Why J.K. Rowling Shouldn't Get To Prevent Harry Potter Guidebook Publication
from the copyright-doesn't-let-you-control-everything dept
We've covered in the past J.K. Rowling's attempts to claim that copyright gives her more rights than it actually does, especially with regards to fan fiction. However, Rowling's latest attempt is to try to prevent the publication of "The Harry Potter Lexicon," a fan-created reference book to all things having to do with the world found in the Harry Potter books. Law professor Tim Wu does a nice job explaining why Rowling's claim goes beyond the limitations of copyright law, which does not prevent someone else from creating a guidebook of information about characters you created. As long as the guidebook creators are not copying Rowling's words verbatim, but are merely creating a guide or a critique of Rowling's work, it's not a copyright issue. Rowling's real problem with the guidebook appears to be a different issue. She had no problem when the Lexicon was just a fan website. However, when they wanted to sell a book, she became upset. So the real problem appears to be that she doesn't want anyone else to make any money -- but that's not what copyright law is designed to do. Newspapers make money off of books all the time by publishing reviews, and we all know that's legal. There is no difference in creating a reference book.Rowling complains that this work will make it difficult for her to publish her own guidebook: "I cannot approve of 'companion books' or 'encyclopedias' that seek to preempt my definitive Potter reference book...." However, as Wu notes, that's silly and has nothing to do with copyright law: "two products in the same market isn't called pre-emption—the word is competition." And, generally, competition is something that we should encourage, as it drives all competitors to provide better products. If Rowling really believes she cannot compete with a fan reference guide, that's hardly the fault of the other reference guide. Given the interest in Harry Potter, it's hard to believe that an "official" reference guide given Rowling's endorsement wouldn't outsell any fan-created version.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, fan fiction, harry potter, j.k. rowling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Too bad. Another opportunity by someone with the public's attention to do some good squandered by greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalism = Competion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't compete when someone beats you to market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't compete when someone beats you to ma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't compete when someone beats you to ma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't compete when someone beats you to market
The problem isn't that she's trying to protect her interests, it's that she's using lawyers to protect her interests in ways that lawyers are not supposed to operate.
IMHO, the problem here is that her lawyer(s) are not preventing her from taking these actions. Instead it smells more like she's given the day to day operations of her estate to a lawyer. And we know that if you're a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. Well, if you're a lawyer, then every problem looks like a... well, you get the picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't compete when someone beats you to ma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition
Normally I don't jump on the greed bandwagon, but this is pretty ridiculous. She's just being greedy and selfish over it. If her book is truly definitive, then it will win out. Fans will get what they want, and if in her greed she won't deliver, someone else will. That someone will reap the benefits she was unwilling to get off her ass and take for herself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bah.
Oh, wait... that's what she DID already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trademark issue
However, surely "Harry Potter" is a trademark - If JK Rowling doesn't take steps to protect that trademark then she risks losing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: trademark issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: trademark issue
Correct on both
"and therefore cannot be a trademark"
Wrong, in this instance "Harry Potter" emblasoned on the cover of a book should indicate the source to be JK Rowling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: trademark issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: trademark issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: trademark issue
Tim Wu, a noted law professor, wrote that this case is over copyright. Are you accusing him of lying or just of being less knowledgeable of the case than yourself?
However, surely "Harry Potter" is a trademark - If JK Rowling doesn't take steps to protect that trademark then she risks losing it.
OK, lets assume for a moment that you're right and Tim Wu's wrong. You wrote the words "Harry Potter" in your comment. By your reasoning then I guess you just violated her trademark and if she doesn't sue you then she'll loose it, huh?
Bullshit.
Even trademarks don't give the owner the right to prevent the discussion of the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: trademark issue
Again, I'm not lawyer, but it sounds to me like Rowling (or whoever is trying to stop the book) is in the right on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: trademark issue
A guide or dictionary or encyclopedia is just a collection of facts. Somehow I don't think that all those Klingon dictionaries or Ferengi rules of acquisition books are all authorized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: trademark issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: trademark issue
She isn't losing her creative control over her work. The work in question is a guide book, not a creative work.
"But reviewing, commenting, and discussing on something is a big difference in making a product and selling it based on that Trademarked idea."
Trademark only serves one purpose - to uniquely identify an individual or business to it's customers. There have been plenty of unauthorized reference books for various creative works, and they are legal. Most of them slap "unauthorized" on the cover to alleviate any possible customer confusion. Rowling doesn't have a leg to stand on here. There is no question that publishing and selling the reference book is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: trademark issue
I was agreeing with him that the copyright argument being used in the case appears to be invalid.
