Fair Commentary?

Everyone seems to have a view at the moment on the ongoing Harry Potter litigation between JK Rowling and Steven Vander Ark, the maker of the Harry Potter Lexicon. Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers Entertainment, the company that produces the Harry Potter movies, are suing Mr. Vander Ark’s publisher, RDR Books, to prevent publication of the Harry Potter Lexicon (an encyclopedia of words and phrases from the Harry Potter books).

Joan Smith in the Independent commends Ms Rowling for standing up for authors’ rights. Ms Smith points out that the typical British author earns 33% less than the national average wage and comments that Ms Rowling is "defending the rights of thousands of writers, most of whom don’t earn enough to live on".

Others have been more sceptical about the motives behind the litigation. Sunny Hostin from CNN comments that "Rowling is a billionaire and Vander Ark is a mere muggle: a librarian", suggesting that Ms Rowling is being greedy and that the case is merely a quest for more money. Ms Rowling has insisted that this case is not about money but about having control over her work.

Although, of what relevance is it that Ms Rowling is a billionaire anyway? Surely this case is about copyright infringement and whether Mr Vander Ark’s use of the Harry Potter stories constitutes fair use? Whilst everyone is busy expressing views on the motives behind the litigation and whether or not the case should have been brought, most appear undecided on the central issue as to whether Ms Rowling’s copyright has actually been infringed. Perhaps this is because, as the judge hearing the case, Judge Robert Patterson, commented "this case is in a murky state of the law". Judge Patterson has even commented, somewhat amusingly considering his profession, that "litigation is not always the best way to solve things".

It is expected that the case could go on for years if either side decide to appeal the decision (which is not expected for some weeks yet) and so it seems that we may be debating the motives for, and hopefully the outcome of, this case for years to come.