Harry Potter and the Copyright Quandary

This is a difficult area to write on because I haven't actually seen the intended published material. I like to present that fact first, because while I have read the Lexicon on the website, and I've read all the books many times. I have not seen a copy of the manuscript for RDR books and therefore feel myself flying a bit blind.

Another bias I have, though relevant to the issue at hand, since it was stated in the article that this is hurting her fans. I am a huge fan of JK Rowling, her works and will be a fan for life, I'm sure.

Now that's out of the way... She should continue protecting her work. Not only is this her business, but there are larger factors in the way as well. She has lawyers, her publisher has lawyers, the people who make movies based on the rights of Harry Potter have lawyers! Even if she sat back and said "no, it's really ok." Do you honestly think this case would just be gone? No. Because at the base of publishing is the organizations who make the most money from the published work.

She also has to stand up for all past authors and all future authors. Technology moves faster than law. This case is so difficult to follow because the law is still crawling behind where the technology has moved to. The internet exists, JK Rowling has her place on the internet, she praises fan sites based on her work for discussion, reference and critique. But copyright lawys also exist. They are there for a reason. She has said in the trial that Vander Ark adds nothing to her original work and simply alphabetically rearranges it. That dear boys and girls, is something I've been taught about for years. Plagerism. How is it that our laws can be so dearly ignored in terms of this case? What he did was plagerise. Now yes, obviously we all know where the source is from. But we also have been told that JK Rowling intends on doing the same thing with proper backstory. This is after all, the woman who wrote the series. She obviously knows more about her characters, having have written them for the past 17 years, than a man who was once obsessive about Star Trek and then moved onto Harry Potter about 10 years ago. I don't mean to insult him here, but authors always know more about their characters. Especially Rowling. She is the queen of backstory, wouldn't it be more fitting for her to write the encyclopedia as a reference, and do it right?

So let's say that RDR books wins this trial. There will be dissapointment among Rowling, a solid majority of her fans (from what I've seen as an outpouring of support for her on countless popular fan sites), but I really hope that this doesn't deter her from writing her own encyclopedia.

Will the lexicon sell? Of course. Partially out of curiosity, partially because it may be a decent, alphabetical rewording of things that people would know if they read the books themselves.

What I see here is a blatant attempt to re-publish things without adding so much as anything new, and for profit.

Another issue I have is that this is a fictional work. And the lexicon doesn't seem to be a spark notes version. This isn't like the science community where often journal articles are taken and sort of re-published for information rights in a review of all things on the subject. This is creative fiction, and completely made up by the author. Sure, Vander Ark can write down what he's read in the books. I could do that too! He's not the only fan of hers to read the books multiple times, and stand outside at midnight waiting for his copy. For people to refer to him as the "biggest Harry Potter fan" is giving him far too much credit. What he is, is a person who loves the books, and loves to make lists. And he was fine when he stayed in the way of profiting a small amount from the adds which help him to power his internet site. But when he wishes to publish media, there are things that go with that. Consequently, a large sum of money.

Did arranging all the information take work? Sure. But he wanted to do it. As a hobby of sorts at first.
He's also said himself how many times he said no to RDR because of fear of copyright infringement. He was smart to protect himself by having the publishers cover him in case something like this lawsuit did occur. He's a smart individual, and part of me thinks that he felt safe trying to profit off of a rearrangement is because he knew he could.

He was well aware of the difficulty he would face ahead of time. If he did not wish for all the hate and anger that seems to be following him around, he should've ceased publishment immediately. He continued however. It's not like he's a child, or a young adult who's less versed in the laws of copyright infringement. He's a 50 year old man, and it's about time he's treated like one.

J.K. Let him publish the lexicon and ask for royalties. Hey for all you know it may increase the book sales if people figure out the subject more clearly.

Don't kill a cult for a few bucks. Anyway all this fighting will just make lawyers richer.

If you wanted to write a column about Creative Commons, why not just write a column about Creative Commons? It's a fine organization, but even CC founder Larry Lessig has said a CC license isn't for everyone. "I mention this mostly because this Creative Commons business is how things are going to go in the Internet's future, like it or not," makes little sense given that CC isn't out to destroy traditional publishing or licensing agreements.

