《哈利波特词典》侵权案

On October 31, 2007, J.K. Rowling and

Warner Brothers

filed a lawsuit

against RDR Books over the publication of Vander Ark's Lexicon in book

form.

[2][3][4]

The lawsuit was heard in a

New York

court on April 14, 2008.

[5]

Whilst some sources refer to Vander Ark being sued, the lawsuit only

actually names RDR books.

[6]

The lawsuit states,

The infringing book is particularly troubling as it is in direct

contravention

to

Ms.

Rowling's

repeatedly

stated

intention

to

publish

her

own companion books to the series.

[7]

The result of the lawsuit was that the book could be published, but not

in

its

present

form.

A

modified

version

of

the

book

was

published

in

2009.

This case went to

bench trial

in the New York Federal District Court of

Judge Robert Patterson on April 14, 2008. RDR Books defense team, which

includes solo San Francisco practitioner, Lizbeth Hasse of the Creative

Industry

Law

Group,

solo

New

York

practitioner

David

Hammer,

and

the

Fair

Use Project

at

Stanford University Law School

, has replied to the suit

arguing:

In support of her position Ms Rowling appears to claim a monopoly on the

right to publish literary reference guides, and other non-academic

research, relating to her own fiction. This is a right no court has ever

recognized. It has little to recommend it. If accepted, it would

dramatically extend the reach of copyright protection, and eliminate an

entire genre of literary supplements: third party reference guides to

fiction, which for centuries have helped readers better access,

understand and enjoy literary works.

[8]

Rowling

stated

that

her

efforts

to

halt

the

publishing

of

the

Lexicon

have

been crushing her creativity, and said that she was not sure if she has

[9]

On

8

September

2008, Rowling

won

her

copyright

case

against

RDR

Books.

[10]

Lexicon publisher RDR Books said:

We

are

encouraged

by

the

fact

the

court

recognized

that

as

a

general

matter

authors

do

not

have

the

right

to

stop

the

publication

of

reference

guides

and companion books about literary works.

Judge Patterson said that reference materials were generally useful to

the public but that in this case, Vander Ark went too far. He said that

Potter

works,

reference

works

that

share

the

Lexicon's

purpose

of

aiding

readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than

stifled.

appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a

reference guide.

Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. and J. K. Rowling vs. RDR Books

(575

.2d 513) is a

copyright lawsuit

brought on

31 October 2007

by the

media

company

Warner Bros.

and

Harry

Potter

author

J.

K.

Rowling

against

RDR Books, an independent publishing company based in

Muskegon,

M ichigan

.

[1]

Lawyers

for

Rowling

and

Time

Warner

argued

that

RDR's

attempt

to publish for profit a print facsimile of

The Harry Potter Lexicon

, a

free

online

guide

to

the

Harry

Potter

fictional

universe

,

constituted

an

infringement of their copyright and a violation of

fair use

. The trial

was held from 14

–

17 April 2008 in the

United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York

. In September, 2008, the court ruled

in Rowling's favor, and publication of the book was blocked.

On 31 October 2007, Warner Bros. and Rowling sued RDR Books to block the

book's

publication.

[3]

Rowling,

who

previously

had

a

good

relationship

with

Vander Ark, reiterated on her website that she plans to write a

Harry

Potter

encyclopedia, and that the publication of a similar book before

her own would hurt the proceeds of the official encyclopedia, which she

plans to give to charity.

[4]

A judge later barred publication of the book

in

any

form

until

the

case

was

resolved.

[5]

In

their

suit,

Rowling's

lawyers

also asserted that, as

the book describes itself

as a print

facsimile of

the Harry Potter Lexicon website, it would publish excerpts from the

novels and stills from the films without offering sufficient

[6]

On

her

website,

Rowling

said,

repeated

requests,

the

publishers

have

refused

to

even

countenance

making

any

changes

to

the

book

to

ensure

that it does not infringe my rights.

[7]

On his website, Vander Ark

responded,

books to make sure

we don’t

violate

copyright. There have

been a number

of times when I have talked with Jo's people and held back information

they didn’t want published or modified material on the Lexicon to make

sure

they

approve.

I

got

specific

permission

from

Warner

Bros.

to

use

film

images

and

the

illustrations

from

the

books.

I

have

been

just

as

diligent

with

the

rights

of

fans

who

have

allowed

me

to

use

their

writing

and

artwork.

In each case I have listed the copyright owner and made sure that they

were credited and that they retained their copyright.

