A judge in September found that the print publication of the Harry Potter Lexicon would violate J.K. Rowling’s copyright. He issued the lowest possible fine permitted by statute. The ruling seemed to many observers, including me, to be a balanced reading of the law that was as fair as possible to both sides.
However, the publisher has apparently decided not to leave well-enough alone. The Stanford “Copyright and Fair Use” blog reports that RDR Books (and its Stanford lawyer) have filed an appeal. (Found in RIAA-fighting lawyer Ray Beckerman’s blog via a Slashdot story.)
There is no information yet on what grounds the appeal is founded—the only legal document available so far, the Notice of Appeal, just says in effect, “We’re appealing,” and none of the other blogs covering the story has much more information than that.
Ars Technica does remind us that the case is a matter between the publisher and Rowling—the Lexicon‘s actual author, James Vander Ark, “remains something of an ‘innocent bystander’ as this all plays out.”
In related matters, it is interesting to note that the Internet version of the Harry Potter Lexicon has just won an American Library Association award, being listed as one of the ALA’s top 15 “Great Web Sites” for children.
Meanwhile, Rowling’s lawyer in the Lexicon case, Professor Dale M. Cendali, gave a presentation at Harvard Law School about the differences between on-line and print intellectual property a few days ago. Cendali explained that Rowling has different standards for on-line and print references—something she feels is all right on the Internet will not necessarily fly as a printed book.
And Rowling has endorsed (and written the foreword to) a book by another Harry Potter fan site webmaster. Melissa Anelli, webmistress of the Leaky Cauldron, has written Harry, a History: The True Story of a Boy Wizard, His Fans, and Life Inside the Harry Potter Phenomenon. Anelli thinks it possible Rowling might eventually write another Potter book, about Harry and Ginny’s son.
