This doesn't even sound legal! How can another person take someone else's book and write another book from it?! Can you say copyright infringement!

Nell, forest lake, usa

I know exactly what rowling is doing because I had done it myself. I'm an artist of sorts although not on the stratospheric success level as Rowling but I have had a small but successful moment with accompanying wave. Once it was over I had great difficulty trying to match or better what I had done before. Even in my little genre expectations were high. I began to look for ways to avoid getting on with the creative process and eventually found myself supporting many fruitless political causes. Anything to distract me.

Im betting this is what Rowling is doing. As far as I know she is finished with the Potter series so it will be incredibly difficult for her to follow it up. Expectations are massive obviously.

I don't blame her because she is under much pressure. But I would say to her...relax, you have 500 million, enjoy it, bring joy to others peoples lives with your money. Life is to short to be wrapped up in court rooms and lawyers offices. Get a man, hopefully me ..

Anthony D, Stonehaven, UK

But you know, Rowling herself is not the most original person in the world. She may not have done anything illegal , but her ideas about magic are borrowed from so many different authors who write far more beautifully than her.

Meanwhile, it's hard to respect the person whose book characters sell everything, from chocolate bars to pyjammas.

Ursula, Singapore, Singapore

It is okay to write a book that examines and analyse otheres however in Vander Ark's case it is not ethical. At least 90 if not more percent of his works are from J.K. Rowling's, then he does not have the right to publish this book of his. He is not adding anything new nor writing a commentary. It is merely writing the facts already found in the Harry Potter books. It is far more interesting to read the amazing world of J.K. Rowling and learning the facts through out the seven books.
Vander Ark's book is nothing more than a cheap and lazy way to earn money of a wonderful author who spent 17 years of her life dedicated to create the most amazing book the world has ever seen. Harry Potter is and will always be from the creation of the awe-inspiring J.K. Rowling

Neyla , Manama, Bahrain

The trouble in A merica now is they are all trying to rip off the Brits, with Investments and other con tricks.. This is another rip off which anyone could have done even me a 71 year old with a computor to sit at and a will to read Harry Potter books al day until I knew them inside out. Mr. Vander Ark needs to get a job, and invent something of his own under his own sweat, and leave J. K. Rowling to do the one thing this lady does well take us all into the fantacy world of Harry Potter, Who's ever heard of Mr. Vander Ark until now with this court sensation,which Im sure will bring t.v. news and all the top paying staions putting money into his bank accounts, its easy to get money in the States just get your mug in the papers and sit back for the income cheques, and this is exactly what he has done. He could not care less whether he wins or loses hes got the cash now. They call it the AMERICAN DREAM.

TONY HILL, EPSOM, SURREY

>>>And there exist software designed to detect such plagiarism in college students' work. Anyone care to bet how the Lexicon 'author' would fare against the plagiarism-detecting software?<<<

John - we ALL know (including Steve Vander Ark, including RDR Books) how Mr Vander Ark would fare against anti-plagiarism software: He'd fail, miserably.

VanderArk already admitted under oath that he knew that his proposed book was probably plagiarism, but, he said, RDR talke him into letting them publish it anyway, citing the Fair Use Act. He's a school librarian; he KNEW he was wrong... but I guess the money looked too good to him to pass up.

Note that RDR got an extreme left-wing lawyer to take the case pro bono? Note the obvious stake that Stanford U might have in such a decision?

To answer the question someone asked: His last name is "Vander Ark" - not "Ark", it's a Dutch name; and I've often spelled it without the space, merely due to character-saving for more important things.

Stephanie, NJ, USA

Of course, it could just be hype to get seats filled in theaters for #6-7 movie.

Keep the old name out there, "gossip's worth it's weight in gold...." Phantom of the Opera, the Musical.

Tessa, WX, Ut

She has every right to sue. Who writes a book where 2,034 of 2,437 entries are not their own? What a convenient way to make some money, just copy off someone else! This Lexicon guy is ridiculous.

SRG, London, England

why should she be allowed to release a similar book based on her work and donate the proceeds to charity, when someone else can rip off all of her work and pocket the profit instead.

shame on her i never thought she would stoop so low and have clearly missed the point etc. etc. etc.

