JK Rowling blocks the
publication of the Harry Potter
Lexicon
In an eagerly awaited New York court decision, on 8 September
2008 US District Judge Robert P Patterson, Jr, concluded that JK
Rowling and Warner Bros had established copyright infringement of
the following works by JK Rowling: the Harry Potter series,
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and Quidditch Through the
Ages, by the defendant, US publisher RDR Books.
RDR Books had entered into an agreement with
Steven Vander Ark, the creator of the highly acclaimed website,
The Harry Potter Lexicon, to publish the content of the
website in book form. It was this that JK Rowling primarily
objected to, not the website - indeed prior to the court case the
website had been praised by JK Rowling and her US publisher,
Scholastic Inc.
The background was that Steven Vander Ark had
previously contacted JK Rowling's agent (Christopher Little
Literary Agency) about creating a Harry Potter encyclopaedia in
book form for her, but he was told that JK Rowling intended to work
alone on such a project, which in the past she had said she would
produce for charity once the Harry Potter series was
completed. It was only when Vander Ark was told by the
president of RDR Books that he had looked into the legal issue and
that the publication of content from the website in book form was
legal, that Vander Ark chose to proceed. Indeed in a highly
unusual clause in his publishing contract, RDR Books agreed to
defend and indemnify Vander Ark in the event of any lawsuit.
The judge had no problem in finding that
Vander Ark had infringed JK Rowling's right to control the
reproduction of her works, although the Lexicon was not a
derivative work under US copyright law. So key to the defence
was whether the Lexicon was fair use of the Harry Potter
works. On balance the judge held it was not - whilst he was
of the view that reference guides to literature should generally be
encouraged by copyright law as they provide a benefit to readers
and students, it was not permissible, as JK Rowling put it, to
"plunder" the works of original authors without paying the
customary price, lest original authors lose the incentive to create
new works that will also benefit the public interest.
This decision will be welcomed by US
publishers and had such a case been brought in the UK a similar
outcome would have been expected.
Warner Bros Entertainment and J.K. Rowling -v-
RDR Books and Does 1-10, US District Court, Southern District of
New York, 8 September 2008.
Available at:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Lexicon+Order.pdf
For more information, please
contact Simon Stokes on T: 020 7814 5482; E: simon.stokes@bllaw.co.uk.
|