Last week’s JK Rowling/Warner Brothers versus RDR Books trial made me very uncomfortable. On one hand, I completely support an author’s right to protect copyright. It’s time this nation (world, really) learned serious lessons about copyright — what it is, how it’s applied, fair use (yes, kids, fair use is part of copyright). But there’s something, well, chilling about how this case has played out.

And, as a fan, I’m particularly bothered by this case because, well, there has to be a better way to deal with your readers than suing them. Especially after you’ve blessed the website and admittedly used it as a resource. It’s really absurd to belittle the efforts of said fan while tacitly admitting that you — the author — don’t have the same level of information readily available.



At the heart of the suit are issues related to fair use, derivative works, and copyright infringement. Rowling, over the course of eight books, created a complex world filled with new concepts, new language, detailed history, and a host of characters. A website, reportedly endorsed by Rowling, created a sort of lexicon of the Potter world. The creators of the lexicon then decided to release the work in print format.

Rowling wasn’t at all happy.

Rowling is famously protective of her copyright, to the point that her zealousness has backfired. As Kirk Biglione noted in his “Tools of Change” presentation (download PDF), Rowling’s refusal to release an ebook version of the “Harry Potter” series due to fear of piracy (among other reasons) lead to, you guessed it!, increased piracy without a single legal alternative for consumers. Demand existed for the ebook — small demand, sure, but demand — yet only the pirates met it.

Rowling says this suit isn’t about money, but it is. I do not believe it stems from greed on her part, but the heart and soul is about who profits from the Potter world (and it’s clear that the parties with the most financial interest are the author and Warner Brothers — not, you’ll note, either Bloomsbury or Scholastic). Once it was perceived that there might be money made of this derivative work, then the worries began.

JK Rowling, for all her innovative thinking, has an issue with the Internet, that much is clear. She might use it, but she doesn’t get it. eBooks are one issue, but it’s clear to me that she considered the lexicon created by Steven Vander Ark to be just fine as long as it remained online. Once he ported it to (printed) book format, things got sticky. Was it the idea that books are sold in stores and make money? Would she have been as litigious if he’d made a bundle via Google AdSense on his website (did he sell ads, one too lazy to check wonders).

So it’s okay for Rowling to benefit from the obsessive of a fan, but not okay for the fan to benefit as well? It’s a bit selfish, isn’t it, to support the efforts of your fans while they funnel money to you but to disregard their time and energy when it seems they might earn a little back? Over and over and over again, I see the publishing industry asking readers to give without, well, giving back in return.

I digress.

Rowling has stated that, at some point in time, she plans to write her own encyclopedia/lexicon. You know, a little something to tie the whole thing together. The when and if of this project are unscheduled, but you can bet your sweet bippie that Rowling’s book will skyrocket up the charts. Not only will she be able to bring intimate depth to the entire Potter oeuvre, but she’ll also present the material in her own voice.

There is no way that the RDR Books lexicon will cannibalize Rowling’s sales (if there are indeed any sales by Rowling as those sales are dependent on the creation of a book that is still in the “thinking about” phase). To suggest this might be the case is no less than a classic red herring. Readers are hungry for more Harry Potter from J.K. Rowling. The brilliant Jeff Gomez draws a similar conclusion:

True, itâ€™s a different story when someone is using your exact words, repackaging them for their own profit. But if whatâ€™s being written about is instead your world, then thatâ€™s not only fair game (and fair use), but itâ€™s good thing and not a bad thing. In Rowlingâ€™s case, her books are going to sell no matter what. But if sheâ€™s allowed to succeed in stopping RDR, think about all of the books about books (not to mention books about movies and plays and music) that wonâ€™t get written as a result. Bands could protest books being written about their songs, and directors could claim infringement when books about their movies appear. Part of the pleasure, and indeed the understanding, of art comes from putting it into context and perspective â€” not to mention just plain celebrating it â€” but if Rowling has her way nothing would exist but the works themselves.

Gomez hits the point square on: if derivative works are subject to approval of copyright owners, that leads to a chilling effect on criticism. The RDR lexicon provides a perspective on Rowling’s books that, while she might disagree, reflects particular reading and understanding of the text. And, I believe, given the cultural impact of this series, it’s not unreasonable to anticipate other analysis, cataloguing, discussion — that’s what great books do. They inspire readers to build upon and explore the literary landscape.

Rowling should be flattered and honored that her work created the kind of passion that went into this project. If this were truly about copyright infringement, I’d feel sympathetic to Rowling’s cause (the weird thing being that so little of the coverage indicates the level of actual copyright theft happening here). But she’s made it clear that this isn’t just about copyright — it’s about control. Rowling wants to control the conversation about her work. She lost that right a long time ago.

There’s a point where she has to come to terms with the fact that it’s time to let go. Jeff Gomez compares this to sending your children out into the grown-up world. You hope they fare well, hope you did a good job, wonder about who they will influence. Rowling can continue to offer her wisdom and insight.

Do I think this could have been handled better? Absolutely. Suing your fans is rarely a good public relations move.