Hugh, London,

APPARENTLY YOU AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO REALIZE WHAT THE DISPUTE IS OVER. The dispute is over plagiarism. This is the same as a student writing his term paper in his own words, or using the lazy cut-and-paste approach of taking someone else's work and calling it your own.
If the author had taken the time to write his own commentary, there could be no court case against him. And there exist software designed to detect such plagiarism in college students' work. Anyone care to bet how the Lexicon 'author' would fare against the plagiarism-detecting software?

John Parsons, Austin, TX, US

Maybe J.K. Rowling is just disgruntled with all the blogs that actually have better endings/off-shoot story-lines, then she bothered to write for her final novel. Talk about "muscling-in."

But that's another tale...however, look out bloggers, she might be coming after you, next.

Wonder how many fans she's losing because of this temper-tantrum. She praises then sues?? (Bait and switch??)

Tessa, WX, UT

I am now NOT a Fan of JK Rowling. She now appears greedy. Why can't she be happy with what she has and let someone else have some happiness as well. She should maybe look at this as a compliment to her. Poo Hoo for her!

Cath, San Francisco, USA

She is obviously imbalanced...

Paul, Columbia, USA

Its easy to say that she has too much money and see this court case as an attempt to get more. I personally think she is doing the right thing. I read recently that she was concerned that some fans, who aren't wealthy, wouldn't be able to buy both this lexicon and her own that she is planning. Granted, you could say this is because she doesn't want anyone else to make money. However, i think if i had created all that she has, had gone through all the years, of painstaking research and highs and lows i'd be angry too.
If JK wasn't planning her own book then maybe Mr Ark could be forgiven. As it is, it seems that he is trying to cash in on someone else's great idea.

Jenny, Manchester,

Stu - I don't have to have read the proposed book's manuscript. VanderArk himself has said that it's merely a hard copy book of the very same website that JKR's known he's had up for years. If the author says it's a mere copy of another author's work, then who am I (or you, or anybody else) to argue that? The claim wasn't mine nor JKR's lawyer's, but VanderArk's.

Have you ever seen the website? It's over 90% - and perhaps over 95% - lifted (plagiarized) straight from the books. JKR was okay with it while it was a nonprofit venture open to all & free. Just like she feels (and always felt) about fan fiction. But now V wants to steal from her, & to get paid well for that theft.

I recall 1st hearing about JKR's proposed encyclopedia & statement that all proceeds from it were going to go to charity, just as the proceeds of the 2 'textbooks' went 2 or 3 years ago. It was before she even finished writing "Deathly Hallows", & I don't know how much earlier than I heard it that she said it

Stephanie, NJ, USA

JK Rowling is so insensitive. Here's a seriously die hard fan who spent almost a decade of his life dedicated to her and her works and he just wants to publish what he's spent so much time on. She has enough money if she wants to donate money, so what's her problem? And it's not like if he publishes no one's going to buy her book, which is only going to come out in at least TWO years! This is seriously ridiculous and I'm surprised Rowling is being so greedy over all this. And I understand her love of her characters, being a writer myself, but honestly, come on. Vander Ark isn't going to hurt them, lady.

DW, Los Angeles, CA

"VanderArk's book is merely "hard copy format" of his website, no more & no less - his 'site in a book, & is clearly nearly all copied straight from Rowling's books verbatim"

Have you read the book? If not, you're in no position to make that claim. And with it currently being under injunction, it would seem most likely that you're just swallowing Rowling's lawyer's claims.

"Four comments from people claiming she is doing this to make more money. This after the article in question clearly states that any future reference work from her own hand would be purely for charity and that she has twice demostrated this. "

Interestingly, not one single record of her intent to do so can be located from before the time this book was announced.

She has enough money to give millions to charity every year for the rest of her life if she wants to, without ever touching her vast capital. It's a giant red herring designed to evoke sympathy from the gullible and sentimental.

Rev. Stuart Campbell, Bath, UK

If Rowling wins this case, it will be virtually impossible for anyone to criticze or discuss and author's work, without their permission. It will also be impossible for anyone to write a guide to it, or any form of encyclopedia related to it. That effectively means shutting off discussion and free speech, and would be a disastrous moment for anyone who cares about literature. Rowling has received immense rewards from her creation, both financially and in terms of public acclaim. Presenting herself as a victim is simply immature and dishonest.

morzer, London, Uk

Hello. It is I, yes I admit it - I am that person who has not read Harry Potter. I should be therefore grateful if you will allow me my tuppence worth, having tried to something of his creator.

