Stanford Center for Internet and Society

On the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Dan Slater notes the growing reaction against Rowling's copyright claims against RDR Books, and generates a spirited discussion of her position. Read it all here.

Today on Slate, Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu lays out an excellent explanation of why RDR Books has the right to publish the Harry Potter Lexicon, and why J.K. Rowling's copyright claims to the contrary are misplaced. Read the article here.

Pat Aufderheide, Peter Jaszi and their colleagues at American University's Center for Social Media have released a fantastic new study on creativity on the web -- and the threat that overly-aggressive copyright enforcement and so-called "anti-piracy" software pose to free speech.

Read the full study here, and view a slew of videos that represent the creativity that digital media has unleashed.

Yes, it's true. As Zohar Efroni reported, the Fair Use Project has signed on as co-counsel representing RDR Books in its litigation against J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers. The case concerns the HP Lexicon, a Harry Potter reference guide that has existed on the web for a long time, and has become the authoritative guide to the people, places and things of the Harry Potter universe. Upon learning that RDR Books planned to publish a printed version of the Lexicon, Rowling and Warner Brothers filed suit, alleging copyright and trademark infringement, and seeking to permanently enjoin the publication of the HP Lexicon in printed form. Read a copy of the complaint here. More in the new year, as we file our opposition to Rowling's motion for preliminary injunction. In the meantime, view the online version of the Lexicon (which Rowling herself honored with a fansite award) here.

CIS has petitioned for review of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kahle v. Gonzalez, asking the Supreme Court to clarify the scope of the “traditional contours of copyright protection” referred to in Eldred, and to decide whether the change from an “opt-in” to an “opt-out” system of copyright a change in a traditional contour of copyright protection.

After our win in Golan v. Gonzales, the government has petitioned the Tenth Circuit for a rehearing of the case, which decided that the Uruguay Round Agreements Act altered the "traditional contours" of copyright and therefore triggers First Amendment Review.

The Attorney General's office seeks a standard - that First Amendment review is only triggered by changes in the idea/expression dichotomy or in fair use - that the Supreme Court has already rejected in Eldred. Our response to the petition for rehearing urges the Tenth Circuit adhere to its carefully reasoned opinion in this case.

Here's a link to the press release. It is not my jurisdiction to cover this development - I trust you’ll hear more details and updates from Anthony and his team soon. I'd only say it looks like one of the most exiting and challenging fair use cases I’ve seen recently and a must-follow one. From the press release: