The written word is fiercely guarded its authors. Many years ago, a waitress published her first book in what she hoped would be a successful series. This author went under the name of J.K. Rowling. Her book was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. The book was an enormous hit, selling millions of copies. J.K. Rowling went on to write six additional books. Harry Potter’s fan base was beyond measure. Fan clubs, websites and blogs ensued. Her books were reviewed in articles and on news shows; several of the books were made into movies which also made millions.
A man named Steven Jan Vander Ark loved the Harry Potter series. For ten years, he feverishly collected information about Harry and his friends and followed every word. He created a website that was followed by many, including J.K. Rowling herself. So why then, did Mr. Vander Ark and his would-be publisher end up in a heated court battle? It boils down to copyright infringement. Vander Ark decided to publish his collection of information (from his website) as a Harry Potter Encyclopedia called the Harry Potter Lexicon.
The basis of copyright law is original work. J. K. Rowling’s claim was that there was no supplemental analysis (no original work) in Vander Ark’s book. She had invested seventeen years in writing the series using her original and unique ideas. Vander Ark took these ideas, scaled them back, organized them and tried to sell them. The book contained no original ideas, and Rowling claimed no original analysis. Further, she also claimed that Vander Ark’s book would inhibit the sales of her forthcoming book, a Harry Potter almanac.
There is a very interesting article that takes some different positions on the lawsuit that I recommend reading, specifically the blogs at the bottom. Many references are made to other similar lawsuits and to a lawsuit placed by Vander Ark himself against Warner Brothers who tried to use information from his website (see the Nov 3 comment.)
According to the assigned reading, An Introduction to Copyright “Copyright law is part of intellectual property law.” That means that Rowling’s books, all her little tidbits of information and Harry Potter “facts” belong to her. True facts, cannot be copyrighted, non-fiction “facts” can. Rowling put in her imagination and creativity, her time and a lot of hard work. Vander Ark put in a lot of time and hard work but no imagination and no creativity. His work was not original, it was just reorganized.
I think Rowling tried to serve the public good but it backfired on her. Rowling tried to walk a fine line. According to most of the articles I scanned and read, there seemed to be a consensus that she was very gracious to her fans in allowing them to use and mimic her characters and story lines on websites. This certainly helped her fans. Vander Ark’s website was very good and very well put together. Rowling herself was a self-proclaimed reader. Fans who read the books came to learn much more about the characters than they typically would have known after finishing them.
The only problem with this freedom is that it will ultimately be abused by someone who is misled or simply looking for a way to make a buck. Unfortunately, it was only a matter of time before someone tried to capitalize on it. According to the reading mentioned above, copyright infringement is designed to give creative people incentives. I don’t agree with this angle. Creative people are creative by nature; there is a certain drive there. A creative person’s mind doesn’t stop working just because they can’t make money off of their ideas.
Now, don’t get me wrong here, I agree that copyright infringement laws should be in place. People have to pay the bills. I am not sure I agree with the duration. According to the reading mentioned above, is seems to be designed to protect the copyright throughout a person’s lifetime and then some. In our fast-paced world, I am not sure how useful that is. Things become outdated much more quickly today that they did before. I hope they shorten this duration. To serve the public good, sometimes you build on the ideas of others.
I agree with Rowling’s lawsuit and feel she was right to file it. It is unfortunate though, that she had to. Let’s hope this does not inhibit the freedoms extended by authors in relation to fan websites.
Citations
1. Lattman, Peter, Harry Potter & the Copyright Infringement Lawsuit, Wall Street Journal, November 2007, Retrieved September 12, 2008, from http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/02/harry-potter-the-copyright-infringement-lawsuit/
2. The Stacks, retrieved September 12, 2008 from http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/
3. Associated Press, Rowling launches lawsuit against Harry Potter lexicon, CBS News, November 10, 2007, retrieved September 12, 2008 from http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2007/11/10/rowling-lexicon-lawsuit.html?ref=rss
4. Eligon, John, Rowling Wins Lawsuit Against Potter Lexicon, New York Times, September 8, 2008, B3, New York edition, retrieved September 12, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/nyregion/09potter.html?bl&ex=1221105600&en=acda2111e537322e&ei=5087%0A
1 comment:
This was interesting to know and makes me think about different patents that should have been established too to fully protect her work.
Post a Comment