Warner Bros. Ent. Inc. v. RDR Books
575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unauthorized reference guide to a fictional literary series is not a fair use of the copyrighted works when it copies a substantial amount of the original's creative expression, lacks sufficient transformative character, and supplants the market for the author's authorized companion books.
Facts:
- J.K. Rowling is the author of the seven-book Harry Potter series and two shorter companion books, 'Quidditch Through the Ages' and 'Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them,' all of which are protected by copyright.
- Rowling publicly announced her intention to write and publish a definitive Harry Potter encyclopedia after the series was complete, with proceeds going to charity.
- Steven Vander Ark, a fan and middle school librarian, created a popular, free online encyclopedia called 'The Harry Potter Lexicon,' which cataloged and described elements from Rowling's works.
- Rowling, her U.S. publisher (Scholastic), and Warner Bros. had previously praised Vander Ark's website as a useful reference source for fans and even for their own editors and filmmakers.
- Publisher RDR Books contracted with Vander Ark to publish a print version of his website's content, titled 'The Lexicon,' organizing it into an A-to-Z reference guide.
- The manuscript for 'The Lexicon' contained 2,437 entries that drew heavily from Rowling's works, including extensive verbatim quotation, close paraphrasing of creative language, and plot summaries.
- The Lexicon manuscript also copied wholesale from the two short companion books, 'Quidditch Through the Ages' and 'Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them.'
- After learning of the planned publication, Rowling's agents sent cease-and-desist letters to RDR Books, which were largely disregarded as RDR Books continued to market the book.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and J.K. Rowling sued Defendant RDR Books in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging copyright infringement.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the publication of 'The Lexicon,' as well as damages.
- The court consolidated the hearing on the preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2).
- A bench trial was held on Plaintiffs' copyright infringement claims and Defendant's affirmative defense of fair use.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an unauthorized encyclopedia of a fictional literary series constitute a fair use of the copyrighted works when it extensively copies verbatim language, synthesizes plot elements, and incorporates nearly all the content of the author's own companion books?
Opinions:
Majority - Patterson, Jr.
No. The publication of 'The Lexicon' does not constitute a fair use of the copyrighted Harry Potter works. Although a reference guide can serve a transformative purpose, that purpose is undermined when the secondary work copies an excessive amount of the original's protected creative expression. The court applied the four-factor fair use test from 17 U.S.C. § 107. Factor one, the purpose and character of the use, weighed against fair use because while the Lexicon's reference purpose was transformative, this was diminished by its commercial nature and extensive verbatim copying that went beyond what was necessary for its purpose. Factor two, the nature of the copyrighted work, weighed heavily against fair use because the Harry Potter series is a work of highly creative fiction at the core of copyright protection. Factor three, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, also weighed against fair use because the Lexicon copied a substantial quantity of creative expression, including Rowling's most distinctive language, and copied almost entirely from her companion books. Factor four, the effect on the potential market, weighed against fair use because the Lexicon would directly harm and supplant the market for Rowling's own companion books. Weighing all factors, the court concluded that the Lexicon's infringement was not excused by the fair use doctrine.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the boundaries of fair use for companion guides to popular fictional universes. It establishes that while creating a reference work is a recognized transformative purpose, that purpose does not provide a blanket immunity from copyright infringement. The court's focus on the 'amount and substantiality' of verbatim copying of creative language serves as a warning to creators of such guides that they must contribute their own analysis and summarization rather than simply repackaging the original author's expression. The ruling reinforces the idea that an author's right to control derivative markets, such as official encyclopedias and companion books, is a key consideration in the fair use analysis.