Perhaps a nice rant on Fair Use would've been more appropriate? It's certainly more relevant to the current Rowling situation.

Why do we always despise the big and the mighty when they flex their muscles and use their wealth and power to win a legitimate point?

If JK was on legal aid, perhaps an unknown writer fighting the studios who had stolen her plot or characters then we would immediately rush to her aid, siding with the poor writer, underdog character. Well she's not and right is right, if she is in the right then no doubt the court will find her so, and if she is wrong then the floodgates will open for the minions (perhaps I meant millions) of fans, of subjects from Doctor Who to the Magic Roundabout, to "copy" their heroes world from the edge intangibility to the edge of reality.

The Lexicon fansite originally started off as a non-profit "fan site". That boundary was crossed when it was compiled into a book to be published. It would be no different if a new book was written still in the Potter universe, but not by Rowling; instead by a fan-fiction author cum publisher.

However, given the past track record between Ms. Rowling and the lexicon, certainly a meeting between Mr. Rowling and Vander Ark could have made a lot more sense in the long run.

"The Harry Potter Lexicon" compiled by Vander Ark and edited by Rowling.

That, in my opinion, would be a win-win-win. Win for Vander Ark, win for Rowling, and a win for the fans.

Dear J.K. Rowling:

You have MORE money than even your great-grandchildren can spend. Chill OUT!

I completely understand the entire copyright issue, HOWEVER, if you don't like the fact that someone else is making money on Harry...ask for a piggy back on the sales! You get a % of everything he makes, how difficult is that to understand.

You keep your fan base...because I am one of them, and I'm no child (my oldest is 25 and my youngest is 13)! You are beginning to sound a little to OVER the edge on this one.

Paige P.
Orlando, Florida

A public web site that is there for all to use at no charge is one thing, a book that costs money is another. RK Rowling is right, this is a cheap crass attempt to cash in on another's work and property. RDR and Mr. Vander Ark should be ashamed of themselves, apologize and withdraw the book until they have Ms Rowling's consent.

As someone who has been reading and writing fanfiction for the past 25 years (gods, does that date me), I'm very aware of the fine line that fan writers and artists tread upon when it comes to the copyright laws, and everyone that I know in the various fandoms that I participate in take great pains to indicate that their work is not meant to infringe on copyright laws. I've seen other fandoms take a beating from a copyright holder that in their efforts to protect their interests shut down fansites and issued cease and desist legal orders on fanzine publishers. I've also seen it kill fandoms since fans who feel that they aren't appreciated can turn like a bunch of rabid ferrets very quickly.

In this particular case, while Rowling can argue that publishing the Lexicon in a printed volume is a violation of her copyright, I really don't think that it is. Vander Ark (who it's well documented that Rowling has praised in the past) is not adding anything of his own to the mythology of the Potter universe, or trying to present it as his own work. It anything, the directory of characters, creatures, spells, locatations, etc. is an academic examination of the works of Rowling, not an infringment of her work.

There are several dozen books that have been published about the Potter universe in recent years. Go over to any Barnes and Noble and you'll find a table full of them. None of these claim to be the work of JK Rowling, yet they all are about her characters, creatures, situations, etc. Some of them are serious critical examinations of her work. The Harry Potter novels are noted as being important books regardless of what one things of their real literary merits, if only due to their huge popularity.

It is interesting that Rowling had no issues with Vander Ark so long as the Lexicon remained an on-line entity. One can argue that publishing it as a book would put it in direct competition with Rowling's own planned encyclopedia, but I honestly don't think that will be the case. Vander Ark's volume would be a documentation of what has already been established in the Potterverse. It's information that can be reviewed and verified simply by referring back to the original text. This kind of work can be important because it's an unbiased examination and Rowling does have a habit of adding things on after the fact without the support of the original books (like announcing Dumbledore's homosexuality long after book 7 was out).

Rowling's volume, I have no doubt, will be an expansion of her universe. She will give more details that were not apparent in the books. She can go back and fill in the blanks, explain things more clearly and revise information. It would be an entirely different text and there would be little question that it would be the definative work by the author.

