tollie.org/blog thoughts and reflections of Tollie Williams

Lawrence Lessig vs. J. K. Rowling

I discovered today, through this N.Y. Times commentary that Lawrence Lessig's Fair Use Project is the group providing legal support for Steve Vander Ark and the H. P. Lexicon.

It's no secret that I'm a Harry Potter fan. I mean, I listen to a weekly podcast called Pottercast, where they talk for an hour each week about the books and movies. But unlike what seems to be most HP fans, I've sided with Steve and RDR all along in the lawsuit by which JKR and Warner Brothers are seeking to prevent the publication of his book. Although I have respect for J. K. Rowling's brilliant series and her general attitude surrounding the "fandom," I have to think that in this case, she (or her lawyers for her) are in the wrong.

My thoughts are still pretty much the same as they were when I posted the following to a facebook discussion on the matter.

You replied to Caroline's post on Nov 9, 2007 at 12:34 AM.

From my understanding, the Lexicon is essentially Steve's notes on the 7 book series. I doubt there would be any law suit if this were a "Cliff's Notes to the Harry Potter Series," so why try to block it when someone does an extensive job of it?

I doubt (but have not researched) that the Tolkien estate has ever sued over encyclopedic works for Tolkien's literature, although Tolkien himself published many Appendixes.

This sort of repackaging of information is a useful service that is not currently being offered anywhere else - it does not compete against the literary works themselves. The fact that JKR is _going_ to write an encyclopedia is no reason to stop an encyclopedic work by force of law.

Further, take this case to an extreme: if the intellectual property owners are asserting that their control extends to a retelling of facts, at what degree of fact-telling about the books do they suggest the intellectual property right begin? Will fans not be allowed to talk about the book, or write their favorite lines, or podcast about their readings?

Bottom line: As long as it's clear the work is unofficial, it's hard to believe that fact-reporting should be blocked through force of copyright law.

I'm open to other opinions, however.