Stanford Center for Internet and Society

As announced yesterday and reported first by the Leaky Cauldron and then the Associated Press, RDR Books has withdrawn its appeal from the Court's decision enjoining the publication of the Lexicon, and will publish a new Lexicon instead.

Following the trial and the Court's decision, Steve Vander Ark created a new Lexicon manuscript. That manuscript addressed some of the concerns expressed by J.K. Rowling at trial, and those expressed by Judge Patterson in his thorough and detailed decision. As it turns out, Vander Ark and RDR like the new manuscript much more than the old one, and they decided they are much more excited to publish the new manuscript instead of the old one.

Reference guides and companion books about literary works have been a critically important part of literature since its inception, and the right to publish them stood largely unchallenged. We agreed to help defend the Harry Potter Lexicon because J.K. Rowling's claims threatened that right, and because we believe the fair use doctrine protects the Lexicon, and other publications like it. We tried the case in April in a Manhattan Court and waited through the summer for a decision.

Today we found out we lost. In a thoughtful and meticulous decision spanning 68 pages, the Court recognized that as a general matter authors do not have the right to stop publication of reference guides and companion books about literary works, and issued an important explanation of why reference guides are not derivative works. Needless to say, we're very happy the Court vindicated these important principles.

But the Lexicon did not fare so well. The Court held the Lexicon infringed Ms. Rowling's copyright, was not protected by fair use, and permanently enjoined the publication of it. (Read the full decision here.)

Needless to say we're disappointed, as is our client, RDR Books. Careful and thoughtful as the decision is, we think it's wrong. So stay tuned to see where we go from here. In the meantime, thank Roger Rapoport, the Publisher of RDR Books for having the courage to stand up for free speech and fair use. He fought a fight that not many would have the stomach to fight, and we are proud to fight with him.

While you're at it, thank Steve Vander Ark. It's not easy to stand up to your hero, or bear the unjustified scorn of your fellow fans.

Finally, remember that avada kedavra -- the killing curse -- is not always fatal. One wizard survived it. Three times. And it was he who cast the spell (and won't be named here) that ultimately suffered for it. Maybe someday the Lexicon will be known as The Book That Lived.

The trial of J.K. Rowling's copyright claims against RDR Books concluded last Wednesday after three days of testimony. Full transcripts of each day's proceedings are attached below. The Hon. Robert P. Patterson will decide the case following post-trial submissions from the parties.

The trial generated a flurry of interest from press and public alike, and was covered extensively by the New York Times as well as the Wall Street Journal and other major news outlets. Here are links to some of the coverage by these, and other, publications:

The Court has put this case on the proverbial fast track by combining the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion filed by Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers with the trial on the merits. The trial is scheduled to begin on April 14 at 9:30 am.

The trial will be open to the public, and will be conducted before the Honorable Robert P. Patterson in courtroom 24 of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007.

We agreed to help represent RDR Books in its litigation against J.K. Rowling because she asserts rights that go far beyond those the Copyright Act gives her, and in doing so threatens to stifle the long-established rights of others to discuss her work, or that of other authors.

In Saturday's New York Times, business columnist Joe Nocera shines a light on exactly this point. In doing so, he provides a fantastic explanation of how important this case is, and why it's part of a larger, and very important, conflict.

Read the article here.

On Friday, we filed our opposition to J.K. Rowling's motion to enjoin publication of the Lexicon. In our brief, we explain both why the Lexicon is the sort of important and transformative work that fair use has long protected, and why Ms. Rowling is not entitled to the injunction she seeks.