There aren't any more Harry Potter books. Can't we just forget about them already?

Is J.K. uneducated, or just greedy? I don't know her background, but I thought she was some kind of rags to riches stay at home mum who now runs a multi-billion $$ franchise.

If J.K. perhaps:

- Never went to college
- Never went to libraries
- Never went to bookstores, except to purchase additional copies of her books (as stated above)

then she might actually not know that these sort of derivative works are quite common. Not that it changes the legality of it all, whatever that may be. Perhaps she is just exceedingly ignorant?

threadjack
United and Delta in discussion on merger
/threadjack

Aren't there already Harry Potter reference books in print? I recall one that speculated about the content of the final volume, so this can't be something new.

How dumbledore is that?

I guess the Cliff's Notes version is going to be on hold?

She is just greedy. Also look in the dictionary under pointless, trite and ripping off all the good fantasy novelists. I cannot find anything original in the entire Harry Potter universe.

Consumerist shouldn't post this. This blog references the creative universe that JK Rowling invented.

/end sarcasm

Is she attempting to sue in the US? Hello, Fair Use?

Frodo is pissed and coming after his share.

Uh, you can't publish something based on someone else's copyrighted work and make money off of it. Leave it online.

How much money does this woman need?

@Cassifras:

Thanks, but in the future, please e-mail that info to tips@consumerist.com. We want to keep comment threads reasonably on-topic.

some of the examples given like Ulysses. are out of copyright though, copyrights are a tricky thing especially when the author dies, here in US the author of Ulysses, Sylvia Beach, had 28 years of copyright then another 28 years if she choose to renew. ([www.ivanhoffman.com]) However she died before reform went into effect so its in the public domain at this point. However Harry Pothead isn't at this point so while there is a bit.....sort of....of hypocrisy occurring here she is well within her rights to tell them not to do it, however i don't know the law in the UK, maybe its different over there.

J.K. Rowling said not that it would compete against her writing in the series but against the Harry Potter Encyclopedia she is writing to raise funds for charity. Her argument was that he is taking a service that he has offered for free and now trying to charge money for it WHILE also ripping off the charities she is trying to benefit...Still asinine, but not nearly has evil as the above article made her out to be.

i used alot of annoying wording....damn sorry all

This isn't at all a clear fair use issue. If someone chose to write another Harry Potter book, with all the characters, etc., that would be beyond fair use.

It looks like Rowling and her publisher were fine with the website until it started to try to compete directly (and try to make money off it), at which point they put their foot down.

@vr4z06gt:

So Joyce wasn't the recognized author of Ulysses in the US?

Look at the web page for RDR Books. Don't they know that OMelvaney & Myers and Warner Brothers can squish their business over night? I don't think they consulted lawyers, or maybe they don't have any

[rdrbooks.com]

Ah yes, good old hypocrisy. Where people who get rich off the work of the general public (or, at least those who contribute to public reference works for free) then turn around and sue to close off what they write based on those public contributions.

Anyone remember the Gracenote/freedb fiasco?

I used to admire this woman, but it seems like being rich has made her as greedy as any corporate scumbag lawyer.

I sense a cross-complaint coming for unjust enrichment, or other similar cause of action based on the fact that her use of the website in writing subsequent books is basically her profiting from someone else's work.

@Petrarch1603: You cannot, however, copyright a fact. It is perfectly legal to write reference encyclopedias based on fact -- in fact, that's what encyclopedias are: collections of facts.

If I want to write an article about a copyrighted book, I'm perfectly free to do so, and discuss things about it, like "In this book, X happens to Y in location Z" and because it's a fact, it's okay to do that.

If facts could be copyrighted, we wouldn't have the encyclopedias and vast reference libraries that we do.

@JustAGuy2: im sorry brain fart i meant to say james joyce

Rowling has always been a lot nicer about fanfiction and fansites than other authors -- look at, say, Anne McCaffrey's longtime suppression of any and all Pern fanfic (which she's now relaxed). I really think this encyclopedia idea is abusing her goodwill. She could have made a giant fuss about the site's existence any time she wanted, and caused them trouble, but instead she endorsed them -- until they started planning to publish for profit.

I'm not a Harry Potter fan, but I don't understand the rabid hatred going on here. You'd think she was Angelina Jolie and this was Jezebel.

Eh, I dunno, I'd probably protect my golden goose as fiercely as possible, no matter how many of you nozzles think it should be free for everyone to use and make money.

I wonder how much use she made of the their site, in collecting information for her new reference book?

@kylere: Looks like someone's jealous they didn't get their book about life at a boarding school for wizards to the publisher in time!

This isn't fair use, and she has every right to protect her intellectual property. The book is, or course, made up of "facts", but those facts are the ENTIRE basis for the book. And those are not that same as scientific facts, which can't be copyrighted. Harry Potter "facts" are the literary creations of Rowling, and are appropriately covered by copyright.
Why so much outrage?

