Slashdot Mirror


Rowling Sues Harry Potter Lexicon

Snape kills Trinity with Rosebud writes "Apparently famous authors don't like it if you try to make a buck using their imaginary property because J.K. Rowling is suing the publishers of the Harry Potter Lexicon for infringement. This should prove an interesting test case for fair use given that the lexicon contains mostly factual information about the series, not copies of the books' text. Of course, both sides seem a bit touchy about imaginary property rights, with Rowling's lawyers being miffed after being told to print it themselves when they asked for a paper copy of the lexicon's website, and the lexicon website itself using one of those insipid right click disabling scripts."

7 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. well that's funny by deathtopaulw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the first thing I see on the main page is a quote from JKR:
    "This is such a great site...my natural home." - JK Rowling
    I assume this is a lawyer thing

    1. Re:well that's funny by burne · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you read on and visit Rowling's site you will notice something. The story is quite different from what the grandfather-post suggests. Rowling has been helping the lexicon so for. But now the makers of the lexicon intend to make money by publishing a book, and that is where Rowling has to draw the line. She's happy helping fans, but selling books based on her work is a bridge to far.

      I take no pleasure in the fact that publication has been prevented for the present. On the contrary, I feel massively disappointed that this matter had to come to court at all. Despite repeated requests, the publishers have refused to even countenance making any changes to the book to ensure that it does not infringe my rights. (source

    2. Re:well that's funny by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did the publishers of those books make a deal with the publishers of the Harry Potter books? Unless we're talking about those "fanfic" Chinese HP books, I'll bet they did.

      And there's the crux of the matter. If the publishers/creators/whatever of this lexicon had sat down and hammered out a deal with the HP publishers, there wouldn't be a court case. But it looks like they're trying to do an end run around those publishers, possibly in order to keep all the potential cash for themselves.

      Which is damned foolish, considering the amount of money they're going to have spend on lawyers.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  2. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    the lexicon contains mostly factual information

    And all this time I thought it was a work of fiction. You mean magic is real!?!?

  3. Re:Out of creative juice.. become an IP vulture. by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, who does this woman think she is? All she did was all the hard work in creating something. Who is she to profit from it?

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  4. Re: suing for charity... by Macthorpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do some actual charity work yourself, Rowling. rather than farming it out. Here's a link where JK wrote two books specifically for charity.

    Consider this a learning experience.
    --
    "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
  5. It's probably not about the money by Tyrannosaurs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you look at Rowling's history in matters of licensing, you'll tend to find that if she's anything she's a control freak rather than greedy. The contract with WB for the films gives her a near unprecidented level of control over the films, and she personally reviews many of the merchandising proposals.

    Her concerns tend to be around keeping Harry "pure" - that is retaining control over how everything around it is presented, rather than wringing every last penny out of it.

    In this instance it will be about wanting a single authorative lexicon, rather than multiple competing ones, some of which will not fit her vision of things, meet the quality standards she wants or whatever.

    I'm not saying that this is right/legal/good, just that claims of greed show little understanding about the individual they are being made against and are probably wrong.