Harry Potter Fan Weeps On Stand During Rowling's Suit

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

DAVID B. CARUSO | April 15, 2008 09:50 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Author J.K. Rowling exits Manhattan federal court, Monday, April 14, 2008, in New York after testifying on the first day of her trial against a publishing company. Rowling claims that her copyrights are being violated by a fan who plans to publish a "Harry Potter" encyclopedia. She brought the lawsuit against his publisher, RDR Books, to stop release of the "Harry Potter Lexicon." (AP Photo/ Louis Lanzano)

%meta(topic:ap_topic:general entertainment;subtopic:other;%)

NEW YORK (AP) _ A Harry Potter fan who wants to publish an encyclopedic guide to the popular fantasy novels broke down and cried on the witness stand Tuesday as he reluctantly faced off in federal court against his idol J.K. Rowling.

The British author is suing publisher RDR Books for copyright infringement over its plans to publish a "Harry Potter Lexicon" based on a Web site created by Steven Vander Ark, a 50-year-old from Michigan who counts himself among Rowling's most devoted readers.

Vander Ark wept openly when he was asked to reflect on what the case has done to his relationship with the community of Harry Potter fans. The former middle school librarian, who fell in love with the books in 1998 and has devoted years to studying them and indexing their content online, could barely speak.

"It's been ... it's been," he stammered, choking on his words. "It's been difficult because there has been a lot of criticism, obviously, and that was never the intention. ... This has been an important part of my life for the last nine years or so."

He said his only goal had been to celebrate Rowling, who he called a "genius."

Vander Ark testified on the second day of a trial in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that has pitted his publisher, RDR Books, against Rowling and Warner Bros., the maker of the Harry Potter films and owner of intellectual property rights to the Potter books and movies.

Rowling and the media company are trying to prevent publication of the Lexicon, which RDR had sought to release last fall. Sales were delayed pending the outcome of the suit.

During her testimony on Monday, Rowling said the Lexicon, which contains many passages taken verbatim from her novels, "constitutes wholesale theft" of her work. She also said its publication would spoil plans for her own Potter encyclopedia.

In a statement Tuesday after Vander Ark testified, Warner Bros. Entertainment and Rowling said that Vander Ark's good intentions in creating the lexicon are irrelevant.

"A fan's affectionate enthusiasm should not obscure acts of plagiarism," it said.

In his hours of testimony Tuesday, Vander Ark came across as a fan whose boyish and unbridled love of the Potter story had taken a distressingly unexpected turn. He first fell in love with the books while working as a children's librarian at a Christian school. Over the years, he has read each of the books "30 or 40 times," as well as every article ever written about Rowling.

Since 2000, his major contribution to Potter fan literature has been a Web version of the Lexicon, one put together on a low budget and largely made up of lists of characters, spells and creatures from the books.

Vander Ark said the Web site was no money maker _ taking in less than $7,000 in advertising revenue over its lifetime _ and he intended it to be a hobby until he was approached last summer by RDR Books Publisher Roger Rapoport about putting out a printed version.

Vander Ark said he initially was against the idea, partly because he believed it would violate copyright law. Even after Rapoport assured him they could publish legally, he remained unsure and insisted on a contract clause in which RDR agreed to take on costs caused by any copyright lawsuit.

Rowling testified Monday that the characters she created are as dear as her children, and that the ordeal of the suit is draining her of the will to write. She said she does not expect to complete her own Potter encyclopedia for two to three years.

As for Vander Ark, his distress hasn't made him less prolific.

Recently, he moved to London, where he is working on two more books about the Harry Potter universe. He had also planned to work as a guide for a travel company giving Harry Potter-themed tours in Europe until the lawsuit caused him to back out.

Vander Ark also seems to have lost none of his passion.

His face lit up when an attorney for RDR books informed him that Rowling had complained that the Lexicon had given the wrong etymology for the door-opening charm "Alohomora."

Vander Ark had speculated that the word was a combination of the Hawaiian word "aloha" and the Latin word "mora." Rowling explained that the word actually came from a West African dialect.

"Really!" Vander Ark said, his eyes alight. "Sorry. That's very exciting stuff for someone like me."

The trial is scheduled to resume Wednesday and last about a week. There is no jury; it will be decided by U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson Jr. At issue is whether there is enough interpretation and analysis in the lexicon to justify its use of Rowling's characters and language.

