In light of new coverage of the ongoing legal battle between J.K. Rowling and HP Lexicon, I thought I would do a quick survey of recent Harry Potter news.
First, today was Rowling’s scheduled appearance in court in the case which - you may recall - is a suit against the publisher (RDR Books) behind the proposed encyclopedia based on the Lexicon site. Yesterday’s Yahoo article added a few particulars I had not seen before, such as the site’s author (Vander Ark) originally being uninterested in publishing a version of the site because he believed “in book form it would represent copyright infringement.” When RDR Books convinced him it was legal to go forward with the publishing project, he secured a contractual clause that RDR would defend this position and pay any damages resulting from action taken against them. This effectively puts Vander Ark out of harm’s way and thus removes any legal disincentive for him to not pursue the project so long as RDR defends it. Previously it was something of an anomaly that he would express such admiration for Rowling while acting at great risk to develop the site into a commercial venture.

Rowling is also quoted as saying that success by RDR in their position would create a chilling effect online, whereby “authors everywhere will be forced to protect their creations much more rigorously, which could mean denying well-meaning fans permission to pursue legitimate creative activities.” This seems a bit of a stretch, since what remains essentially at issue is whether someone is able to profit from a concordance of a copyrighted fictional realm - whether that activity is itself a legitimate creative activity - and less whether, say, slash fan fiction should be driven underground (because it will never die!). Coverage at other sources like Ars Technica (whose article’s title - “Fairuse obliteratus” - pretty much sums up their position) have pointed out that equivalent works have been published about comparable realms like Middle Earth without comparable kerfuffle, so long as they are adequately identified as by a third-party (hence the common “Official”/”Unofficial” delineation in the guidebook aisle). The matter of law is still whether, under the four-fold test, the proposed HP Lexicon publication shows sufficient scholarly or transformative properties as to deserve protection from infringement.

The case also reminds us of the ongoing conflict over the purposes of copyright protection, and whether copyright owners - which are today often not the same as the creators - have nigh-unlimited reach and control over their works. With the public domain threshold effectively frozen at 1923 due to recurring term extensions such as the Sonny Bono Act, and ‘fair use’ provisions under constant attack by the efforts of the RIAA and related lobbying efforts to restrict all media access under narrower terms, our culture is being kept locked away in corporate vaults so that we are forced to rent access to it ad infinitum. Jack Valenti infamously remarked that if keeping copyright intact forever would violate the Constitution, we should consider “forever minus one day.” Whether even the current 70 years extension after the death of the artist truly serves the stated goal of promoting the Constitution’s stated intent to promote “progress of science and useful arts” is a question well worth examining in the public square.

Incidentally, it was reported that “Rowling’s lawyers did not want Vander Ark in the courtroom while Rowling testifies.” One wonders why she would feel this way, and quite honestly, what difference it makes whether the lawyers want that or not. Coverage of today’s appearance gives at least one hint - whereas before the suit (when the Lexicon only operated as a site) Rowling lauded Vander Ark’s efforts and reported using it as a reference site herself to check details, in testimony today she described the material as ’sloppy’ and ’shoddy’ and cited errors in translation and interpretation. She further described the toll the lawsuit had taken upon her creative endeavors, jeopardizing her interest in doing an official encyclopedic work with proceeds to go to charity. As to the meat of the matter, she argues that in contrast with other published works on the Potterverse, the Lexicon provides too little analysis and commentary and essentially only catalogues the names of people, places, spells and creatures (in essence, an encyclopedia). In a nice turn of phrase, she declares, “It takes far too much and it offers precious little in return.” And on that assessment the judge’s decision will hang.

Curiously, Harry Potter also makes an unusual appearance in an unrelated property rights case between Universal and a reseller of promotional recordings that tackles the doctrine of “first sale” vs licensed property - to wit, who owns the promotional discs. Harry’s discussion in Deathly Hallows with Bill Weasley about how goblins view rights of goblin-made objects leads off the EFF’s amicus brief. I wonder if Harry Potter quotations have already supplanted Alice in Wonderland for academic pop references? (Try finding a modern paper on philosophy of language without an Alice quotation.)

Next, while J.K. Rowling herself states “we all know I’ve made enough money,” it appears that the largesse is at least partially shared by Daniel Radcliffe, who is reported to have earned $26 million last year. The blurb mentions that he earned $16 million for Order of the Phoenix, but not whether that contributed to the year’s total. With Deathly Hallows now officially split into two films (oh why couldn’t they have saved Goblet of Fire?), he stands to earn quite a bit more by the time the series finishes up.

Finally, on a more rah-rah note, Amazon is holding a contest to let you spend a weekend with their copy of Tales of Beedle the Bard. The original tome was instrumental in Deathly Hallows, and as a charity bit, Rowling hand-wrote and illustrated 7 copies for auction. The contest winner takes a trip to London (the one in England is specified) where Amazon will let you, under guard, interact with the copy they won at auction. It is not clear whether gloves are provided, or whether the cost for same would be taken out of your expense allowance should you not bring a proper pair. The contest itself is 100 words or less on any of three topics:

1. What songs do wizards use to celebrate birthdays?
2. What sports do wizards play besides Quidditch?
3. What have you learned from the Harry Potter series that you use in everyday life?

If this were a thriving community of avid readers, I might suggest something like “what other questions do you think they should ask?” Lacking that, I will point out that submissions are in two age groups (13-17, 18+), must be submitted by April 22nd, and after being whittled down by Amazon to 20 semi-finalists, two finalists and the ultimate winner will be selected by the public (so, just like American Idol, we can trust that the truly best will make it to the final round, where they will lose out to their lesser counterparts.) Reading the FAQ, it’s not made especially clear, but it does sound like only one grand prize is shared between both age categories. In another spot of confusion, a separate link is offered to “submit your own knock-knock joke, pun, tongue twister, haiku or other whimsical witticism based on Harry Potter or the Tales of Beedle the Bard” but you have to drill down into the product forum to join in. Be warned: low standards are advised.