Rowling v. RDR, The Decision

The verdict is in.

"Mr. Ark may not attempt to sell a plum-cake,

the plums of which were not his for the taking!"

I'm joking. Rowling in her testimony during the trail had dramatically analogized her work to a plum cake and Mr. Ark's work being a product of stolen plums.(See here) So in other words, claims of fair use were thrown out and Ms. Rowling succeded in proving copyright infringement and irreperable harm.

Quantitative and qualitative copying go towards demonstrating copyright infringement. This is the basis of the substantial similarity test in Ringgold. Rowling established successfully that the Lexicon had copied a quantity sufficient to demonstrate a "finding of substantial similarity between the Lexicon and Rowling novels." As for qualitative taking, Rowling's character's and work is decidedly fictional. Judge Patterson also added that "even though it's expression can be used in a "factual capacity"," the expression is still fiction and not reduced to facts. Similarly, re-arrangement of fictional facts does not "re-alter" Rowling's work enough to allow the Lexicon to escape the existence of substantial similarity in their works. Further, though the Lexicon's "plot summaries" were not extensively detailed and comprehensive, they were sufficient to warrant the establishment of a prima facie case of copyright infringement.

Fair use consider four factors which I have detailed before.

The first factor requires, and as I stated, an identification of how transformative the Lexicon was. The Court found that though the transformativeness of the Lexicon was inconsistent, it nevertheless served as a useful reference guide for the public. The commercial nature of the work weighed only "slightly against finding of fair use." The Court also pointed out that a finding of bad faith is not central to a fair use analysis. Thus, Vander Ark's genuine belief that his work was "ultimately fair" did not give the plaintiff's a win in this subfactor.

As for the second factor of fair use, the outcome of this may be summed up in the following quote: "The Lexicon's verbatim copying of such highly asthetic expression raises a significant question as to whether it was reasonably necessary for the purpose of creating a useful and complete reference guide." Needless to say, this factor hugely disfavored the defendant.

Distinguishing the purposes a child would read the Lexicon for from the Harry Potter novels, Judge Patterson categorically stated that it was highly unlikely that the Lexicon would usurp a market for the novels. However, the Lexicon most certainly can substitute the market for companion books and derivative works based on the songs and poems in the Harry Potter novels.

Significantly, Judge Patterson, in support of striking a balance between ownership rights and freedom of expressions, encouraged production of reference guides, as long as they did not, in the words of Rowling, "plunder the works of original authors".