Managing Editor Jesse Walker reveals what’s really at stake in Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling’s copyright fight against the publishers of The Harry Potter Lexicon.
Read all about it here.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Bob Goodman | May 8, 2008, 4:46pm | #
I hope the issue is: How much does the Lexicon serve as a substitute for the original works, vs. how much does it discuss the original works? The 1st function would be unfair competition with the originals, the 2nd function stands to actually increase the value of the originals. Could be a tough call.Dave B. | May 8, 2008, 4:53pm | #
Wasn't Rowling mostly upset because she intended to publish her own lexicon? It muddles up the distinction between unfair competition and increasing the value if that's true.On the other hand, she didn't even have a problem when he was giving it away for free online (which he still is as far as I know).
Syd | May 8, 2008, 5:13pm | #
Rowling's planning to publish an encyclopedia of Harry Potter's wield and this would seem to conflict with that. I can see that she would have a problem with someone trying to profit from her work without her permission.Warren | May 8, 2008, 5:18pm | #
Jesse,Was there no one to speak up for the radical libertarian idea of dumping copyright altogether?
R C Dean | May 8, 2008, 5:20pm | #
Rowling's planning to publish an encyclopedia of Harry Potter's wield and this would seem to conflict with that.Tough. You can't copyright what you haven't published yet.
NeonCat | May 8, 2008, 5:32pm | #
I don't get people siding with Rowling over this. But maybe I am more familiar with third person created guides to author's works than most of her readers. And if she is suing him because of her planned Potterapedia, wouldn't that be a pretty good example of rent-seeking?Rich people can be so testy.
The Old Man Down The Road | May 8, 2008, 5:40pm | #
Wasn't Rowling mostly upset because she intended to publish her own lexicon? It muddles up the distinction between unfair competition and increasing the value if that's true.And it muddles up the issue of plagiarism. It could be a case of Rowling plgiarizing the web site.
Dave B. | May 8, 2008, 5:52pm | #
You can't copyright what you haven't published yetI thought that copyright attached as soon as you had the work fixed in any tangible medium. Plus, wouldn't her lexicon count as a derivative work and thus fall under the original copyright?
So many people who discuss this and take your view have no idea of the content of the Lexicon. In what way is a list of JK Rowlings' characters, places, and things a discussion? Vanderark compiled a list and alphabetized it - that is ALL; he did NOT write analytical essays. It is in no way a "discussion" (it's not even an adaptation). There is no original content. Rowling still owns the copyright.
Bah! Harry Potter saves the entire human race and goes on to become...a bureaucrat. How inspiring.
The Winter Soldier | May 8, 2008, 9:30pm | #
J.K. Rowling is a one trick pony, albeit a fantastic trick. Let her milk that sucker for all it's worth.Lamar | May 8, 2008, 10:15pm | #
"So many people who discuss this and take your view have no idea of the content of the Lexicon. In what way is a list of JK Rowlings' characters, places, and things a discussion?"That is a valid question to pose. I tend to think that the act of defining something necessarily includes value judgments and discussion. The question is whether a guidebook is more like a review of the work or more like an unauthorized sequel. Admittedly, guidebooks can be part of the overall marketing plan for a series of books. Ultimately, Rowling owns the characters but does not own the fact that the characters exist.
JK Rowling created a character named Harry Potter, who is a wizard. If Rowling gets her way, I just committed copyright infringement by publishing the facts surrounding the characters she owns.
zoltan | May 8, 2008, 10:25pm | #
Lamar, the difference is that you didn't profit from that comment. At least, I think that has something to do with it, as IANAL.Windtell | May 9, 2008, 3:32am | #
Wow, good comments from the Reason readers.You've shown in a very abrupt way how complicated some of these issues can become very quickly, alot of you raised valid questions. I think that this is one case for the courts to decide on its indivual merit.
R C Dean | May 9, 2008, 6:53am | #
I thought that copyright attached as soon as you had the work fixed in any tangible medium.True. However, its very hard to come forward after your rival publishes his lexicon and say "But I had mine written first, even though I didn't publish it, and he copied mine, even though he never saw it"!
Lamar, the difference is that you didn't profit from that comment. At least, I think that has something to do with it, as IANAL.
Nope. Copyright infringement occurs regardless of whether anyone gets paid.
Mr Anonymous | May 9, 2008, 3:24pm | #
I respect Rowling's defense of her intellectual property, but this seems to be overreach. If Rowling wins this lawsuit, what's to stop publishers from suing Cliff's Notes?Lamar | May 10, 2008, 11:12pm | #
"Nope. Copyright infringement occurs regardless of whether anyone gets paid."This is correct. Getting paid is just one of the factors that diminishes the fair use defense. However, using the fair use defense implicitly (explicitly?) acknowledges that the plaintiff (Rowling) had protected rights in the material used by the second author. In this case, the argument appears to be that Rowling doesn't have rights to the facts surrounding the characters she created, and therefore there is no need to invoke fair use.