J.K. Rowling sues over Harry Potter Lexicon.

[Matilda]

A lot more may hang on the decision that will be handed down in New York than might be supposed at
first glance. Rowling and Warner Bros. are sueing Steve Vander Ark and RDR books over the proposed
publication of Vander Ark's "Harry Potter Lexicon", already well-known to Potter fans through the
online version.

My first thought was that Vander Ark was mad to think he could publish and get away with it, given
that Rowling and Warner Bros. were prepared to prosecute teenagers over Harry Potter websites just
a few years ago. But reading further, I learned that there is an issue of "fair use", whereby
authors have long been permitted to publish books that discuss the works of other authors. RDR books
is calling academics and experts on copyright law and fair use to the stand in support of Vander Ark,
arguing that a decision against publication of the Lexicon will limit future publicaiton of many
works of scholarship devoted to discussion of famous authors and their works.

Rowling is arguing that Vander Ark's Lexicon is simply a copy of her work and is "sloppy and lazy".
I've often referred to the online Lexicon, particularly for timelines and family trees, and I think
Vander Ark has done an amazing job. Everything in it is referenced and cross-referenced, and I think
it can be trusted sometimes more than Rowling herself, who has been guilty of many errors and
inconsistencies that have been picked up by fans over the years. And Rowling has in the past praised
the website, and admitted to referring to it herself to check facts, rather than looking up one of
her own books. Her major argument is that the Lexicon pre-empts, and will take away the value of,
her own proposed Harry Potter Encyclopaedia.

There's a little bit of "David and Goliath" about this case, and I wonder if JKR might live to regret
it. I do understand her principle, but as Rowling's Encyclopaedia proposes to include many facts
and notes about the series that never made it into the books, it's a moot point as to whether it
would actually be in conflict with a book that never pretends to be more than a reference guide to
the Potter books. I wasn't particularly interested at first, and just thought that Vander Ark has
no chance, but now I've read a bit more, I can see there's rather more to it, and it's much more
interesting than I first thought.

A few links to news items on the case:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIGNIcztySvpGhm95iGPhNL7ov1AD901VBQO0

http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/04/15/JK_Rowling_sues_in_NY_over_Harry_lexicon

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/04/at_the_harry_potter_trial_new.html