"You wrote the words 'Harry Potter' ... I guess you just violated her trademark"
Er, no,as you pointed out "Even trademarks don't give the owner the right to prevent the discussion of the product."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: trademark issue
That's right. And that's why JKR doesn't have a case. It's interesting how quickly you changed your mind when the shoe was on your foot. I think the word for that is "hypocrite".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From what I know of copyrights and trademarks over characters and creative works in the United States, you have to be EXTREMELY overzealous in protecting them. Any laxness on your part will could result in you losing the copyright completely.
DC Comics almost lost Superman in the 1950's because they were not zealous enough over protecting the character's trademarks.
Did you know that if a company mistakenly has a fan website pulled down because they wrongly believe it to be infringing, they are not even allowed to apologize when they are wrong? Because that apology will be seen as a sign of weakness, and can be used against them in REAL cases of infringment.
My understanding is that it's possible that if Rowling allowed the publication of this encyclopedia in the US, especially if it does contain quotes, it could open the door to her losing the copyright to Harry Potter in the US altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then what you know of copyright law is wrong. This is simply untrue. You do not need to protect your copyrights in this nature. You cannot lose your copyrights for failure to enforce.
You do need to protect your trademarks, but it's a myth that you need to be "extremely overzealous" in protecting them. Many lawyers will say that, as a way of covering themselves, but it's not accurate.
Did you know that if a company mistakenly has a fan website pulled down because they wrongly believe it to be infringing, they are not even allowed to apologize when they are wrong? Because that apology will be seen as a sign of weakness, and can be used against them in REAL cases of infringment.
Again, that's simply untrue.
My understanding is that it's possible that if Rowling allowed the publication of this encyclopedia in the US, especially if it does contain quotes, it could open the door to her losing the copyright to Harry Potter in the US altogether.
Again, that is 100% false. You seem to be confusing copyrights and trademarks, and then contributing to that by assuming a version of trademark law (which you then apply to copyright) that is not accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair, the official one's for charity
No, this doesn't change the facts of the case, but the assumption that she does everything out of personal greed deserves to be challenged.
(Also, it's actually Warner Brothers suing, since they essentially own the Harry Potter universe. Check the copyright message in the more recent books.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair, the official one's for charity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair, the official one's for charity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can anyone say frivilous?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can anyone say frivilous?
From what I've heard, the lawyers sent letters requesting a copy of the book so they could check it didn't infringe copyright *months* in advance, but were put off because its a small publishers and they asked for time due to illness in the family. Which the lawyers gave... and the publishers used it to quietly hurry ahead with publication without that check.
The lawyers had to pull an eleventh hour request to stop publication because the publisher refused to talk to them earlier. Not exactly their fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can anyone say frivilous?
It might not have been polite, but the publishers of the lexicon are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to supply an advance copy.
"The lawyers had to pull an eleventh hour request to stop publication because the publisher refused to talk to them earlier. Not exactly their fault."
Yes, it is their fault. They decided to sue the publishers because the reference book "might" infringe on copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can anyone say frivilous?
(I say this as someone who's USED the site. Often. Fingertip access to quotes CAN be a handy resort when I don't have access to the books but that doesn't make them legal.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unlike some of her "fans", I don't think JKR should have the "right" to do whatever she "desires".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if she does this, she'll still be accused of being a "money grubbing whore".
God forbid she makes money off an idea and a series of books she created and wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
d
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And as to the money-grubbing whore part - she had beforehand stated that all money from the official guidebook would be going to charity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: trademark issue by Aaron
Ideas can't be trademarked or copyrighted. You can patent an idea though, apparently any idea according to some of the bad patents being given out lately...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selfish
Rowling would get along well with MLB, which thinks it should own the facts around baseball, and that no none else should be able to build a derivative product. Sure, the world would be a far better place if we could only block all creative ideas that are based on the foundation of other ideas.
But didn't somebody, somewhere, first come up with the concept of a Lexicon, or users's guide for a book? Mabye Rowlings should have to pay half of any of HER earnings to the descendents of that person, because she is stealing their idea of a Lexicon. She should also find the rights-holders for sorcerers, giants, wizards, trains, castles, and the English language, and pay them all their share of her derivative tomes that use their original concepts. Gawd, it's endless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
compassion
1) The Harry Potter Universe exists wholly in Rowling's head. Any guide to Harry Potter that doesn't involve her would be flawed and incomplete. She wants her fans to have a good product.
2) As was said earlier, people will buy the official guide regardless of whether they own an unofficial one. J K Rowling has nothing to lose, but her fans do. They will waste money if unofficial guides are published and sold.
3) J K Rowling is one of the most notable philanthropists today. To say she's in anything for personal monetary gain is moronic.
