JK Rowling Bashes 'Harry Potter Lexicon'

NEW YORK — As the creator of the Harry Potter books sees it, her kindness to fans might come back to haunt her. In papers filed for a lawsuit in Manhattan, J.K. Rowling says she feels betrayed by a fan, Steven Vander Ark, for his role in trying to publish an unauthorized reference work, "Harry Potter Lexicon."

Ark is editor of a Web site containing a fan-created collection of essays and encyclopedic material on the Potter universe, including lists of spells and potions found in the books, a catalog of magical creatures and a who's who in the wizarding world.

Rowling said she was especially irked that the site's owner and the lexicon's would-be publisher, RDR Books, continued to insist that her acceptance of free, fan-based Web sites justified the efforts.

"I am deeply troubled by the portrayal of my efforts to protect and preserve the copyrights I have been granted in the Harry Potter books," she wrote in court papers filed Wednesday in a lawsuit she brought against the small Muskegon, Mich., publisher.

She said she intends to publish her own definitive Harry Potter encyclopedia.

"If RDR's position is accepted, it will undoubtedly have a significant, negative impact on the freedoms enjoyed by genuine fans on the Internet," she said. "Authors everywhere will be forced to protect their creations much more rigorously, which could mean denying well-meaning fans permission to pursue legitimate creative activities."

She added: "I find it devastating to contemplate the possibility of such a severe alteration of author-fan relations."

She brought the lawsuit last Halloween along with film company Warner Bros., which owns the intellectual property related to the Potter books and movies. The lexicon's publication, previously scheduled for last Nov. 28, has been blocked by the lawsuit.

A telephone message left with RDR Books on Thursday was not immediately returned.

RDR Books publisher Roger Rapoport has said the lexicon is a "critical reference work" and would not compete with any official encyclopedia written by Rowling.

On its Web site, RDR Books said it was "determined to publish this book for the benefit of Harry Potter fans everywhere."

It said it "believes Ms. Rowling, who has championed the `Lexicon' for years, will love reading the book just as much as she does the Web site on which it is based."

In the past, Rowling had singled out the Web site and its editor for praise.

Comments

[Metacortex]

At the end of the day a copyright does NOT mean that you own an idea. It means that you own your artistic expression. Ms. Rowling owns only her work, not anyone elses. To the extent that a fan has been inspired to develop work that directly attaches itself to her work, including quotes and representations directly from her work, he and his assigns must attribute citation and risk that she will come calling for her cut of the proceeds. One particular area of copyright law that seems controversial is whether or not someone can stop you from quoting them for any reason. But civil law in general is all about damages (potential and actual). The plaintiff must demonstrate either malicious intent or damages to her work/reputation The possibility that someone else's actions will cost you profits does not necessarily constitute damages.Ta­ken seriously I can see a lot of newspapers racking up lawsuits for little more than quoting. There would be no Wall Street Journal. I find it interesting that people seem more concerned about protecting their speech when it comes to fiction and potential profit, but not when it comes to speaking their mind as citizens where the risk is greatest.

To consider copyright law a subject of criminal law only flies in the face of the First Amendment. Speech is free. I can say whatever I want about Harry Potter or J.K. Rowling. If I profit from using the name I expect I will owe Rowling and her publishers a cut of the proceeds.

Ms. Rowling has made more money than she had ever imagined possible for writing an armful of books, but apparently it doesn't seem to be enough for her. She and her publishers seem bent on making sure any work with the words Harry and Potter doesn't escape their radar.

[Lidane]

Oh, and one last thing-- if anyone doubts that this wasn't just a cash grab, please take a look at the terms of his publishing contract:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/37/10.html

Among other things, his contract provided the following terms:

1. RDR Books indemnified Steve Vander Ark from any infringement lawsuits. He's not getting sued in this case. They are. So please don't cry about JK Rowling attacking a fan or suing a librarian. Said fan already got himself a shield against her lawyers by having his publisher agree to take the bullet instead.

