JK Rowling. Succesful author of the highly popular Harry Potter books that have graced the world of English fiction and brought joy back to reading.
As such, she claims copyright in her literary masterpieces. Reasonable. Copyright includes right of adaptation of Harry Potter to movies, music, electronic storage or other mediums. Reasonable. Copyright includes sole exculsivity in publishing Harry Potter world guides as well. Unreasonable.
According to this news report, Rowling has brought a copyright infringement suit against a fan, Steven Vander Ark, and his popular web-based Harry Potter lexicon, where fans and Rowling herself go to refer Harry Potter facts from, for engaging a publisher, namely RDR books, to publish a print version of the website, titled the Harry Potter Lexicon. On her website she offers the following justification for it: “It is not reasonable, or legal, for anybody, fan or otherwise, to take an author’s hard work, re-organize their characters and plots, and sell them for their own commercial gain. However much an individual claims to love somebody else’s work, it does not become theirs to sell.“
Wrong! There is no “re-organising” of any sort here. What is going on is simply a scholarly right under the fair use doctrine to comment, discuss and guide on another’s literary work, which is normal and usual. Yet in an excellent commentary, Tim Wu points out that even fair use is immaterial to consider since JK Rowling’s supposed rights over guides to her work don’t even exist to begin with.
RDR Books, the Harry Potter Lexicon’s would be publisher, is right to say that ”This is a right no court has ever recognized. It has little to recommend it. If accepted, it would dramatically extend the reach of copyright protection, and eliminate an entire genre of literary supplements: third party reference guides to fiction, which for centuries have helped readers better access, understand and enjoy literary works. By extension, it would threaten not just reference guides, but encyclopedias, glossaries, indexes, and other tools that provide useful information about copyrighted works.” True this. Not to mention freedom of speech and right to comment and criticise would be under threat.
Rowling has the galls to claim that “If RDR’s position is accepted, it will undoubtedly have a significant, negative impact on the freedoms enjoyed by genuine fans on the Internet. 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. I find it devastating to contemplate the possibility of such a severe alteration of author-fan relations.”
Well if you’re so concerned, just don’t do it then, damnit.