@mcjake: If you can't cut it against the competition, make your product better.

@CumaeanSibyl: Problem is, they've done nothing actually illegal. It's nice when you do something with cooperation from others, but you aren't obligated to make everyone in the world happy, and that even applies to "I'm better than you" spoiled brat rich people who think the world revolves around them. Someone can be unhappy with things I do all they want, but I'm not legally obligated to listen to their protests.

I also was on PernMush once wayyyy back in the day (briefly; I was an astronomer, which if you know me or know what my username means, is NOT a surprise; I'm a huge space geek) and at the time I was there the place had been around forever. It continued to exist for quite some time after I left, and for all I know is still around.

Just as in real life, everybody ignored the astronomers... thankfully I never ever had to roleplay writing research grants or the local equivalent thereof. I get enough of that working in a research lab in real life ...

I'll be interested to see how this case shakes out. I can see both sides, but I think Rowling probably couldn't ignore this project once it became a project for-profit.

On another note, hello Anne McCaffrey fans! ;)

@ladycrumpet: *waves*

This isn't the first thing JK has cried about. I'm sure she can dry her tears with the millions of dollars that she rolls around in every day before she goes to sleep.

@testsicles: Tell that to MLB which lost lawsuits against profit-oriented fantasy leagues because they couldn't control how the public uses facts about its "product".

What people don't seem to get here is that creative work based on someone else's creative work is not OK because that's not just straight use of uncopyrightable fact. That's different from a reference work, which is all a lexicon is (a reference work that defines what things mean, e.g. "muggle" = "person who does not use magic")

Consumerist, you're getting pissy here! She cheerfully supported the on line dictionary and forum for many years. What she objected to in several interviews is that they are bundling the information and selling it for profit. Had they just kept it out there as a free resource, she didn't have a beef. I think everyone just needs to go take a cold shower and cool off a bit. She created the characters and universe, she should be able to set the terms under which it is presented. And she is in truth pretty reasonable in her actions towards her fans.

She has such nice teeth!

My point is that I don't care what is "right" or "wrong", I'd do my best to protect my creation, win or lose. Even if it's completely legal and my case would get thrown out, I'd still do something.

@mike1731: It would be kind of like people trying to take fanfiction and trying to sell it. Copyright infringement?

From what I have heard, the book company got very snarky with the other side(JK/warner bros), and I think that is what made this start to snowball.

What they are printing is in essence, her book, just cut and pasted. OTHER books, like the one made by the MuggleCast/Net folks included commentary, and theories. So it included original content from the authors, in addition to referencing her work.

I think it's akin to copying the encyclopedia Brittanica from online, then re-publishing it in book form. It violates their copyright. But if you used the facts from there to research something, and present it to support stuff, then it's fair use.

they're obviously useful reference tools and are protected under fair use, which doesn't distinguish between the commercial and non-commercial

Consumerist: check your copyright law.

17 U.S.C. § 107: Fair Use

[...] In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial neture or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Commercial use *does* matter; also, if Rowling did indeed have a lexicon/encyclopedia in the works with her publishing company, the fourth factor could come into play, since she's the one who holds the copyright.

I'm not saying it's right, but fair use can be pretty narrow.

I was there when that picture was taken. New York City is nice, and so is she.

To make up for lost revenue, RDBooks should put some sponsored ads on their site. They must be getting a ton of traffic these days.

Perhaps she fears for the integrity of her artistic work? Maybe she has received a copy of the disputed work, and it is factually inaccurate in a way that damages her franchise. Also, an encyclopedia like this makes it so that one could read the encyclopedia rather than the books themselves. I don't believe this suit unjustified at all, JKR must protect her trademarks and copyrights.

fucking money-hungry bitch. i'm not buying any more hp books or watching any movies ever again!

Rowling created the intellectual property. Rowling gets to decide how it's used and who profits from it. The fact that the website was useful is irrelevant. Rowling made a universe from scratch and is entitled to whatever cut she wants to take from derivative works.

Mentioning Ulysses is a pretty silly red herring, given that Ulysses exists in the public domain and was written by a long-dead author.

Funny how the same people that think J.K. should give up all her rights to the characters she created just because she has lots of money are the same people that think TV and movie writers currently on strike should have their creative rights protected and studios shouldn't be able to make money off the writers without giving them a cut of the proceeds.

@LiC: "Uh, you can't publish something based on someone else's copyrighted work and make money off of it."

OH YES YOU CAN.

Did not our very own Meghann Marco write a book references other people's copyrighted movies?

Have you never been to a bookstore, where you can buy critical commentaries on books/movies/music that are CURRENTLY UNDER COPYRIGHT?

@stanfrombrooklyn: a non-sequiter and a straw man, both in the same comment! Give the man a cookie.

So are you saying that Cliffs Notes only exist for public domain works? Try doing a search for Lord of the Rings reference material... there's a ton of that out there. Surely Lord of the Rings, published in 1954-55 is not yet in the PD.