2. His royalty rates-- 12% net sales, English version {retail/wholesale} in US; 10% net sales, English version {retail/wholesale} abroad; 10% of foreign language rights; For each week that the Lexicon is listed on the NYT bestseller list, he gets a $500 bonus in addition to his royalties.

3. His royalty rate if links from a group of Harry Potter fan sites known as the Floo Network (which includes not only his own site, but The Leaky Cauldron, and Accio Quote) resulted in a book sale? 50%. Since his book would most likely have been marketed primarily at these sites, he stood to make a whole lot of money from those sales.

4. 50% percent of paperback reprints rights by other publishers or for book club editions.

It's all there in black and white. This isn't a case of a poor downtrodden fan being attacked by a mean author. It's a very shrewd fan trying to make as much money as he can off of copyrights he doesn't own while at the same time protecting himself from being sued by JK Rowling.

[larry278]

It has been estalished that she owns the copyrights. Some see the person you call a bitch as a zealous property owner. It would be prudent to avoid walking on Ms R's lawn unless you 1st get her permission to do so. Trespassing is a crime too. Librarians know of copyright laws & strive to abide by these laws. Some say that librarians have a duty to abide by copyright law.

[larry278]

Signing up for an on-line way to study Klingon looks like a safer bet than using the HARRY POTTER LEXICON. The lady is simply guarding her property rights. What is the big deal about that? It's been established that holding & defending a copyright is legal. You must obtain the permission of the property owner BEFORE you use the property. Trespassing, upon any pretext, isn't legal. The concept of intellectual property has been recognized by appropriate laws. The Harry Potter books are copyrighted intellectual property.

[TheWesternBreed]

Anyway, J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis wrote fantasy stories of great literary quality. J.K. Rowling wrote...we­ll, she wrote the Harry Potter series, which are not, to put it mildly. She's got her billions now, but if anyone's still reading English literature in a few more centuries, her works will be ignored except perhaps for studies in mass marketing and crowd psychology. That's a comfort.

[Everyonepoops]

wow....you are so ignorant and it makes me so sad

[Lidane]

I would suggest that the folks complaining about Rowling filing this lawsuit take the time to read the legal documents in this case. You might be surprised:

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/

This one in particular is worth reading. It's by Jeri Johnson, who is a professor at Oxford. She critiques the Lexicon book for its supposed scholarship and research, and the results are scathing:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/55/

According to Johnson, a line by line analysis of the Lexicon book shows that 2,034 out of 2.437 entires in the book contain material lifted straight out of the HP books. That's over 80% of the book, and it's all taken from material that Steve Vander Ark doesn't own. It's blatant infringement. Rowling's absolutely correct to sue over this.

And quite frankly, Vander Ark isn't owed a dime by JK Rowling. He CHOSE to create the Lexicon site. She didn't ask him to do it. Why should she allow him to profit from her work without her consent? That makes no sense at all.

[ObamaEdwards]

And I suggest you read this:
" Has J.K. Rowling ever been to a library? Seriously, I truly wonder. Because if she had, she might have seen many examples of exactly the sort of books she describes as "not reasonable­." For instance, a list of the allusions in "Ulysses"; or a complete guide to all of the characters in William Faulkner's fiction; or a compilation and detailed analysis of Bob Dylan's lyrics; or a book containing the complete chronology of the events in David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest."

Hey, J.K. -- can I call you J.K.? -- these are known as "reference books," and, like the HPL, they are not mere "reorganizations" of characters and plots.

They are works of scholarship -- works derived from detailed study of an artist's creations, and intended to aid in research and appreciation of those creations. You might take a look at the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law, which allow people to copy work for "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching ... scholarship, or research." "

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/11/13/harry_potter/

The lexicon editor never claimed she owed him. He simply wanted to publish what was online and had already won high praise from billionaire Rowling. This is a clear case of a pompous successful author trying to crush the work of someone in order to make more money herself. And now she's calling herself "betrayed.­" Please.

