Court Prohibits Publication of Harry Potter Lexicon
Author J. K. Rowling has stopped the publication by RDR Books (and attributed author Steven Vander Ark) of a proposed lexicon of the fictional character Harry Potter, his spells, and his world.
A New York District Court found that the content of the lexicon used too much of the actual language in Ms. Rowling’s books to fall under the fair use exception to the U.S. Copyright Act. “Ultimately, because the Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling’s creative work for its purposes as a reference guide, a permanent injunction must issue to prevent the possible proliferation of works that do the same,” the court wrote in its 68-page decision.However, the court awarded only minimum statutory damages of $750 for each of the seven Harry Potter novels and each of the two companion books.
The lexicon used much of the material that already appeared on a website created by Steven Vander Ark. In fact, Ms. Rowling at one time posted on the website that it “is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing). A website for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home.” However, her view changed when she found out that the content of the website would be used for a lexicon, which would compete with her announced plan to eventually create a “Harry Potter encyclopedia.”
The court found that the lexicon extensively copied from Rowling’s work, including two companion books. “Vander Ark openly admitted that he created and updated the content of the Lexicon by taking notes while reading the Harry Potter books and by using without authorization scanned, electronic copies of the Harry Potter novels and companion books,” the court wrote. “Plaintiffs have shown that the Lexicon copies a sufficient quantity of the Harry Potter series to support a finding of substantial similarity between the Lexicon and Rowling’s novels.”
The court found that the lexicon was transformative because it “uses material from the series for the practical purpose of making information about the intricate world of Harry Potter readily accessible to readers in a reference guide.” However, the court was persuaded by Ms. Rowling’s testimony that if the lexicon were published “it would destroy her ‘will or heart to continue with [writing her own] encyclopedia.'” Hence, the court was able to find that “harm” existed if the lexicon were published.
In its determination of damages, the court found that since the lexicon had not yet been published, Ms. Rowling was entitled to only the lowest level of statutory damages.
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. and J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books and DOES 1-10, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., issued September 9, 2008.