The trial comes eight months after the publication of Rowling's final book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." The seven books have been published in 64 languages, sold more than 400 million copies and produced a film franchise that has pulled in $4.5 billion at the worldwide box office.

 
 

Comments
38
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

er actually, the post by the erroneous librarian is below mine, as the chicken drops.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 AM on 04/16/2008

To those who say he is misusing her intellectual property rights, I say you are wrong, wrong, wrongity, wrong wrong.

If she had a problem with it, she could have said something while it was only on the web. But no, she praised it. The real reason she is in court right now is because he wanted to publish it and make a few bucks.

His compilation is of known facts (names of fictional characters, events in books, locations) with some of his own analysis, even if wrong. Facts are not copyrightable. For example, I refer folks to David Day's "A Tolkein Bestiary". How is this different than what Vander Ark did?

And as a former librarian, the post above by a librarian is rather short sighted and wrong. Ignorance runs amok in my old profession, sadly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 04/16/2008

The main problem is that Vander Ark's book contains large amounts of text lifted from the Harry Potter books, and does nothing more than rearrange information available in the books. :/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 AM on 04/17/2008

As one Librarian to another I have only one message. Vander Ark - as a professional Librarian, you have a responsibility to protect intellectual property, not to exploit it. Try to remember what you learned while getting a Master's degree in this subject.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 AM on 04/16/2008

Actually she is taking on his sleazy publisher who wants to make a cheap buck off her intellectual property without paying her a cent. The little guy is just caught up in their bull-shit scheme.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 AM on 04/16/2008

This is stupid. I know nothing about Harry Potter....never read it or seen the movies. But I know this: the woman that created it and made money off of it owns it 100%. It is that simple.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 AM on 04/16/2008

She owns the books, the characters, the plot (Now Warner Brothers) but not critical commentary or companion anyone can write and publish. It is just that the Warner Brothers realized they could have published that (JK Rowling does not even need to be part of it because it is not fiction-writing) and gotten huge profits of it. It is great for us that no studio holds rights to the works of Faulkner, Dostoevsky or Ecco, because then those companions and dictionaries of characters would be outlawed and the unfortunate afficionados who spent lifetimes writing about the writers put on the stand.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 AM on 04/16/2008

Faulkner and Dostoevsky don't exactly print money for Penguin.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 04/16/2008

This is simply not true. Millions of college kids are forced to buy their books and companions every year. Even the translators of the new editions of Dostoevskiy and Tolstoy into English, having come up with far superior translations than the previous ones, have made themselves wealthy.
The other issue is that is not a legal argument.
The problem here is that character copyright is a contentious area. A recent case between the heirs to the Superman creator have won a protracted case with a movie studio (that is behind Superman Returns and the two other scheduled Superman projects) and, I believe, were awarded a share of profit. However, the studio engaged in integrating a character into another fictional narrative. What Vander Ark did was create an index plus critical companion. These may or may not be written by the author. Usually they aren't. It is a different kind of work and, judging by the website, is no different from any other companion/dictionary of characters, which are not copyright infringement. If he wrote a fictional narrative with the characters who she and the movies have made so huge, it would be copyright infringement, but he hasn't.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:18 PM on 04/16/2008

Oh, what a dreamworld you live in! She gets a cut as do all the others involved. You know, like organized crime which is basically what her series amounts to. Except, it wasn't all that organized.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 AM on 04/16/2008

So it's crime to create something that is successful? Sorry, whuzzuhuh?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 PM on 04/16/2008

Oh yea, she's Homer, Fitzgerald and Joyce wrapped into one!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 AM on 04/17/2008

I'm surprise to encounter so little sympathy for Mr. Vander Ark. He strikes me as a lost soul who found something he loves and got a little too caught up in it. It also can't be easy for Ms. Rowling to have to sue so ardent a fan. There must have been a kinder way to resolve this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 AM on 04/16/2008

Then he shouldn't be exploiting it for financial gain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 04/16/2008

He is not exploiting it. There is no legal foundation for this case. The writing and publishing of such books is allowed under laws for reference books. Her main point is that she doesn't like how it's written and wants to do it herself.
This is a quote from the article:
"I think it's atrocious. I think it's sloppy. I think there's very little research," she testified Monday. "This book constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."

She also said she has recently started work on her own encyclopedia but does not expect to complete it for two to three years because she wants to do it right.