[Lidane]

There is absolutely nothing scholarly about the Lexicon book. I've seen the manuscript in the court documents. It's poorly written, barely cited, and offers nothing new or original in research. He also not only mistranslates many Latin phrases in the books, but he also misses the little British-isms that Rowling adds to her books because he's looking at things literally.

Plus, over 80% of his book comes from information that SHE created, and which SHE owns. If that isn't blatant copyright infringement, I don't know what is.

This is a clear case of a fan who got too big for his britches. Read through the entire case. The guy spent YEARS telling people that he couldn't publish the Lexicon website in book form because JKR owned the copyrights to everything related to Harry Potter, and that she was going to publish her own encyclopedia one day, so his book wouldn't be needed. All of a sudden, the guy changes his mind?

It's a naked cash grab on his part. Her book will be written with ALL of her profits from it going to charity. This guy just wants to get a piece of a pie that he's not entitled to because the Harry Potter world isn't his. He knew this for the entire time that he was running the Lexicon site, but all of a sudden decides that it's okay to go against everything he's said and done since 2000? I don't think so. He's going to lose in court, and lose badly.

[Birdman]

Do you have proof that these other works you talk about did not get the authorization from the creator first? Any copywrited work that anyone uses for a basis o fthier work has to have permission to use that information. Even if you were doing an essay in school it is always a good idea to get permission and doubly so if you exepct to make money doing it. Apparently this person felt he could do anythign he wanted without getting permission.

[gurukalehuru]

This is really interesting, because usually I have very clear cut opinions on everything, but here, I am torn.

On the one hand, I am a huge fan of J.K. Rowling. I loved the Harry Potter books and I intend to read everything she writes in the future. She has earned her billions and I don't begrudge her a penny of it.

On the other hand, its not going to upset me if this guy Vander Ark makes a buck or two off it. Sure, it's a compilation of her work, which you could call theft, I suppose, but in my mind theft is when somebody smashes your car window and takes the radio. This isn't really the same thing.

I'll be watching this case with great interest, and hope someday that it can be made into a movie with a happy ending, which in my view would be where Vander Ark gets a couple of million bucks and a job in the J.K. Rowling Empire, she gets the official court "win" and a tightening up of her property rights, and John McCain is exposed as the agent of Voldemort that he is.

[grisgris]

This is theft of intellectual property. It is no less real than your radio. It's just worth a whole lot more.

[larry278]

True. Theft is theft. Ms Rowling owns the copyright on the Harry Potter books. The issue about the literary merits of her books is not relevent. BTW you risk being charged with shop lifting if you steal toilet paper offered for sale. Capitalism is tricky but capitalism demands that property rights are honored & respected by all.

[OpusIsUnderTheBed]

This lady has not yet made enough money from this concept. Harry Potter toilet paper!

[Chatto]

Having been on the ground floor of the HP phenomenon, I must say that Rowling should not begrudge Van Der Ark's attempt to earn a small amount of money off of what was nearly 10 years of unpaid work. His Lexicon is an amazing resource, and it does no more or no less than make lists of the things that are in Rowling's texts. It is not a CREATIVE work -- it is simply a compendium of all of the spells, characters, places, and creatures in the Potter Universe. Frankly, he probably knows the books better than does Rowling, and his purpose was simply to provide individuals with a paper version of his website encyclopedia. He's not copying parts of the text for redistribution, he's simply putting together information that anyone could collect if they so chose. Rowling owns Books 1-7, but she doesn't own the imaginations of her fans (fan fiction) nor the universe she created -- it's part of the public domain now.

[Lidane]

Wrong. She absolutely owns the universe she created, since it sprang from her imagination, and she's the one who wrote it all down into her books. And as long as her copyrights are in effect, that's how it's going to be.

Authors don't give up or abandon their copyright to the public domain once they finish a book, or even a series. She's still entitled to her rights.

As for Vander Ark? He gets a pat on the back for creating a thorough fan site, but he's not entitled to turn that fan site into cash. He knew that for years, and said so repeatedly. He even dissuaded others from publishing their own encyclopedias because they would step on Rowling's copyrights. He acknowledged all along that the Potterverse was hers, and that she owned it all. Why the sudden change of heart?