[8]

have

been

a

huge

number

of

companion

books

that

have

been

published

said Neil Blair of Rowling's literary agency,

Christopher Little

,

made changes to ensure compliance. They fall in line. But these guys

refused

to

contact

us.

They

refused

to

answer

any

questions.

They

refused

to show us any details.

[9]

RDR Books retained Lizbeth Hasse, from the Creative Industry Law Group

in San Francisco, who recommended that RDR Books also retain a New York

trial attorney, David Hammer. Ms. Hasse then asked, a group of

intellectual property

lawyers at

Stanford Law School

to help defend RDR

Books' right to publish.

Fair Use Project

Executive Director

Anthony

Falzone

said the Lexicon is protected by U.S. law which has long given

people

right

to

create

reference

guides

that

discuss

literary

works,

comment on them and make them more accessible.

[10]

On 16 January 2008, Rowling

and Warner Bros. filed their full 1,100 page

complaint against RDR Books, claiming that the book

repackages

Ms.

Rowling's

fictional

facts

derived

wholesale

from

the

Harry

Potter works without adding any new creativity, commentary, insight, or

criticism.

Defendant's

attempt

to

cloak

the

Infringing

Book

in

the

mantle

of

scholarship

is

merely

a

ruse

designed

to

circumvent

Plaintiffs'

rights

in order to make a quick buck.

[11]

On 25 January 2008, RDR submitted a request to Judge Robert Patterson,

United States District Court that Rowling and her publishers hand over

to them all potential source material for the planned encyclopaedia,

including,

Klein's [the novels' continuity editor] full index ... Bloomsbury's

'comprehensive bible'

creative

mind'

[12]

Patterson

refused,

but

did

grant

contained

in the publications listed in the plaintiffs' response

claims.

[12]

In

February

2008,

Vander

Ark,

in

an

interview

with

the

British

fan

magazine

[13]

Ansible

, said

The

book

is

not

simply

a

cut

and

paste

of

the

Lexicon

website.

The

entries

on the website provide much more detailed and complete information than

the entries in the book. We took the information on the site and did a

lot of editing, condensing, and in some cases complete rewriting. We

avoided direct quotations whenever we could and clearly cited any

quotations that we kept in. In the case of entries from Rowling's own

readers

in

the

introduction

to

the

book

to

go

buy

her

books

for

the

complete

information ... While I was working on the Lexicon book, I received

assurances

from

several

copyright

and

intellectual

property

experts

that

the book we were creating was legal.

Vander Ark dismissed Rowling's claim to copyright:

Part of the problem all along has been the automatic assumption on the

part of many that Rowling has the right to completely control anything

written about the Harry Potter world. That's quite a huge power grab on

her part and from everything I can tell, not legal. You and I are part

of

a

subculture

that

lives

off

the

creative

work

of

others.

We

always

try

to do that in a legal and respectful way. However, if Rowling manages to

extend

her

reach

that

far

into

our

subculture,

she

will

choke

us

off

very

quickly. And if she doesn't, what's to stop the next person from taking

this legal precedent to even more dangerous places?

On 8 February 2008, RDR Books published their official memorandum in

response to Warner Bros injunction, saying, in part,

to claim a monopoly on the right to publish literary reference guides,

and other non-academic research, relating to her own fiction. This is a

right no court has ever recognized. It has little to recommend it. If

accepted,

it

would

dramatically

extend

the

reach

of

copyright

protection,

and eliminate an entire genre of literary supplements.

[14]

Rowling and Warner Bros. responded on 27 February, saying,

consists

of

400

pages

of

material

taken

from

the

series.

Its

2437

entries

use the series' fictional facts, long plot summaries and paraphrased

character descriptions, all of which is actionable,

[15]

and that,

argument

that

the

book

is

is

wrong

because

.

.

.

the

book

does not create

understandin gs.

[15]

The statement also claimed that Warner Bros

shown that the book is devoid of analysis, commentary or anything else

rising to the level of scholarship,

[15]

and that,

entries, 2034 simply lift information straight from the series.

[15]

Rowling supported the injunction, saying,

about RDR's continued insistence that my acceptance of free fan based

websites somehow justifies its efforts to publish an unauthorized

Harry

Potter

own definitive Harry Potter Encyclopedia,

[16]

and that,

[that

fans

could

simply

buy

both

books]

is

presumptuous

because

it

assumes

that everyone would want to have two

Harry Potter

encyclopedias and

insensitive in thinking that everyone who would want to have both could

afford

to

purchase

both.

[16]

She

concluded

by

saying,

am

very

frustrated

that

a

former

fan

has

tried

to

co-opt

my

work

for

financial

gain.

The

Harry