Now if a living writer doesn't like the companion they will be able to take those who write about their work to court to stop publication? The WB and JRK are appealing to this and comparing books to children because they do not have a legal case. "wholesale theft of 17 years" is not specific plagiarism. It's just like this "I could have written better encyclopedia to my work", but it will still sell great, because harry potter fans will buy both. this man has had a following with his own critical work - whatever its level. this is not exploitation in legal terms. otherwise why not just shut down all the literary and critical studies programs? those people occasionally make money off writing about other people's writing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 04/16/2008

It would be okay in any other country other than the US. ObamaEdwards is right. It is in court because there are no laws for companions. Because what the librarian wrote is a companion. Copyright protection doe not cover companions. Copyright laws in the US are unlike anywhere else and their stringency (that, by the way, makes it perennially difficult to even use film stills in scholarly publications, not to mention educational digital projects ) protects the "property owners" - as in this case of WB (not Rowling, you suckers who think it's about writers - yes, she sold them to WB but now she has to stoop to this companion bashing in court) - usually huge entities. And it is usually studios who go to court for this kind of stuff.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 AM on 04/16/2008

It's her property, PERIOD. I still am amazed that it's even in court. I don't care if the internet is a different venue than published books. It still does not matter. It is HER PROPERTY, and simply because she has made a fortune that would fill several lifetimes, does not diminish this fact. It's for her to decide how she wants her property used.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 PM on 04/15/2008

Well, all I can say is that your comments show that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:30 PM on 04/17/2008

This is a perfect example of why the term "intellectual property" used to describe copyright, patent, trade secret, etc., should never have been coined. It tends to cause people to confuse the discussion. The law of property is designed to create a rational system for the allocation of scarce resources. Current intellectual "property" law is designed to create scarcity in order to provide a means of monetizing an idea (contrary to the original purpose, which was to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by encouraging the public expression of ideas). So, the term "property" is really a misnomer when applied to this topic, and it causes people to come to erroneous conclusions similar to that expressed above.

How many original stories are there? Look at any recent Disney movie (Pixar excluded) and what do you see? Retellings of classic stories like the Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. Many people argue (not me, but hey), that by making their animated versions of these stories, Disney made valuable additions to the cultural landscape. Should Hans Christian Andersen's heirs or Mme Leprince de Beaumont's family have barred the making of those films because those stories are their "property?"

Copyright establishes rules for how original works of authorship can be used, and establishes a limited time during which an author or copyright holder may exclude others from using the works. It does not make them "property."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:02 AM on 04/16/2008

Hey, this is a society that entertained the idea of Donald Trump copyrighting the phrase, "you're fired." The whole concept of copyright infringement has been perverted by big business lobbying since its inception. It was never intended, originally to be this all encompassing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 PM on 04/15/2008

Trump could not have copyrighted the phrase "you're fired". "Society" can "entertain" all it wants. It doesn't mean it could happen and it's no reason to throw out copyright laws just because someone like Trump is a megalomaniac and thinks he can copyright a commonly used phrase.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 PM on 04/15/2008

Jesus, Maria y Jose! Jo Rowling has made a billion dollars off Harry Potter and has spawned a cult that's bigger than Oprah. She and Warner Bros. should look upon Mr. Vander Ark as a Pauline evangelist spreading the good news of our beloved Harry!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:41 PM on 04/15/2008

Why doesn't Rowling just strike a deal to hire Mr. Vander Ark to write the encyclopedia under her direction? Win-win for everyone...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:20 PM on 04/15/2008

Why should she pay someone to write something she already wrote? All of you people who are all for throwing this plagiarist some of Rowlings fortune have obviously never written anything of your own. It's called intellectual property and it belongs to Rowling. If I were Rowling, I would sue to stop the plagiarist, too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 PM on 04/15/2008

I have written something of my own, and I KNOW that you are extending this beyond what is reasonable, and if YOU have written anything of your own, then you know this as well.

And just so you're straight on this, creating a reference is WORK, an it is not gross and flagrant plagarism. An agreement for the work to be performed is the best route, I'll give you that, but this lawsuit isn't about plagarism, but about fair usage statutes. If he has gone too far, she wil win; if not, he will win--it's just that simple.

