When Does Being a Diehard Fan Become Copyright Infringement?
By Heather Faucher | Posted on June 25, 2009 | Filed Under Copyrights
One high-profile case from 2008 illustrated a rising issue in copyright law as use of the Internet proliferates. When does being a diehard fan of something become copyright infringement? And will the “fair use” exception allowed under U.S. copyright law pull your fat out of the infringement fire?
In late 2008, a U.S. judge sided with J.K. Rowling, author of the blockbuster book series Harry Potter, in her copyright infringement lawsuit brought against a fan and website operator who was in the process of publishing a Harry Potter encyclopedia. Once known for praising that particular fan website, the proposed encyclopedia had her changing its tune because, according to her, the lexicon was nothing more than a rearrangement of her material.
U.S. District Judge Robert P. Patterson agreed, ruling that Rowling had proven that Steven Vander Ark’s “Harry Potter Lexicon” would cause her irreparable harm as a writer. He also permanently blocked publication of the Lexicon and awarded Rowling and her publisher $6,750 in statutory damages.
Rowling had originally brought the case against Michigan-based RDR Books to stop them from publishing material taken from the Harry Potter Lexicon Web site. Vander Ark, a former school librarian, runs the site, which provides all sorts of information culled from the seven Potter books, including detailed descriptions of characters, creatures, spells and potions. While the small publisher was not contesting that the lexicon infringes upon Rowling’s copyright, they argued that inclusion of that material was exempt under fair use law regarding reference books. The judge, however, agreed with Rowling that Vander Ark had gone to far when it came to the print version of the Lexicon.
“While the Lexicon, in its current state, is not a fair use of the Harry Potter works, reference works that share the Lexicon’s purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled,” he said. But he ruled in Rowling’s favor because the “Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling’s creative work for its purposes as a reference guide.”
Rowling had become so upset at the prospect that the Lexicon would be published, she had stopped work on a new novel. “It’s really decimated my creative work over the last month,” she said during the trial last April. And were it to be published, she went on to add, “I firmly believe that carte blanche will be given to anyone who wants to make a quick bit of money, to divert some Harry Potter profits into their own pockets.”
In other words, those hoping to make a little magic of their own at the expense of the magic she’s already created.
About this Post
Tags: copyright infringement, copyright search, harry potter, j.k. rowling
Permalink | Trackback |
|
Print This Article | Leave a Comment
Comments
Leave a Reply
The opinions and information on this blog are not intended as legal advice. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. Click here for the full disclaimer.
Other Resources