It's unfortunate that Rowling has chosen to sue over this issue, especially when the subject of her lawsuit is a fan who clearly loves these books and has enormous respect for Rowling. There is no reason why this cannot be settled out of court so that both sides win. This way Rowling can avoid appearing like so many other overzealous copyright holders that will beat fans into submission for stepping over the line. She deserves better than that, and so do the fans who made her the success that she is.

Personally I think Rowling saw big dollar signs in Mr Vander Ark's idea. It's all about greed, she want those dollar signs for herself. What a shame.

JK Rowling has every right to sue to prevent the publishing of this book. As she has said, it is one thing to put something free on the Internet for anyone to use, it is another thing to make money off of it. It would also be different if the book did not contain such a large amount of her material - there is a limit to how much material can be taken from copyrighted material for books that provide analysis. I feel for Vander Ark, but he has ultimately brought this upon himself. I'm sure if JKR thought there was another avenue to pursue besides a lawsuit, she would have...but as someone else said earlier, its about a lot more than money, it is about the right of authors to protect their material. I, for one, fully support JKR and hope she wins the case!

It depends ENTIRELY on the actual manuscript I think, and how much of JKR's actual writing is in it. If the book is more a derivative work then I think Rowling's fully within her rights.

However, if it's just a scholarly guide, I think a line is being crossed on her part. Guides, encyclopedias, and literary criticisms should, in my opinion, always be allowed under copyright law.

I think both sides are slightly in the wrong here. Vander Ark should remove direct quotes to Rowling's work if they're there, and make sure his manuscript falls squarely under the category of a literary guide or criticism, and if he does so, Rowling should allow it. There have been many guides and whatnot to her work published already. The only thing that would make this one any different is how THOROUGH it is. If he refuses to remove direct quotes (often used in the online version) and other content that infringes on her rights, shame on him. If he does make sure the manuscript is purely scholarly and she still doesn't allow it, insisting on him not publishing it at all rather than him changing it so it doesn't infringe on her work, shame on her.

Rowling should have gone directly to Vander Ark--let him publish, let her edit. Then she has a hand in the process, gets her royalties(Vander Ark will be richer than he ever imagined, even if she takes a generous cut), and the fans remain unsullied by the dirty business of proprietary properties and the monies involved in sharing them. It seems a bad move, especially with more films to come...why put a sour taste in the mouths of fans--which this will definitely leave, no matter the outcome.

This argument that Vander Ark should be given a pass on stealing Rowlings material because she's already rich, or because it makes her seem mean, is bull. Pretend I'm rich. I have a ginormous house filled with super-expensive things. I have a friend who falls in love with my house. Then my friend starts stealing things from my house to sell to others. That's wrong, right? Or should I just let him steal all my stuff cause I'm rich and can buy more?

The fact of the matter is that the world of Harry Potter is the world it is because of Rowling. It's her baby, her creation and she has every right to protect it with ever single bit of her being. People who don't write (or paint or do creative things) don't understand that every word is your child, it's just as dear and it belongs to you and no one else.

As for the money issue: She's not just protecting herself, but she's protecting a legacy. Her money will become her children's money and so on. Harry Potter will become the property of her kids and grandkids. Just letting anyone wholesale steal her work is ludicrous and irresponsible.

Finally, the audacity of Helen A.S. Popkin for suggesting Rowling seek therapy if copyright infringement bothered her is amazing. Does being wealthy mean she should just give away her rights to her work? She's already declared that if she wrote a Lexicon, all the proceeds would go to charity? So in essence, Vander Ark isn't stealing money from Rowling (though by diluting the brand, he actually is) he's stealing money from the charities that would benefit from her work.

Shame on you Helen A.S. Popkin for writing such an irresponsible article that I deem was only written for page views. If you want to challenge Rowlings ownership of her own work, do so in an intelligent, meaningful way. Your "She's rich and should just get over it" attitude is elitist and somewhat socialist.

