harry Potter DVDs. Each time the timeline was updated, these same updates magically appeared on the next DVD. At least one typographical error on the Lexicon's Hogwart Timeline was copied verbatim on the DVDs: The timeline on the Warner's DVD puts the first visit of Harry to Hagrid's hut on September 7 because the Lexicon erroneously said it was
September 7. According to the books it was actually September 6.
Is this a First Amendment issue?
Yes. What's at stake here is the determination of Warner Bros. (which owns trademarks, not copyrights, on Harry Potter characters' names and place names) to limit freedom of the press. This entertainment conglomerate wants to stop books before they are published, which threatens our First Amendment rights. If they were able to stop this independent critical work, publishers and writers everywhere would find it more difficult to publish important books that benefit all of us. The chilling effect of this lawsuit is its attempt to add harsh new limitations to the principle that, in the immortal words of A. J. Leibling, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
When a person writes a book and publishes it, that book is subject to general analysis and criticism by the public. In the same sense that J. K. Rowling reviews a Jessica Mitford book in a London paper, critics like Mr. Vander Ark provide literary analysis and comment about Ms. Rowling's books.
We continue to keep all lines of communication open at our end in the hope that we can resolve this matter. Readers of all ages everywhere have the right to benefit from the scholarship of Mr. Vander Ark and other librarians and professors without fear of intimidation by self-appointed conglomerate censors.
Tell me more about RDR Books.
RDR Books, a 15 year-old independent publisher in Muskegon, Michigan, focuses on public affairs, reference, biography, history, women's issues, sports, medicine and children's books. RDR's titles are published in English and translated around the world. It has more than 60 titles in print.
What Is Your Reaction to the Warner Brothers/J.K. Rowling Complaint?
Virtually all of the information available to the public comes from the complaint prepared by the plaintiffs' lawyers and is therefore biased by its very nature. Legal pleadings are not evidence and no proof has been offered of any allegation set forth in the complaint. The complaint is rife with factual fabrications and misstatements of law. The plaintiff's statements are clearly designed to confuse readers about the legal elements of copyright and trademark infringement.
What is Your Response To The Negative Statements about RDR Books and the Lexicon?
One function of a civil complaint is to insulate plaintiffs' representatives from libel actions arising out of negative media campaigns. Any statements set forth in a lawsuit complaint, no matter how false or outrageous, can be published in the news media without risk of liability for defamation because they are contained in a public record. In this case, press releases were widely disseminated and stories were being distributed for publication in more than 600 newspapers around the world before anybody at The Harry Potter Lexicon or RDR Books even knew the complaint had been filed. Many of these organizations were fed the story late in their deadline cycle and very few had time to contact the defendants for a response to a story dominated by fabrications and misstatements of the law. For example nowhere in the complaint or press release did the plaintiffs acknowledge for seven years they have actively supported Mr. Vander Ark's Lexicon with "fan site" awards and endorsements from J.K. Rowling. There was no mention that the Lexicon was and is a favored source of factual information for Ms. Rowling, her editors, film producers, agents and DVD creators. In fact the lawsuit makes no effort to shut down the Lexicon which reaches over 25 million visitors annually, far more than will ever read a smaller book version of the site. This is simply the culmination of a lengthy pattern of intimidation and harassment directed at them by one of the world's largest law firms.
A recently published article says Rowling's agents, the Christopher Little Agency, can't comment on whether the Harry Potter Lexicon "would have really overlapped with J.K. Rowling's intended (Encyclopedia) because they haven't seen the book and this was why they wanted to review it." What is your reaction?
The 1,000 page plus Lexicon website, freely available for 7 years, makes it very clear what the print Lexicon would look like. Everything has been out in the open for years. Since Ms. Rowling has not started writing her new book it is clear that the plaintiffs are unclear whether it might interfere with her proposed book. Ms. Rowling is famous for rewriting. The first chapter of her first book was, according to the Lexicon, written ten different ways. Even if there was a partial draft available it would still be hard to know how the books compare.
It is clear that the Lexicon or any other book could never possibly compete with Ms. Rowling's book because she is already on record on her website saying that her encyclopedia "will include all the material that never made it into the novels. " Her recent announcement that Dumbledore is gay is one small case in point. Obviously when other new information about her characters appears in her Encyclopedia this will be a must have book for millions of Potter fans everywhere. No other book
could possibly compete with this title or dent its sales. Also, by the time her book comes out, the Harry Potter Lexicon will be history. Anyone who buys the Lexicon will automatically want to buy her book.
Does the Lexicon comply with the Fair Use doctrine promoted by the Copyright Act?
Based on the opinions of the several publishing attorneys Mr. Rapoport and Mr. Vander Ark consulted before undertaking any plans or arrangements to create a print media version of The Harry Potter Lexicon, the controlling copyright and trademark legal precedent is quite clear. There is no doubt that they are within their rights in publishing this work just like 46 other publishers who have published similar works of Potter criticism and analysis not being sued by Warner Bros. or Ms. Rowling. We ask that the public - and particularly fans of J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter novels - withhold judgment until all the facts are in evidence and a court judge has ruled on the legal issues.
Is the entire Harry Potter Lexicon website in the book?
No, the book is 412 pages and does not include everything that is on the website. Attorneys for Warner Brothers and Ms. Rowling simply sifted through the website guessed what might be in the book and then alleged that these hypothetical sections are damaging the author. This is a good example of what happens when you sue to censor a book that you haven't read. The reason the plaintiffs did this is that they were trying to convince fans of the site that the book was in some way a violation of trade or copyright law which it is not.
Why didn't the plaintiffs wait to read the book before they sued?
Possibly because they knew that they couldn't win an injunction in court and that their best shot was to generate unfavorable publicity for the publishers and everyone associated with the book. The suit, filed on Halloween, was also designed to frighten the publishers and the authors.
About Participating Attorneys
David S. Hammer, lawyer for RDR Books, is a New York-based trial lawyer with extensive experience in all aspects of criminal and civil litigation. He was a federal prosecutor in the Southern Districts of Florida and New York and has served as an advisor to the Office of Policy Planning in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. Hammer is a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, where he was on the law review, and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Robert S. Handelsman, lawyer for RDR Books, is an attorney who has practiced in the Chicago area for 34 years and has many appeals in state and federal appellate court. A graduate of Chicago-Kent Law School, he focuses on federal question cases involving independent businesses.
Lizbeth Hasse, copyright consultant to RDR Books, is founding partner of the San Francisco-based Creative Industry Law Group. Her practice encompasses advising and negotiation in intellectual property, media, and entertainment matters. She was instrumental in mediating the recent Apple Computer v. Burst to settlement.
Copyright © 2007 RDR Books. All Rights Reserved. Site design by FTRLS.