Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Author says Potter lawsuit is "a crock"

Mathew Ingram, May 6, 2008 at 12:58 PM EDT

If you follow all things Harry Potter-ish, you've probably heard about the lawsuit launched by J.K. Rowling, the billionaire author of the Harry Potter books, against the author and publisher of a book known as The Harry Potter Lexicon, a compendium of facts from the popular series. The case was heard last month in New York, and a decision is expected soon on whether the Lexicon -- which is based on a popular website of the same name -- is in fact copyright infringement.
 
Veteran science fiction/fantasy author Orson Scott Card, however, has made no secret of how he thinks the court should rule in this particular case: In a recent column for an online magazine called The Rhino Times, he refers to the lawsuit as "a crock," and says that Rowling's "hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe." Card goes on to detail the many similarities between his own popular novel Ender's Game and the Harry Potter books, and also to note that there are several allegations that Rowling copied other works.

During the trial, Rowling argued (among other things) that the Lexicon was poorly organized and annotated, suggesting that she could have done a better job, although she has praised the site in the past (and even gave creator Stephen Vander Ark an award in 2004). Card notes that "nothing prevents her from doing exactly that -- annotating and explaining her own novels. Do you think that if there were a Harry Potter Annotated by the Author, Vander Ark's book would interfere with her sales in any way?"
 
Card says the lawsuit "puts at serious risk the entire tradition of commentary on fiction." Others are also concerned about the implications for the principle of "fair use" if the Rowling lawsuit succeeds. The Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project helped to defend the author of the Lexicon, a former librarian and rabid Harry Potter fan from Grand Rapids, Michigan. He says he has made about $6,000 through carrying ads on the site. When the movies and other spinoffs are included, the Harry Potter franchise has generated revenue in excess of $5-billion.
  1. Albin Forone from Canada writes: Early reports were that Rowling actually plans to publish a similar reference of her own - evidence maybe not admissible in court - little doubt that if she did it would outsell the upstart as being the "definitive" reference. A cynic might guess that the lawsuit is pretty good publicity, since most people would otherwise never think they need a lexicon for their kids' pop lit or find out about one.
  2. John K from Canada writes: Could it be just a matter of protecting her copyrights? Doesn't copyright work that if you have never previously acted to protect your property than you're less likely to win any disputes in the future?
  3. Blaise Alleyne from Toronto, Canada writes: @JohnK: That's trademark law, not copyright law.
  4. FLUVIAL SEDIMENT from Canada writes: It will be interesting to see how the court rules on this. Personally, it seems clear to me that J.K. Rowling is the creator of the Harry Potter world and that anyone using any part of that world in their own publications had better have her permission.
  5. Katherine R from Canada writes: FLUVIAL SEDIMENT: I'm not sure I agree with you. I kind of think that at some stage, popular culture -- at least to some extent -- becomes public domain at some point. Some nerdy super-fan should be allowed to watch Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek, and, yes, Harry Potter, and be allowed to mine it for geeky trivia if he/she wants. No, it probably won't be as good or as complete as what the author would write but this lawsuit is not about quality. It's about whether nerds can write encyclopedias on their favourite pop culture icons. I say, go ahead. I think J. K. Rowlings is angst-ridden because she has lost come control over her creation, but it's inevitable if something is so popular.

    I also find it a tad ironic that Rowlings is so protective of Harry Potter when she has written an incredibly derivative set of books that generously borrow aspects of many previous stories of magic and wizardry.
  6. Ted T from United States writes: Oh, the suit is definitely being pushed by WB, with Rowling in tow. If you do a little searching, you'll see that there are several HP encyclopedias (I found 7 in 5 minutes) that have already been published, but not in the U.S. I think it will be difficult to single this particular one out when Rowing hasn't blocked any previous encyclopedias. By blessing Vander Ark's FREE website, she essentially granted public domain access to the facts housed within her works. Creating an encyclopedia containing public domain information is generally allowed. Yes, Rowling created the HP world, but an encyclopedia is an organized collection of facts (even from a fictional work), and is allowed under current copyright acts. What is not allowed is the modification of Rowling's stories or the duplication of the stories. Dissecting a story, pulling out trivial facts, and organizing them with an easy index completely removes the story behind the facts, protecting the copyright - this is standard scholarly work, and also copyrightable as a separate work. The measurement of this is whether or not a derviative encyclopedic book can exist on its own; the Lexicon is quite worthless without the original HP books, which provide the storyline. You have to buy the HP books for it to make any sense. The irony is that the Lexicon would actually help boost sales of the original HP books, helping those who can't keep up with all the information flying about to better understand, and enjoy her tales. This Lexicon is similar to the multitudes of "unofficial" Star Wars Encyclopedias on the market. George Lucas (well known for Darth Vader-style copyright enforcement) couldn't crush those, so I doubt Rowling will have much success with this venture. As I write this, I wonder: Did Ronald Reagan obtain copyright permission to use the title of "Star Wars" for the SDI missle system?
  7. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: I think you mean, 'did the media, who insist on cutesy-ing up the news, get permission'

