ROXANA ASTEMBORSKI/Art & Design Editor
STEPHANIE TANIZAR
Assistant Perspectives Editor
A single mother manually typed the first story of a messy-haired British wizard in 1995. She couldn’t afford a proper computer. Each change meant retyping the entire chapter from scratch.
Today, that impoverished writer and her wizard schoolboy have become household names. The latest book in J. K. Rowling’s bestselling “Harry Potter” series was published in June last year, selling 11 million copies in the first 24 hours.
You might think that the completion of the series would spell the end of the “Harry Potter” hype. Not so. “Harry Potter” fan activity remains high, especially on big-name fan sites such as MuggleNet.com. From sites whose authors churned out speculative books based on the Harry Potter novels, you might expect meaningful discussion or literary insight.
Yet again, not so. The latest buzz in Potter fan communities is the Rowling and Warner Brothers’ lawsuit against big-name fan Steve Vander Ark. Vander Ark, known to be an avid fan and a good orator, is the founder of the Harry Potter Lexicon, an online compendium of facts from the novels.
Recently, he has also been known to attempt publishing the Harry Potter Lexicon for ink-and-paper sale. Given that Rowling has announced plans to compile a Harry Potter dictionary of her own, the conflict of interests can clearly be seen.
Surprisingly enough, relations between Rowling and Vander Ark were fairly cordial before the lawsuit was filed on Halloween last year. Rowling has praised the Lexicon in the past, even going so far as to bestow an award on the Web site.
Popular opinion has been largely sympathetic toward Vander Ark, as fans view him from a “one of us” perspective. Accusations of hypocrisy, given Rowling’s authorization of other books about her novels, have dogged the author’s footsteps.
But is it hypocrisy?
Beyond the knee-jerk impulse to support Vander Ark, there lie a distressing number of problems with Vander Ark’s Lexicon. First off, the intended cover of the Lexicon, which appeared on Amazon.co.uk at the end of October, bears a certain amount of similarity with the adult covers for Rowling’s novels. Unlike the theories published by MuggleNet.Com – whose book Rowling personally approved before initial print – the Lexicon has no mention of “unofficial” in its title.
Pieced together, it would appear that the Lexicon publishers are trying to mislead the public into thinking that the compendium was written by Rowling, or approved by her in some way. This is not the case.
It is, however, only the tip of the
iceberg.
Documents from Rowling’s legal team posted on legal information Web site Justia.com reveal that the Lexicon contains barely any original discussion, and is largely a recanting of facts that a reader can discern for one’s self by opening the books. In some cases, direct passages were directly reproduced or with several words changed. As that excuse will hardly hold up before an accusation of plagiarism, it isn’t hard to see how the excuse should stand up before the judge’s gaze.
And to add insult to injury, several of the copied passages were taken from “Quidditch Through the Ages” and “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”, a pair of books whose proceeds go directly to charity.
The Lexicon itself costs $24.95 on the publisher’s web site and, according to statements released by Vander Ark’s publishers, provides underprivileged, Internet-less kids in Africa with access to the Lexicon (shipping not included).
But perhaps Vander Ark was misled by his publishers into believing that publishing his own encyclopedia fell within the range of fair use?
Two years ago, a pair of entrepreneurial Harry Potter fans came up with the idea of publishing an encyclopedia based on the Harry Potter universe. Knowing that the Harry Potter Lexicon was the best source for Potter trivia, they e-mailed Vander Ark, offering to share the profits with him if he came in on the project with them. Vander Ark politely shot them down, as they attested to in legal documents collected by Rowling’s lawyers.
“Basically, it is illegal to sell a book like that,” wrote Vander Ark. “[Rowling] has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she’s the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world.”
As Vander Ark says, it is only Rowling who has the right to publish her encyclopedia. Anyone else who does so is committing intellectual theft and infringing on Rowling’s copyright.
It may seem weird and just wrong to side with the big corporation against the little man. But the clear victim in this case is Rowling, a fact easily verifiable with some research.
That popular opinion seems to hold fast with Vander Ark despite overwhelming evidence against him is an indication that something in the research process has gone awry. It might be a lesson to take away for the next time one feels compelled to make a snap judgment.
01-24-2008
