Robert Fletcher of Writers' Literary Agency Labelled Fraudulent And Frivolous In Legal Ruling

Ann Crispin and Victoria Strauss today announced that Robert Fletcher of the Writers' Literary Agency has not only lost the lawsuit he took out against them and James Macdonald eighteen months ago: Robert Fletcher's suit has been deemed frivolous in the judge's findings, and his business habits have been labelled fraudulent. Robert Fletcher brought the case because he claimed that the warnings that Writer Beware had issued about his company were defamatory, but the judge disagreed with him. I particularly liked the piece by James Macdonald, which Fletcher objected to, which you can read here (I did want to quote it here, but Blogger still won't let me copy and paste).

Robert Fletcher has now been ordered to pay Writer Beware's costs, and according to a lawyer over at Making Light he's going to find it very difficult to wriggle out of doing so. At this point I wish that Ann and Victoria had hired a more expensive lawyer, but we can't have everything.

Just in case anyone who reads this page is considering submitting to the Writers' Literary Agency or one of its many subsidiary companies, here is a link to the discussions about the Writers' Literary Agency and Robert Fletcher over at Absolute Write: and I'll finish with an extract from the judge's findings which I found particularly interesting:

The plaintiff, Robert Fletcher, sent multiple e-mails to both defendants, Crispin and Strauss threatening them both with physical harm and threatening them with this lawsuit. In fact, in two of his e-mails, he indicated that his purpose was not to prevail in the lawsuit but just to bankrupt the defendants, Crispin and Strauss.

Hands up anyone who fancies an agent who behaves like that. No one? Can't say I blame you.

My warmest congratulations to Ann Crispin, Victoria Strauss and to James Macdonald for winning the case. And yah-boo-sucks to Robert Fletcher. Frivolous and fraudulent has such a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Train Wreck Now Boarding On Platform Two!

This one is going to be good. It's so good I wonder if it's just a staging for an elaborate April Fool's Day Special To Trump All Others. But even so, here it is for your enjoyment just in case it's for real.

An unknown writer called Lady Sybilla has announced that her book, Russet Noon, will be published in September of this year. Despite its odd title it isn't a new form of potato-porn: it's far, far better than that.

It's fan fiction. An unofficial sequel to Stephenie Mayer's Twilight series. And, children, we all know what fan fiction is, don't we? Say it with me:

Copyright infringement.

Lady Sybilla insists that her book doesn't infringe any copyrights because, as she writes in the comments thread here,

The characters in SM's novels were not copyrighted because she never drew them or hired an artist to draw them. Today she shares her character copyrights with Summit. And, no, Russet Noon does not have direct permission from SM to publish this sequel, which is why the article says that it is a "Tribute" or "Unauthorized" Sequel.

Unsurprisingly, Lady Sybilla got a swift response when she defended the book's publication at the Twilight Lexicon and pointed out that other people had also written Twilight fan fic: the Lexicon's owners responded,

So when it comes right down to it, you’re a self admitted thief whose only defense is “well they were doing it too.” (*Insert foot stamp, pouty lip, and flounce here*)

Lady Sybilla is talking nonsense, and is going to get sued from here to Pluto and back if she persists with this publication. Especially if anyone were to sell copies of the book on eBay ahead of the publication date, which someone has tried to do (you'll note, though, that the auction has ended and refunds have been promised: perhaps the lawyers are onto Lady Sybilla already).

There's an active discussion about this already at Absolute Write; Lee Goldberg has blogged about it beautifully; Fandom Wank has an excellent analysis in which Lady Sybilla's casting-call for models for the graphic novel edition is revealed; if you want to read the preface to Russet Noon it's been copied into the comments here; and there's even a YouTube reading available if you want to enjoy the full russet-rich experience.

Edited 5 April

Many of the links I provided originally are to pages which have now been taken down. The eBay auctions have been closed ahead of time; the Russet Noon website has been closed, apparently by Lady Sibilla herself. She is now complaining about Fandom Wank's postings about her, but has only encouraged more people to point and laugh. And blogger Dal Jeanis has posted a great Russet Noon Analysis, and another post in which he suggests How to Win the Russet Noon Lawsuit, and points out that titles are not copyrightable. I can feel another Atlanta Nights coming on... anyone?

The Legalities Of Ghostwriting

In a recent post in the Bookseller Blog, Freya North discussed the likelihood that good books by unknown writers are being rejected in favour of books by celebrities, which are more often than not ghostwritten. It's an important point which warrants further discussion but a second point was made in the comment stream to that blog post, which is the one that I want to address here: that of the legalities of ghostwriting.

Discussing the news that Cheryl Cole has now been signed to write a series of chick-lit titles, a commenter by the name of Charles Hale (who states that he's a QC, no less), wrote,

I am a lawyer, and with regard to the Cheryl Cole book situation, there is no question that if properly legally challenged, publishers would find themselves in trouble for their implication that Cheryl Cole wrote the books. It is, to be blunt, against the law to pass off a product sold as being anything other than that which it is.

Do you think that publishers which bring out ghostwritten memoirs and celebrity books are misrepresenting their products? Does anyone actually believe that the celebrities concerned really wrote their books? How complicit are we, as readers, in this apparent deceit? And does anyone think that publishers will ever be challenged on this front?

Defamation: Libel And Slander

Defamation can take the form of libel or slander, and there are clear differences between the two. Libel is written, while slander is spoken. So, if you object to something that someone writes about you on the internet, or in a newspaper, that’s potentially libel; whereas if you object to something that is said about you, that’s potentially slander.

People can say or write negative things about each other with impunity if what they say or write is true, and causes no damage to anyone’s reputation. If it’s true, and no reputation is hurt by it, then it doesn’t matter how much anyone objects to what has been written or said, because they’d have no basis for a legal case.

For example, if you were to write “Jane Smith is a big fat lump” I couldn’t do anything legally without making myself look both fat and foolish because it’s true: I am a big fat lump, no matter how much I object to anyone pointing that out. However, if you were to write “Jane Smith is a criminal” then you might be in trouble: I’ve never been convicted of any offence, and would therefore have grounds to sue you—but only if I were to experience a loss as a result of your comments.

It’s not just people who can sue on grounds of libel or slander: any entity or organisation with a reputation to protect can be defamed. So corporations can sue people who say nasty things about their businesses, for example, if those nasty things are untrue and cause the corporation a legitimate loss.

And remember, I’m not a lawyer, just a writer who has made it a priority to find out about these things. If you’re considering your own defamation case then get yourself proper legal advice, and don’t rely on anything you hear from a big fat lump like me.