Good grief, can't anybody tell the difference between an obsessive fan's fun on the internet and a for-profit book that will preempt the author's intent to do something similar? Praising a website as fun and well-put-together is NOT the same as giving permission for something that is an even more blatant infringement on her copyright. Maybe it's not true, but a lot of people still think of something online as ephemera, and something in print in hard copy in a binding as something that will be around a long, long time. Even if her 'biggest fan' did his absolute best to get everything as correct as possible, he's not in her mind so he doesn't know what she was thinking or what she might reveal that didn't get into the books - and he doesn't have control of the publisher or the proofreader (if the publisher even uses one, most don't seem to any more) and whatever errors they might allow to creep in or what BS they might put in, depending on how his contract is written - so she's right to be concerned that what comes out might be partly crap! Even Dumbledore didn't give Harry everything. Even Dumbledore didn't teach Harry all his spells. And Voldemort never did anything in his whole miserable existence to give anyone joy - and J. K. Rowling surely did. If she's richer than the Queen - good for her! She deserves it, and you're snivelly Snape if you think otherwise. Being rich does NOT negate her rights.

Ms. Rowling,
I think you have every right to sue "your biggest fan". Obviously he's not or he would never have considered cashing in on your work, sweat, blood, and tears. Is that not what copyright laws are for? No matter that in the past this person has had your praise for his web things, it is the fact that he and his publishing company are breaking the law by trying to profit by your efforts. That is so wrong.

And to all of the people that have been living under a rock and haven't seen or heard Ms. Rowling's story, GET A CLUE. This admirable women pulled herself up out of a sink hole by her own imagination, perserverance, and sheer guts! Maybe the naysayers should give it a try sometime. Bet they'd never make it.

Ms. Rowling, you have all of my sympathy and support.

mmmmm.... some claim that Rowling was planning on writing her own lexicon.. yada yada... i only heard her spout that one after the poor Dude wrote his.... oh and isn't a lexicon just that? so whom we going to sue for Websters ect. ? looks to me that poor woman needs a good doc and meds to get over herself a bit... kinda sours the enjoyment we got from reading the books and they are definitely going to disappear from my house....

I work in a college library. J.K. Rowling created Harry Potter's universe and therefore owns the copyright to it. If the lexicon just stayed on the internet, that would be OK because, as we all know, there's a lot of excellent information as well as crap on the internet. For a publisher to approach her fan & offer to publish it is wrong and in my opinion, violates the copyright law.

I'm not a fan of Helen Popkin's shallow take on the internet, and this article doesn't improve my opinion. On The Register (a website that actually does contain real news about computers), they call folks like her "freetards". That pretty much says it all.

JK: Sue away! When a supposed "number one fan" crosses the line and wants to earn some major $$$ off your ideas and characters by compiling a book, then he's no longer your number one fan. He's a money-grubbing, greedy dude who can't get rich off his own ideas. Internet stuff is cool (go fan writing!), but should remain intangible.

Ms. Popkin's take on intellectual property, like many who pepper the internet, is one of an open sourcer -- no one owns anything, I can take what I want regardless of whether it is my own work. We see it with downloading of music and video, we see it in a wide range of areas. Ms Popkins suggests that somehow Ms. Rowling's lawsuit puts a cramp in the style of the internet, that somehow she's interfering with these folks that are STEALING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. What a bunch of hooey. To suggest that Ms. Rowling is somehow evil incarnate because she's protecting her own intellectual property is nonsense. Perhaps because Ms. Popkin, by virtue of her hack status as a internet "writer," having never created anything that was not derivative, has no concept of what it is like to have poured ones' creative energy into something only to see it purloined.

To the contrary, one can make the opposite argument that Mr. Vander Ark, in breaching the lattitude that Ms. Rowling generously allowed in encouraging his site by trying to publish his "work" will have deleterious affects on future fan sites because authors will be disinclined to give the kind of creative leeway that Mr. Vander Ark has enjoyed.

What's remarkable is that Vander Ark's own testimony shows he doesn't know enough about the backstory which his own publication austensibly puports to provide.

My personal hope is that this lawsuit be kept alive long enough for her to finish her own lexicon/companion to Harry Potter negating the relevance of Vander Ark's work.