Her interests are in preserving the magic of her series, and why shouldn't she try to protect those interests?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: compassion
And she thinks that she has the right to tell those fans what to buy? She needs to learn the difference then between "fan" and "royal subject". The fans can decide on their own which version to buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She can create canon
Rowling's reference guide can, if she wishes, report canon backstory for the characters (which she says she has already written for her own use.) That gives Rowling's reference guide a distinct advantage over all others.
So, she really shouldn't be complaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright's purpose is to encourage the creation of works. Using it to do the opposite is clearly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OUTRAGE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is everything so emotional here
Mike's newspaper analogy is dead on. As long as the book is truly written as a reference guide, and doesn't involve a narrative tone that would in anyway convey "story telling" using her characters, then there isn't anything wrong with "commenting" on characters created by another author.
I would think she would be within her rights to clarify that they needed some sort of disclaimer to make sure that consumers knew the book wasn't the official book, but other then that she shouldn't be able to limit their ability to produce the book.
To me the bigger legal question is whether the fan website owes any sort of compensation to materials provided by what I am sure where initially volunteer contributors to their website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money Crack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jump to conclusions mat
As another comment stated the basis behind the lawsuit is the fact that if the website uses the current web material verbatim theyt would be in violation of copyright as much of the info on the website is actually verbatim from the books. It's not completely new material, thus the crux of the case. If the website were to rewrite everything that goes into their book then I do not think there would be a case, as there would be no legal ground to stand on.
Klingon language books and Mike news paper analogy are a great examples of why a lexicon is ok. So long as the material is not copied verbatim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TRADEMARK != COPYRIGHT
You are wrong. Trademarks are there to protect the consumer so someone doesn't go buy Product X with the name Y when they really wanted Product Z with the name Y.
In other words, since it is a REFERENCE book it isn't impaired by trademark law. They are fully and correctly using "Harry Potter" to describe the J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter character(s) and universe. They aren't tricking the consumer into think it is something else.
Funny that this hasn't been a problem before. I can think of several similar things from Star Wars and Star Trek that are duplicate reference material. No one got sued over them, though you'll be hard pressed to find ones other than "Star Wars: The Essential Guide to" whatever the book subject is specialized on.
Yet another story showing how afraid of losing money Rowlings is. I'm happy she made millions and got out of poverty, but she along with many others need to stop abusing laws and wasting the court's time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TRADEMARK != COPYRIGHT
Whether it will win depends just how many quotes there are in there. It's hard to say without a copy of the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bogus Lawsuits
only when there are REAL and catastrophic damages for trying to use the courts fallaciously, will this end
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You CAN compete when someone beats you to market
Being 2nd to market does not mean you cannot compete. I am thinking of one example that is so obvious it is not even worth mentioning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's happened to two different fan sites I've frequented, and in both cases the network people said that an apology could be used against them.
This is one example right here: http://www.outpost-daria.com/non-foxing.html
Read day four: Unfortunately, a "we made a mistake" letter would not be forthcoming, as it would weaken MTV's position in the future should it need to truly Fox a site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's happened to two different fan sites I've frequented, and in both cases the network people said that an apology could be used against them." - AC
You're speaking in absolutes. There is nothing to stop a network from issuing an apology beyond their own policies. The reason they don't want to issue an apology is because the networks are happy with the instant take downs. They don't even have to offer proof of any kind; simply send an email to the ISP claiming copyright infringement, and there's a decent chance the site will disappear. It happens on YouTube all the time.
The current network thinking is that if they actually took responsibility for their mistakes and issued apologies when appropriate, the ISPs would not be as complaint in pulling down "infringing" sites. They won't issue an apology because they don't want to threaten this luxery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They can say it, but it's not true. It's simply an excuse for not wanting to apologize.
I mean, of course it *could* be used against them in a lawsuit, but it wouldn't be very effective. There is nothing stopping them from issuing an actual apology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And she can still do that; no one's stopping her. Why hasn't she?
Calling this lady greedy or selfish is absolutely insane!
Try telling that to the people she's suing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read that she just signed four books to sell to bail out a Rugby team. She must like Rugby more than she likes her superfans. Give me a break. The Beedle book sold for millions of dollars while she was whining that the Lexicon was stealing her money for charity. Reality Check people.
Dictionaries and Encyclopedias are not illegal in the U.S., and neither are "guides" to HP, of which there are already some on the market. It's too late to close Pandora's Box, and I can't wait to see how this lawsuit fares in a real court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to kick J K to the curb
How about lay off the attorneys, take all your millions of pounds of money, and shove it where the sun don't shine.
People around the world are sick of this disgusting junk. She was fortunate enough to have "thought up" a great-selling idea--someone needs to tell her not to look a gift horse in the mouth. (Stupid) People won't be lined up before store openings to buy her books when they read about how greedy and litigious she is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it used to be
she really needs a clue about what's in her professional interest, and that of her creations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]