"Harry Potter" Author Wins Copyright Claim

“Harry Potter” author, J.K. Rowling has own her claim that Steven Vander Ark’s “Harry Porter Lexicon” has violated her copyright and caused her irreplaceable harm. Rowling then sued the publisher, Michigan-based RDR Books as the lexicon is just the rearrangement of her original work and it is amounted to plagiarism as it has been copied so much. However, the publisher lawyer argued that the lexicon is just a reference guide, a legitimate effort to organize and further elaborate the complication of Harry Potter (cbsnews.com 2008).

Source: Google Image

Under Copyright Act, it is illegal to copy others opinion and treat it as own. However, it depends on whether the case is under fair use principle or not. Otherwise, it would be treated as plagiarism and violate the rights of copyright.

Copyright is a form of protection to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literacy, dramatic, musical, artistic and certain other intellectual works (Docstoc 2008). However, the doctrine of fair use under copyright principle allowing copying in certain and limited circumstances (Tysver 2008). The fundamental belief in fair use principle is that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research.

In this case, it is argued that the lexicon is more likely a teaching material that further elaborates the complication of Harry Potter, but the original author does not agree with this statement. As stated in Stanford.edu (2007), if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use interpretation, you might infringe upon the rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages.

Under Copyright Act, there are four factors to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is considered as fair use or not. They are the purpose and character you use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken and lastly the effect of the use upon the potential market (Tysver 2008).

Under the purpose and character, the publisher is finding no fair use as it is for profit, commercial gain as their purpose is to publish the book and gain profit from it. In my opinion, if it is just for review or criticize, Steven can just continue his website publishing but not sell the book. Secondly, the amount and the portion Steven taken from Rowling’s work as mentioned by Rowling is totally plagiarize as it is just rearrangement of her original work. From the two points above, it can show that there is no fair use under this case.

Further, under ethical publishing principles, it is stated that original writer’s work must be acknowledged and clearly reference in the cited ideas or statement (Game & West n.d.). Otherwise, it would turn to be plagiarism where the source is not cited.

Referencing

Docstoc.com 2008, Copyright, viewed 10^th June 2009, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2389631/Define-Copyright-Laws.

cbsnews.com, "Harry Potter" Author Wins Copyright Claim, viewed 10^th June 2008, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/08/entertainment/main4426302.shtml.

Game, A & West, MA n.d., ‘Ethical Publishing Principles-A Guideline for Authors’, Aston Business School, viewed 10^th June 2009, http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:GUCZ1iif1w4J:www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm%3Ffile_uuid%3D224B55CC-1143-DFD0-7E9A-408F74B75795%26ext%3Dpdf+ethical+publishing&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=my.

Stanford.edu 2009, Copyright and Fair Use, Stanford Universities Libraries, viewed 10^th June 2009, http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/.

Tysver, DA 2008, Fair Use in Copyright, BitLaw, viewed 10^th June 2009, http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html.