There’s a lot of industry news about the JK Rowling copyright case but, in my opinion, not a lot of understanding as to how the effects of this case will ripple through the industry. First, let’s take a look at what this case is about from Publisher’s Weekly Article about JK Rowling vs. a Fan Site:

The case centers on RDR Books’ intended publication of The Harry Potter Lexicon by Steven Vander Ark, which is based on the Web site of the same name that Vander Ark has maintained for the past seven years.

Translation? A fan is making an “unofficial Harry Potter-verse guide” and is being sued by Rowling for copyright infringement and the specific argument is related to a concept known as “fair use.” From Yale’s Library, here’s the definition of fair use that is pretty easy to digest:

The right set forth in Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act, to use copyrighted materials for certain purposes, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

On the surface, a fan site praising another author’s work or setting, offering criticism, commentary, or research, does seem to fall within the legal definition of fair use. Therein lies the stickiness. In order for a creator to continue to “hang on” to a copyright, they have to actively defend it. The longer a copyright goes undefended, the more liberties others may take with the work. In this case, however, is fair use truly being violated because someone else created the setting that is being critiqued, researched and analyzed? What’s also interesting to me is that Rowling knew about the fan site’s existence, let it run for 7 years, and appears to be suing the site because it might hurt sales with her own “official” work (which is a similar product).

The judge for this trial agreed that the idea of “fair use” is unclear and called for a settlement today. The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reported that:

Judge Patterson removed his glasses and addressed the court. “I’m concerned that this case is more lawyer-driven than it is client-driven,” he lamented. “The fair use people are on one side, and a large company is on the other side… The parties ought to see if there’s not a way to work this out, because there are strong issues in this case and it could come out one way or the other. The fair use doctrine is not clear.”

Regardless of what you think about Rowling’s stance on this lawsuit, I strongly encourage you to stay tuned and see what the decision is on this landmark case. If the courts rule in favor of Rowling, then the decision will also potentially ripple through the publishing industry affecting other properties–including fan sites–as other businesses follow suit.

The moral to this story, fellow writers, is that in this day and age it will be more important than ever to understand the nature of what you’re working on, what your rights are, and what the fine print of your contract means. Creating content derivative of someone else’s work may be risky business and (unfortunately) may cost you more money and heartache in the long run.