J.K. Rowling versus the Harry Potter Lexicon

J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter book series, has filed suit against a Michigan-based publisher to prevent publication of the Harry Potter Lexicon, a 400-page booked based on material
from the Harry Potter Lexicon Website created by Harry Potter super-fan, Steven Vander Ark.

RDR Books and Steven Vander Ark’s Argument

The publisher of the Harry Potter Lexicon, RDR
Books, describes Vander Ark’s book as a reference book that analyzes and describes all the characters, places, spells, creatures and physical objects found in the seven Harry Potter novels.  Vander Ark
organizes the material like an encyclopedia in alphabetical order. RDR argues that the book is protected under the First Amendment and the copyright fair use doctrine. Rowling and Warner Brothers
refer to the book as a re-packaging of Ms. Rowling’s creative work.

What the Law Says

RDR Books and their attorneys are absolutely correct that authors can not control the discussion of their works in book reviews, critical essays, and other forms of social
commentary.

For example, if the topic of your book is an analysis of the accuracy of scientific principles in Star Trek, your book would likely be safe from copyright infringement claims even though it might include a discussion of some plot lines as well as some dialogue from Star Trek.  However, if your guidebook simply aggregates fictional moments and dialogue from the Star Trek works, you would likely be called an infringer.  There have been actual cases in which such books based on the fictional works of Seinfeld and Twin Peaks have been found to be infringing.

My Analysis after a Limited Review

According to RDR’s legal arguments filed with the court, in addition to serving as a reference source, the Lexicon also “provides a significant amount of original analysis and commentary concerning everything from insights into the personality of key characters, relationships among them, the meaning of various historical and literary allusions, as well as internal inconsistencies and mistakes in the
novels.”

I had never visited Vander Ark’s website prior to learning of this lawsuit. I do not have a copy of the book, the Harry Potter Lexicon. I have, however, read all seven of Ms. Rowling’s Harry Potter novels. I did review the website versions of some of the entries cited in RDR’s brief as offering critical analysis. They included entries describing Neville Longbottom, Luna Lovegood, and Draco Malfoy

Quite frankly, the entries read to me as a detailed summary of Rowling’s creative content without offering any original content or commentary. I would classify a whole book of such
material as a derivative work and an infringement of Rowlings’ Harry Potter series.

But perhaps the Harry Potter Lexicon in book form offers more critical analysis. We’ll see what the court decides. The court holds a hearing at the end of this month to consider Warner Brothers and Rowlings request to issue an injunction preventing the publication of the Harry Potter Lexicon.