Oh, and the idea that a fan knows more about a series of books than the author is laughable. He might be able to pull trivia out of his hat on command, but that only goes so far. She's got almost twenty years' worth of notes, thoughts and work on these books. The idea that a guy who's had a website up for the last seven years knows more about her own work than she does is a joke.

[ShawnMichel]

The woman owns her own work. Period. For people who can't understand that, well, that implies outright idiocy.

[Fizzgig]

This is the sort of confusion that arises from using the term intellectual "property.­" People hear that and try to equate copyright with real estate. Then the confusion starts. Copyright is not the same as putting up a "No Trespassing" sign. It is intended to stimulate scholarship and discussion by giving people the right to profit when they express their ideas.

You can't copyright ideas, only their expression. You can't copyright facts, either.

It seems to me that this case will turn on how much, if anything, Vander Ark has actually copied from Ms. Rowling (I admit to not having read the Lexicon) and how much is no more than an exposition of the Potter books. For example, if he says "In Chapter 18, Harry and Hermione meet up with Ron at Hagrid's cabin and they discuss what to do about the new professor," that's a fact and not subject to copyright. If, on the other hand, he copies the dialogue from the book showing what the characters said in that meeting, then Vander Ark may be in some trouble.

Unlike in Europe, in the US, we don't recognize a "moral right" in copyright. The moral right says that once you create something, no one can use it in any way that the creator may find offensive. It sounds like the posters here who claim that Ms. Rowling "owns" Harry and his universe and gets complete control of it are mistakenly arguing that such a moral right exists under US copyright law.

[CaptZoom]

The law is quite simple. The rich must get richer. If they can't become richer they must squaller to the poor thus becoming uninterestingly rich boars. And we can't have that kind of universal chaos. Oh the humanity of it all.
If I were Steven Vander Ark I'd consider going underground with the lexicon making it much more cooler to own. Or Dame Rowlings could offer to buy the lexicon for a paltry several million dollars and endorse it whole heartedly and then buy every young girl in England a pony. And to think the world continues to spin...

[grisgris]

Why should Rowling have to "buy the lexicon for a paltry several million dollars"? It's already HERS! SHE is the author of the series and the creator of those characters. She OWNS it.

[Dyno]

Why should anyone be allowed to publish a Harry Potter book of any kind without her expressed permission?

Really it's as simple as that. No one wants to root for the rich girl, I understand that, but just because she has become wealthy doesn't give anyone the right to steal from her.

[Phaedrusnyc]

Because you would then completely destroy the actual intention of copyright. Copyright exists to protect an author's work- it is not meant to put it in a protected bubble where it can not be referenced until a century later (which, for all intents and purposes, copyright has been extended to.) Or are you proposing to disallow exceptions for satire, parody, scholarly discussion, and literary analysis? Look at books like, "The Simpsons as Philosophy," "The Tao of Pooh," and the numerous analytical works based on the Star Wars films. You're saying they shouldn't exist because authors need more money?

[Sumocat]

A lexicon does not fall into any of the categories you cited. It is a repackaging of existing material. By definition, it is not a work of satire, parody (which is not protected by fair use), scholarly discussion, or analysis.

[zannamar]

A lexicon is not an analytical work. All of the Star Wars Dictionaries, Technical guides, stories, etc are all approved by Lucasfilms Ltd before ever published

[ObamaEdwards]

Oh, I see she is talking about this again, now that she has come up with a way to frame her otherwise unsupportable argument. This online lexicon is no different than any lexicon of an author's body of work or a substantial work of fiction. It is a common tool used by fans and it SUPPLEMENTS the work, and DOES NOT in fact violate copyright. For this billionaire author to take a stand--and to now characterize herself as some sort of VICTIM--is so shameful, it has ruined my opinion of Rowling. She goes on to make it sound like she's crusading for all authors everywhere, when in fact she is simply allowing her mega-publisher Warner and her expensive attorneys to crush an independent editor. In the past she has said that even SHE relies on this very lexicon in a pinch, away from home, when she needs to reference accurate information about her own series. There is nothing about this project, online or in print, that would detract in any way whatsoever from the authority of her own lexicon--if she ever finishes it--which would undoubtedly sell millions of copies due entirely to her fame. Her actions are so out of line, she reminds me of her own greedy, controlling muggles. It's terribly sad to watch her do this and get away with it.

