Unofficial ' Harry Potter' Encyclopedia Banned, Thanks to JK Rowling
Copyrights are frequently mysterious and sometimes crippling things. Creative minds obviously need to protect their rights to their creations, but as the RIAA and MPAA have shown again and again, it's quite possible to push the boundaries of copyright into the ridiculous. Sometimes, though, the boundaries are a little less clear-cut, as was the case regarding an unofficial encyclopedia about the Harry Potter universe that series author JK Rowling has prevented from publication, being ruled "not a fair use of the Harry Potter works" in a New York court.The encyclopedia was written by Potter fan Steven Vander Ark, a school librarian who ran the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' fan site. Rowling originally supported the site, but when Vander Ark announced plans to sell a book based on the site's contents for profit, Rowling recoiled. As of the legal ruling, the site seems to have been taken offline as well, leaving Potter fans unfortunately out in the cold.
For her part, Rowling indicated that the lawsuit was not about money, but rather to protect her interests from the sale of a book she called "wholesale theft." She had earlier plans to write a similar encyclopedia and give the proceeds to charity, but as of now it sounds doubtful that even an official tome will see publication. [From: BBC News]
_thumbnail.jpg "Vintage Keyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jules said 4:22PM on 9-12-2008
How unfortunate
Reply
Dennis Bowen said 4:41PM on 9-12-2008
I'm very pleased for Ms. Rowling's and all of the "Harry Potter" fans. To have competing encyclopedias, which could have ended up being more than two, assures the fans that the information they receive will be only from Ms. Rowling's, which is her baby. Good show Ms. Rowling's. Much continued success on all of your books.
Reply
Dawn said 5:12PM on 9-12-2008
I'm glad she stopped it from being released. It was copy writen material and they had no right to try and profit from her works. You wouldn't like it if they had done it to you. As a business owner I have several products in my line copywritten and I would sue anyone who violated that protection. He's lucky all she did was stop the book and didn't go after damages.
Reply
Brittany said 6:38PM on 9-12-2008
It is important to note (as was mentioned in this article) that J.K Rowling does indeed plan to use the proceeds from her encyclopedia for charity work, where Vander Arks proceeds would have been going to himself. It is also important to note that, contrary to what this article states, it is not "doubtful that even an official tome will see publication." Yes, J.K Rowling did state in April that she had lost some of the luster to write the encyclopedia, but she said that referring to the idea of publishing hers if Vander Arks encyclopedia was published as well!
Here is the FULL quote:
“This trial has decimated my creative work over the last month,” said Rowling. “You lose the [plot] threads and worry whether you’ll be able to pick them up again.”
“Should my fans be flooded with a surfeit of substandard books — so called lexicons — I’m not sure I’d have the will or heart to continue,” said Rowling, who went on to characterize the H.P. Lexicon as “sloppy,” “lazy,” and “incorrect.”
Rowling has stated to fans numerous times that she will produce a Harry Potter encyclopedia. And she always delivers. She directed the comment that she had lost the will to write her own when on stand, stating reasons that Vander Arks encyclopedia should not be published, one of them being the lack of a need for her to create one. I am sure now that Vander Arks is out the window, she will follow through with her plan to write her own.
Reply
hylan32 said 8:14PM on 9-12-2008
that's funny but it seems to be existent still, i did a google search for Harry Potter Lexicon, then clicked on "Cached" comes up with a page stating "The Harry Potter Lexicon is undergoing technical difficulty and may temporarily be found here."
the link leads to a working version.
Reply
hylan32 said 8:25PM on 9-12-2008
Rowling's in it for the profit. Still why is Vander Ark so stupid as to try and make money off of a print version of what is able to be updated at ease.
Reply
baseballgymnast said 3:00AM on 9-13-2008
Rowling said the H.P. Lexicon is “sloppy,” “lazy,” and “incorrect?” Yet she said on her own official site that she referred back to it a few times [while writing The Deathly Hallows]. Whatever.
Reply
Angela said 8:35AM on 9-13-2008
Nonsense. "Unauthorized" and "unofficial" guides to books, movies, and TV shows are published all the time with no problem, and in ways that benefit and promote the original work, while also earning revenue for the author.
The Lexicon itself was exhaustively researched, cross-referenced, and put together by Vander Ark and his team, who loved the books and treated them with respect. Rowling herself was a huge fan and used the site constantly. What's wrong with his making money from his work? Nothing? He credits her with the original works and even attempted to clearly delineate the Lexicon as a separate unauthorized piece. But Rowling would accept nothing less than a total shutdown.
To me she became a hypocrite the moment she reacted against publication. She had already been a fan of the Lexicon -- for years!! -- and the man has every right to make money off a truly useful resource for fans that cost him thousands of dollars and man-hours. But Rowling's billions evidently didn't stop her from greedy and grasping behavior when it comes to the entire situation.
The sad thing is, Rowling's own Lexicon would frankly not be copyright-appropriate either if (as she admitted in the past) much of the scholarly work for it came out of Vander Ark's Lexicon. Now he can't publish, his site is offline, and Rowling's compendium will likely never arrive either. Everyone loses. It's a shame.
Rowling is very antagonistic anyway (or her legal team is). A friend of mine made the mistake of putting the picture of an owl (an image she drew herself and OWNED) on a T-shirt design and Rowling's legal team insisted she remove it even though it had nothing to do wth Harry Potter at all. I've since seen it happen to several people who dare to use the word 'wizard' or 'owl' on a shirt or design.
Rowling here had a choice. She should have simply said nothing (except to insist that he inclue the clear "unauthorized" description to the title for legal purposes), have let it be published, and moved on. The fact that she didn't, and singlehandedly shut this guy down, leaves me angry and disappointed in her.
Reply
Devon said 8:06AM on 9-15-2008
I can't believe the lexicon was taken off the internet! That was my source for everything! I mean yeah that dude had no right to create an encyclopedia for copyrighted stuff, but still. that was website was awesome.
Reply