    " Ted T from United States writes: As I write this, I wonder: Did Ronald Reagan obtain copyright permission to use the title of "Star Wars" for the SDI missle system?"
  8. Rick C from Canada writes: Katherine R from Canada writes:

    "FLUVIAL SEDIMENT: I'm not sure I agree with you. I kind of think that at some stage, popular culture -- at least to some extent -- becomes public domain at some point."

    No actually it doesn't regardless of whether you want it to or not.

    This is a copyright issue. Vander Ark is profiting off legally protected intellectual property that is not his own.

    Every book written about Star Wars requires and has received consent from Lucas.
  9. Jon Marvin from Toronto, Canada writes: That's $6000 Rowling doesn't have.
  10. Simon Cohen from Toronto, Canada writes: She should listen to Card. He has done an incredible job of fostering a loyal online audience for his published works, starting waaaay back with AOL in the 90's. He's also the best Sci-Fi writer ever, IMHO.
  11. m b from Canada writes: The biggest problem with the Lexicon book is that its phrasing is about 90% Rowling's words and phrasing, lifted right from her books without proper citations. When Vander Ark was writing the material for his website, he got away with it, but publishing it in the same medium as the Potter books themselves presents a problem.

    Also, there is apparently next to NO commentary or analysis of Rowling's books in the Lexicon book. So Orson Scott Card is off the mark when he says that WB/Rowling winning this case would endanger the ability for people to publish criticism or analysis of other people's works.

    Had Vander Ark re-written the material on his website, using his own words and phrasing to describe Harry Potter and his fictional world, and/or provided a substantial amount of critical analysis, this court case most likely wouldn't have happened (other HP reference guides have been published without their authors/publishers being sued).

    In my opinion both Vander Ark and his publisher were in such a rush to make money in a timely matter (after all, with the final HP book finished, interest in HP was bound to wane somewhat), they decided to risk a lawsuit, and now they are reaping what they sowed. It's a shame, but there it is.

    If anyone is really interested in this case, it's worth it to have a look at the documents submitted to the court made available here: http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/
  12. Karen Brown from Oxford, England United Kingdom, United Kingdom writes: I think a lot of people are confusing the issue entirely. In no way does Rowling oppose fans or whomever publishing books about her works. In fact, she encourages genuine criticism and analysis. This misconception has been rather frustrating for me, personally. First of all, my book on "Prejudice in Harry Potter" was rather unfortunately released by a POD publisher around the same time the trial started. I was hoping to place the book with an academic publisher but I wanted to see how well it might do and get some reader reviews first. What I found curious was that, although there are literally hundreds of books out there on HP, the publishers and agents I approached replied to my emails within 5 minutes, without even looking at my material: They said they were "cautious" and "don't want to go near" anything concerning Harry Potter because of the "litigious nature" of J.K. Rowling and the people surrounding her. Never mind that my book is an academic study which is 95% my own analysis...Never mind that, of all the books on the market, none have addressed these themes in depth until now. Like I said, they weren't even reading my messages or looking at the emails. Added to that, the POD publisher insisted on putting "Not Authorized" on the cover, even though they are not required to do so because it is an academic study. So I think Mr. Card and many other people are lacking in the facts of the case. Yes, the great disadvantage of this case is that it will probably discourage people like me for writing genuine scholarly commentaries on the Potterverse. But this has less to do with JK Rowling's intent and more to do with the fact that most people don't bother to check ALL the facts. As for Mr. Vander Ark, I think he could have tried a little harder to write a book that Ms. Rowling would have been comfortable with. Having said that, I think the fanbase have turned on him bitterly; may God have mercy on him because they certainly don't. [Google Karen Brown Prejudice].

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Ingram 2.0

Back to top