"Harry Potter" Author Wins Copyright Claim

J.K. Rowling Blocks Publication Of "Potter" Encyclopedia, Claiming Infringement

(CBS/AP)  A judge says "Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling has won her claim that a fan violated her copyright with his plans to publish a Potter encyclopedia.

Judge Robert Patterson said in a ruling Monday that Rowling had proven that Steven Vander Ark's "Harry Potter Lexicon" would cause her irreparable harm as a writer.

The British author sued Michigan-based RDR Books last year to stop publication of the book claiming copyright infringement.

Rowling claimed the book is nothing more than a rearrangement of her own material and told the judge it copied so much of her work that it amounted to plagiarism.

"I think it's atrocious. I think it's sloppy. I think there's very little research," she testified last April. "This book constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."

RDR's lawyer, Anthony Falzone, had defended the lexicon as a reference guide, calling it a legitimate effort "to organize and discuss the complicated and very elaborate world of Harry Potter."

The small publisher did not contest that the lexicon infringed upon Rowling's copyright, but argued that it is a fair use allowable by law for reference books.

Rowling's Potter series has 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.

Vander Ark, 50, runs the popular Harry Potter Lexicon Web site.

He said he joined an adult online discussion group devoted to the "Harry Potter" books in 1999 before launching his own site as a hobby a year later. The Web site attracts about 1.5 million page views per month and contributions from people all over the world.

After Rowling released the final chapter in the "Harry Potter" series, Vander Ark was contacted by an RDR Books employee, who told him that publication of the lexicon would not violate copyright law, he said.

He said it was decided that the lexicon would include sections from the Lexicon Web site that give descriptions and commentary on individual names, places, spells and creatures from Harry Potter stories.

Still, to protect himself, Vander Ark said he insisted that RDR Books include a clause in his contract that the publisher would defend and pay any damages that might result from claims against him.

[jjkotarski2]

If I were Vander Ark, I''d shut down my site and stop promoting Rowling''s books. She doesn''t need the attention, and he''ll probably just get sued by her again. Why bother being an unofficial PR hack for someone who has enough money to buy and sell you a hundred times over? Let her do her own PR.

[dbstevens]

I agree that Vander should stop promoting her. From earlier news stories, it seemed clear that he was an adoring fan, and her lack of appreciation for that is selfish and egotistical. For Pete''s sake, she could have just hired the guy...I think I''d read that she was wanting to publish her own encyclopedia. There is just so little appreciation in human beings anymore...Rowling should be showing some sort of appreciation to this guy for his love of her work. Money corrupts, though.

[oldpoet-2009]

As an author myself, I can see that you three (koko98, mcgregor666 & brucestevens) just don''t get it. It''s 17 years of HER work. Whether or not she was going to publish her own encyclodepia or not, it was still HER work and copying it for publication is illegal. PERIOD. And that is what the judge ruled. Nothing "activist" about it.

[hypnotoad72]

Was the encyclopedia writer supportive of the franchise or harmful? That would be the only decision pertinent to her being "hurt".

But the book writer would have to get permission and rights from J. K. before doing selling such a book to make money, regardless.

I wonder if all those books of other franchises and people, with the word "Unauthorized" in them, had to get approval first...

[carlylaine]

I, too, am a published author and I agree with brucestevens...

I love Harry Potter and J K Rowling is an inspiration to all of us frustrated authors. She is the richest most successful children''s writer ever in the world.

What I believe of Vander Ark is that he was showing honor to J K. Then I am saying this as a frustrated author. I have professional status and not well-known, yet. I would love to have had my stuff publish for an eighth of what she has monetarily and then have the opportunity to be grateful to Vander Ark.

[smurfcrusher]

"So much for reference books... Rowling is just being greedy."


Posted by gctomajtom

She has a legitimate claim, and the courts agree.

I''m glad she stood up for her rights, and fought those who would shamelessly steal her hard work.

[legacyabq]

First, if they are using material she invented, it''s her intellectual property. A "product", if you will, of her mind. For them to use said product in such a way as to generate revenue, then it is clearly a copyright violation. Is this so difficult to grasp? It''s HER work: if they were giving it away, like a library does, maybe that would be morally different, but this was a for profit enterprise.
"So much for reference books"?? Reference books are NON-FICTION. No one has a copyright on facts and figures known to all people; this "reference" work was a compendium of someone''s personal intellectual property. Clear case of copyright infringement. Does it "honor" her work? Sure! But that''s beside the point. You cannot profit from someone else''s work without their permission.

[nothappyatall]

"This book constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."

Oh? and all the money you made so far isn''t enough? she''s like Bill gates #2 with all the money, let''s cry a RIVER for the lady''s "loss";


"Rowling''s Potter series has 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. "

[legacyabq]

That''''s a ludicrous example of a judge not understanding copyrights --neo267

REALLY? Quality oven quantity, friend. Instead of posting it 7 times, post it once, and give some kind of argument or reasoning in support of yourself. Sorry, but your post is a "ludicrous example" of know-nothing internet-posters who can''t engage in a proper use of critical thinking and reasoning skills.

[legacyabq]

Oh? and all the money you made so far isn''''t enough?

--Who cares if it is or isn''t? What does that have to do with anything? The amount of money she makes from HER property is HER business. Because she made money you think people should be legally allowed to steal from her?? I don''t get it. So anyone who has more money than you automatically "owes" you? Why?
Why does Bill Gates deserve your scorn for being successful? Maybe YOU should write books or start a software company, and if you make money you can stand on the corner and give it all away, so as to remain consistent in your logic! ;-)

[cdfoxtrot3]

Harry ******* was definitely a great movie. Lots of good angles. I don''t remember this chick being in it, though.

[downtowner97]

Might as well sue all the libraries in the world too. They''re loaning out your book for free!

[lucasnico]

"This book constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."

Oh? and all the money you made so far isn''''t enough? she''''s like Bill gates #2 with all the money, let''''s cry a RIVER for the lady''''s "loss";


"Rowling''''s Potter series has 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. "

Posted by newster1 at 09:10 PM : Sep 08, 2008

doesn''t matter dipshit....her copyright, her property, her earnings, HERS....not yours or anybody elses.....pretty simple concept, even for you.

[rwsmith29456]

For some reason being successful and making money is supposed to give other people the right to steal your ideas? It doesn''t matter what the law says. Why is anyone who doesn''t let others take their ideas after they have worked hard to make them successful is a corporate pig. This mentality started with the internet, where people claim others work is in the public domain just because the public wants it to be.

[eggy1620]

Is her work not yet part of the public domian yet?