David Publisher vs Goliath Author?

J K Rowling, multi-billionaire of Harry Potter famed, testified in court today in a lawsuit she has launched against a tiny Michigan publisher, RDR Books, in order to stop owner Steve Vander Ark from publishing his Harry Potter Lexicon. Rowling claims he is stealing. I don't know the ins and outs of copyright/book publishing laws, but I am wondering if lexicons and dictionaries and reference guides to massive works like, say, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, haven't been fair game for authors or publishers looking to capitalize on an audience's interest. I have a copy of The Tolkien Companion by J E A Tyler, published by St. Martin's Press in 1975, which is alphabetical guide to various proper names and events in the books. He received  permission from Tolkien's publisher and estate for places in which he quotes directly, but I don't know if permission would have been needed for everything. Rowlling complains that she is planning a guidebook to HP, but that it won't be out for 2-3 years and that Vander Ark's is "not a quality work." That may or may not be true, but the quality of the work wouldn't be a factor, I would guess. (If people want to buy a poor book, so what? When Rowling's own book comes out, it will outshine the other.

Disclosure: I've know about this pending lawsuit for some months. You see, while RDR is very small, I've been aware of it since it is the publisher of one of the most enjoyable books I read in the last couple of years, my friend Steven Faulkner's Waterwalk: A Passage of Ghosts. The publicity may help the publisher (as long as he doesn't lose the case), and maybe that will help Faulkner sell a few more copies.

In the meantime, I will watch and see whether the courts decide Vander Ark is a thief or one smart publisher who saw a golden opportunity.

Comments

[Stuart Koehl]

The key factor is the extent to which Vander Ark actually uses extracts from Rowling's novels. Having a copy of Tyler, I can say that his use of direct quotation is limited, well within the bounds of "fair use". Most of the time, rather than quoting, he uses citations from a specific edition of Lord of the Rings and other Tolkien books. The bulk of his work consists of his own analysis, in his own words. It is thus a true reference book, and any use of quotations, again, with permission is both legal and within the bounds of accepted usage.

From what I have heard--and this is the gist of the court case--Vander Ark has produced what might be called a florelegium, a concoction of long quotations strung together and connected by brief passages of exposition and exegesis. Rowling claims that, rather than being a reference work, Vander Ark has merely rearranged Rowlings own words and re-presented them within his book.

That Vander Ark has used large chunks of Rowling in his book without permission, and thus violated copyright, is not being disputed by the defendant. Rather, he claims that what he has done falls under the "fair use" doctrine, and that is what the court is going to determine.

[labrialumn]

I'm a little puzzled, because this kind of fan thing isn't a big issue, usually, but one of the cable kid's networks have a terrible rip-off "The Wizards of Waverly Place" complete with the round black glasses, and academic gowns. THAT she should go after.

[Jenny Islander]

That kind of fan thing isn't a big issue when the creator isn't attempting to make a pot of money from it. According to court transcripts, Vander Ark is asking for more money than Rowling got for her first three books combined--I think this refers to the advance from the publisher.

It's a shame; the Harry Potter Lexicon was such a useful reference source when it was just a Web site.

[Ethan C.]

If Vander Ark's book is of the nature that Stuart describes, than I'm afraid Ms. Rowling may have legitimate argument. However, she may be about to learn the lesson of the RIAA: not every copyright violation ought to be fought. She runs a terrible risk of alienating fans and being perceived as a tyrant. Sometimes, the David is small enough that the Goliath would do better to ignore it.

[Ethan C.]

In other news, I just tried to buy "Waterwalk" from RDR's online store. Either it didn't work at all, or I'm about to get charged five times. They've got some technical problems over there.

[Ethan C.]

Just so anyone reading this thread knows, RDR got my order problem cleared up right away, and I was very pleased by their service.

[Beth]

Speaking of _Waterwalk_, which I finally got to read last week and very much enjoyed, I posted this review about it at my weblog: http://inscapes.blogspot.com/2008/07/waterwalk.html

Thanks for the recommendation, Jim. It will probably lead to a couple more sales among my [half a dozen :)] readers.