Also, consider this: this guy is up against a billionaire author in court; it's clear to me that, in this country, the odds are stacked against him. But would they be if he were interested in creating such a reference book based on the work of a mid-list author with no financial clout behind her? If he won this suit against an author you'd never heard of or read, would you care, or bother to defend her creative rights then?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 PM on 04/17/2008

I agree. Staged tears or not, that rather pathetic former school librarian -- I wonder how he rates Dickens, Austen, etc versus JKR -- seems to be a decent fellow. Probably also has a crush on her, unless he's really into Dumbledore. Nerds.... (shakes head)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 PM on 04/15/2008

For the purpose of pure copyright protection, why would the online lexicon NOT be an infringement? It was never called an infringement until a publisher approached the editor and offered to publish it and pay him for all the work he's done. THEN Rowling and Warner said no. So, this is about money. It is not about copyright. Warner and Rowling want to crush this guy and his chances at getting his lexicon into print. If Rowling was so keen to write her own lexicon, why hasn't she? She is only concerned with keeping this man from publishing his. That's just disgusting, and I grow more disappointed by her PR machine every time I read one of her "I was SO poor" stories. She has forgotten what it was like to be poor and to write out of love instead of greed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:27 PM on 04/15/2008

The online lexicon is free and if I understand correctly copyright covers others not making money off of someone else's work. JK and here heirs have the rights on her published works during her lifetime and up to 100 years after her death, I believe. I could be wrong and if I am sorry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 PM on 04/15/2008

Copyright covers ownership and USAGE RIGHTS--period. But that's what this suit is about, whether this is fair usage or copyright infrigment. Copyright infringment can occur by simple usage, if permission isn't granted for that usage. But the complication with that concerning written works is how much is used; is it so much of it used in such a way as to constitute a "copy" of the original work?

So for example, if I create an image and put my name and the text "copyright 2008" in the corner, if you download that image and post it on your website and I take exception to that, then you must remove it from your website or you have violated my copyright.

But if I write a story and post it on my website then it gets trickier; if you swipe a few lines and attribute that to me, it's fair usage, as it doesn't constitute unfair usage of the completed work. If you swipe my entire story, then you've violated copyright.

So, Harry Potter/Rowling fans can like it or not, it's a disputable issue, and is in no way clear cut.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 04/17/2008

Once again: If the case were a clear and obvious infringement of copyright, it would never have gone to court. Judges don't like to hear cases that are not real disputes. So, the very fact that this has ended up in court tells us that Rowling is not the obvious victim she so wants us to believe. Stop sentimentalizing. I am not at all moved by Rowling's misty eyed tributes to herself and her tough life on welfare. My mom was on welfare, too. She doesn't brag about it to gain sympathy. Get real. Warner wants to make sure that they get every penny for every book that has anything at all to do with Harry Ka-ching! Potter. That is what this is about. Anyone who feels sorry for Rowling at this point is just foolish. She isn't a genius, she's a writer who had a terrifically popular and accessible idea that was a big hit with children and adults. A big part of her audience is adults. And she is a lucky writer who gave an award to this lexicon and has stated in interviews that even SHE has used it on occasion to fact check her own work. Come on. This is about money, and who gets to keep it. She is NOT doing this to protect the copyrights of all authors.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 PM on 04/15/2008

You said, "If the case were a clear and obvious infringement of copyright, it would never have gone to court." Wrong. Why do you think we HAVE courts? Do you think every "clear and obvious" case gets pushed away by the judicial fairies? If only.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:52 PM on 04/15/2008

Look at all the unauthorized guides to computer games that are sold alongside the Official guides. Look at all the tv shows that have episode guides, most of them unofficial (some, official -- recognizable by whether they use licensed photos from the show, or candid photos of the actors). In short, why does Rowling think that her works are different from all the other works that have unauthorized guides?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 04/15/2008

It isn't, deckard70, you are right. And this is what makes the whole thing sad. This is all about cash.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 04/15/2008

and some people need the free marketing... and some work is not worth defending.
In short, what makes you think anyone should be able to steal her work?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:02 PM on 04/15/2008

It's Rowlings work and the publisher coming out with this "encyclopedia" should have known better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 PM on 04/15/2008

How could they think that this would be okay? Usually if you're using copyrighted materials, you need at the very least permission from the owner, and you probably have to pay them for using their stuff.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 PM on 04/15/2008

If it's just information about the contents and short excerpts to support theories, than it probably is a fair use. If he were copying large portions of text at a time than it is not. But an unauthorized companion would not be copyright infringement. The cover and title would have to be such that they also avoid trademark infringement as well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:22 PM on 04/15/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in