[Robbedvoter]

Bottom line: making money off her work = copyright infringement. She had no problem with free access on the internet to the Lexicon. Trying to sell its content for money is wrong. It is not making JKR poorer, but it will do so to other writers, songwriters who can afford it less. JKR is standing here for the rights of the creator - it's a righteous fight. What's allowed on the internet - because it's free, cannot extend to publishing.

[Phaedrusnyc]

Except a reading of copyright precedent and law would tell you that this doesn't fall under the definition of breach of copyright. Scholarly evaluations of other author's work are of course permissable, even if they make money. You are basically suggesting that literary criticism and analysis are illegal, and that's simply ludicrous.

[zannamar]

A lexicon is not an analytical work. It is an dictionary or encyclopedia of sorts of a world she created. This does violate copyright.

[ulmew]

the bottom line is that jk rowling is a billionaire, the 891st richest person in the world according to her wikipedia entry. it is beyond reprehensible she sue anyone for copyright infringement for writing what is essentially non-canonical fan fiction. especially considering this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1224264.stm

[Sumocat]

No, the bottom line is if she does not protect her copyright, it will be forfeited. If she lets derivative work be published and sold for profit (if you were paying attention, you'd notice the online lexicon is not the problem, but the for-profit publication is), then a legal precedent will be created, allowing anyone to sell material derived from her work. Rowling has been lenient enough to let fans publish derivative work for free (although I know some draw ad revenue), but selling it is a blatant violation of her rights.

[ObamaEdwards]

The "bottom line" is: Billionaire Rowling is greedy. She is not protecting the copyright on her work. She is gouging a middle aged LIBRARIAN who reveres her work and has created a perfectly legitimate, non-intrusive tool to supplement reading of her work. He does not steal or take credit for any of this, and in every case refers readers back to the Harry Potter books. This would not be a problem--and never was, for Rowling--except that NOW she sees the $$$ potential for writing her own lexicon and her publisher doesn't want any competition. This is a case of a big, fat successful entity crushing the efforts of someone much smaller because she can afford to. No one would side with her if they were not overly impressed by her wealth.
Read about it in Salon:
http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/11/13/harry_potter/
http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/11/13/rowling_wrong/index.html

[deckard70]

Not true - see earlier reply about all the other unauthorized books about movies, tv shows, and videogames. Completely legal, and have no effect on the copyright of the works they are talking about.

[ObamaEdwards]

No kidding, ulmew. She really deserves this. It's karma. She should have let other people be, and enjoyed her megabucks with her family. Let's face it, the HP books are not very original. They bring together VERY familiar elements from children's lit and fairy tales and folklore, and weave them into a charming world. But the way people behave, you'd think this woman had INVENTED children's literature. Perhaps with so much money and attention and far too much reverence coming her way, she has come to believe that the books are more important than they are.

[Lidane]

So basically, because she's become successful as a writer, that gives other people the right to piggyback on her success and rip off her books for money?

Pfft. I'd like to see you be so open and forgiving of theft if it was your own hard work that was being exploited. It's real easy for people to decide that a rich person is somehow not entitled to their rights to their own work, and that they should just take their cash and STFU, but I can guarantee if you were in her shoes, and someone was trying to rip you off in the same way that Vander Ark is trying to do to Rowling, you'd be suing that person too.

It's not greed to protect your own property. It's the right thing to do.

[zannamar]

Jealousy gets you nowhere. Everyone fails to remember that she was on welfare when she wrote the First Harry Potter. It's her wprld that she created, and she has the right to reject something based from that world.