I love HP and think JKR is brilliant and creative. She created and gave HP and his world life and no one has the right to benefit financially off her work unless she gives them permission. Challenging Vander Ark's Lexicon is the right and just thing to do to protect her creation. I have followed this story and have read about it in different sources and the description I've gotten about the context of the book is that it will be nothing more than an accumulation of Rowling's definitions and descriptions taken directly from the HP books which in my opinion is nothing more than plagiarism. It is my understanding from these articles that he will add nothing creatively to what is presented; therefore, he is doing nothing more than compiling information to aid readers when they read HP. So, JKR gave him the subject and the material and since he is using information directly quoted from her writings his Lexicon is in direct violation of copyright infringement because the information is not his in any way, shape or form. GO JO! I hope you and HP are vindicated!

Anyone who believes that JKR is only in it for the $$$$ should have their head examined. I also think that any belief that she shouldn't sue a fan is nothing but BS and is nothing more than trying to make the violin louder than justice. Obviously JKR had given the Vander Ark website credit and respect but maybe Vander Ark became greedy and too big for his britches! Could it be that he wanted a free meal off someone else's hard work?

And as for anyone who believes that JKR only got the idea for a HP lexicon or encyclopedia after this incident obviously didn't hear or read her mention of one after the seventh and final HP book. Before spouting beliefs please verfiy that you know what you speak of before offering fluff and BS.

Totally stupid move by Rowling! How can she justify suing her fan base. Seems really petty to me.

She should be participating in this venture NOT trying to sue Vander! She could help to make this "guide" to Harry's world a total success and benefit grandly from the whole affair rather than turning off a good portion of her fans, one of which is me.

I see where this could open a can of worms for folks to make money off other people's ideas. It is about an author wanting to maintain control of their ideas and prohibiting others from making money off other people's ideas. Hey, I read Scarlet, the sequel to Gone with the Wind and frankly, my dear,...it SUCKED HEINOUSLY. Suppose the next guy wants to write the 8th Potter tome and botches it badly? What if he resurrects Dumbledore or has Hermione run off with Snape - clearly things Ms. Rowling never intented?

Since these are not his own ideas or characters, I also find it odd that he has not offered Ms. Rowling a cut of the procedes (aka ROYALTIES). It was all fine and good while it was free - we all discuss books, TV episodes, magazine articles in cyberspace for free - but now he wants to make MONEY off other people's ideas. $24.95 to be exact. For that matter, I can discuss GWTW with the best of them and often do (along with Miami Vice - TV show - and Battlestar Galactica). But I am not in hot water because I am not trying to get paid on the side for discussing other people's work.

Copyright laws are not absolute and they do permit a certain amount of derivative work, so long as the original work is properly cited. One of these allowances usually permitted under copyright laws is compilations of facts or data. In other words, Rowling's stories themselves are copyrighted and no one else is permitted to publish a novel using the Harry Potter characters or situations. But directories, critical works and research based on the original work (so long as the original work is properly cited) are usually permitted. This prevents the copyright holder from banning critical works focusing on their property, such as some writing an academic examination of the Harry Potter mythology. So long as Rowling is citied as the author and text cited directly from the novels is properly quoted and footnoted, the law will permit publication.

Vander Ark has never claimed any of this work to be his except for researching and compiling the data. I think that under the law, if he cites properly I believe that he can be permitted to publish the Lexicon. It should be indicated that it is not the "offical" encyclopedia sancationed by Rowling, but I do think that there are legal arguments to allow it's publication.

It is very true that Jo Rowling stated years ago that she would not continue the Harry Potter series but she would possibly do a catch-all book that explained in more detail creatures, spells, and other mentionables in a book. That fact is very easy to research, by the way.

And, she did release two other books besides the seven that did just that. (See: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and my favorite, The History of Quidditch).

An online reference that is free to the world that just renames a few of the things that were mentioned in the books is not out of line, but publishing a book to make money off of some else's creation is. Just because Jo is wealthy, that gives this fan no reason to "piggyback", as you say, his way to riches on her ideas. Maybe I'm a purist. I love the actual books too much to even read so-called "theory" books that others published in between books to explain what happened or their theories on what would happen. I own a few because others purchased them as gifts for me. (I never could read a whole one because I like drawing my own conclusions.)

This "fan" is no longer writing theories or hopes on future happenings, but trying to make money off of a catalog book that hasnt even been fully completed by the creator.