I recently picked up on the NY Times Website that there is an interesting battle being waged between J.K. Rowling and Vander Ark who runs the blog the Harry Potter Lexicon. Ark wants to publish a book, (or really a blook) which would act as a companion to the immensely popular Harry Potter series. Rowling had originally ignored the blog but now that he might make money out of it they want to put a stop to it.
The good news is the Lawrence Lessig of the Fair Use Project is working on this case and that hopefully, if they win, it might curtail the publishing industries uses of the copyright law. Mr Lessig founded Creative Commons, which is an alternative form of copyright that allows you to create something based on someone else’s idea as long as it’s new.
Ms. Rowling came out saying “I feel as though my name and my works have been hijacked, against my wishes, for the personal gain and profit of others and diverted from the charities I intended to benefit,”
It is interesting that Ms. Rowling sees Harry Potter sees this as an abuse of her intellectual property and that no-one can use them without her permission. But isn’t this another use of the copyright act? Is Ms. Rowling not trying to extend copyright protection.
As Mr Lessig pointed out that if we carry on copyrighting like we are “then we have a whole generation of criminals” that we will be bringing up. It is going to be an interesting judgment that will effect people, especially bloggers, worldwide.
I think it’s quite well established that a lexicon or encyclopedia of another author’s fictional world & characters is a derivative work.
While many authors will turn a blind eye to freely available fan fiction and derivative works, they are quite right to protect their creations when others seek to profit from derived works.
I agree that an author has a right to protect their creations and to stop others profiting from their works. I suppose it all boils down to what is deemed their intellectual property and what is deemed original thought. Copyrights are there for a reason and it has to be said that they have a definite use. Is a person allowed to publish a book of their thoughts even if it contains thoughts on others works?
Thanks for your attention and comment.
Jeremy