Humble origins, French graduate from Essex Uni!, worked for Amnesty International, at 25 lost her Mum to MS, taught English in Portugal, married, separated and as a working single parent brought up her daughter whilst writing in her spare time. Hit the big time after many struggles, then devoted much time (and as well as money) to charitable activities - child poverty, family injustice, MS, reward for Maddy, etc. An intellectual left-winger, influenced by Jessica Mitford and Bobby Kennedy and even also proud to be British (eg. insisting Warners use British actors in HP films), etc.

Is this the same evil, greedy monster I read about from the Reverend and irreverent contributors to this post?

What does she have to do to please you all? Conversely, what are Vander Ark's motives?

Mike L, Chippenham, Wilts

So the Tolkien estate, the author of the worst witch, The dungeons and Dragons writers should have the right to sue her now

paul, colchester,

There still appears to be a serious lack of understanding amongst a lot of people as to what is copyrightable and what isn't. Maybe this will clear things up.

Personal names, place names, basic daily phrases in any language, the use of or reference to anything never copyrighted or that the copyright has run out on (such as mythologogical literature) & general cultural ideas, are all examples of items that are not copyrightable.

Using the personal name of any specific person may constitute libel, depending upon the veracity of what is written, of course; however once cannot, in general, copyright personal names.

The use of well-known mottos or phrases does not constitute breach of copyright law.

Certain reference sources (as I posted earlier) are also specifically permissable, and no breach against copyright law. Included, but not limited to such exemption, would be dictionaries, encyclopedias & certain publications (Cliff Notes, book reports, reviews, and critiques, f

Stephanie, NJ, USA

Good on her!

This man surely didn't think he'd get away with exploiting such a famous set of works without some questioning over copyright? Particularly given the fact that J.K. Rowling has been talking about the possibility of an encyclopedia like this for a while, and has already published two similar small guides for charity in the past few years.

Hers is a real rags-to-riches story whereby a woman has changed her life through intelligence, talent and determination rather than the conventional 'modern fairytale' of reality TV and X Factor wannabes. She is an inspiration and always comes across as such a modest, genuine woman despite her success. One of the advantages of this is that readers warm to her as well as her books, and I think she'll get a lot of support from the people whose lives she has enriched with her wonderful imagination.

Eleanor, Derbyshire,

No, Tessa. There's a very BIG difference you seem to be mising.

A place name, a mythical beast or any other reference to mythology, personal names that aren't historical or well-known celebrity personal names, etc. are NOT Copyrighted items.

Cliff Notes and the like reference their sources (as ALL writers must lawfully do). Encyclopedias & dictionaries (as I already posted - go back & read it in detail) are specifically exempt from Copyright due to the "Fair Use" Act appended onto the original Copyright law.

And, I hate to break this to you... but the spells in Rowling's books are, in fact, specifically her invention. You don't really think that there is a place like Hogwarts, do you, and that the spells in the books actually exist and are copyrighted? Only original works can be copyrighted, and those spells did not exist before Rowling thought them up and penned them into her books. It is she who copyrighted them - along with every other word (in specific order) in her book.

Stephanie, NJ, USA

Dear Johanna, Paris

Once in one hundred years there comes along a writer who starts with nothing and gets it all. A fortune can be won from scratch through hard-edged business practice, a stroke of immense good fortune or very occasionally, a great talent.

I sense a note of envy: are you about to give 80% of your fortune to charity? I am sure you could live on what's left if you really belived it was the right thing to do.

Anyway, JK Rowling has been pretty generous up till now.

It's now all in the hands of lawyers, God help us!

Keep the faith and the laws on literary invention. It's rare and it needs to be safeguareded.

Deftor, Beijing, Beijing, China

It is always distastful to see the manner in which those without creative talent try to live of those who have genuine ability.
The fact that Jk Rowliing has money is irelevant to the argument. In any event her wealth has come from the pleasure she has given to millions and I for one wish her well of it.

Bob Topp, Wokingham, Berkshire UK

I totally agree with what she is doing. She has been planning on releasing this encyclopedia for some time now and I feel that he has no place making his own. Regardless of the website being non profit, he will be making profit off that book.

Mark, Toronto, Canada

It never ceases to amuse me (no longer amazes me, though) how people with no money always want to dictate how those with money "ought" so spend their own money.

Rowling's rich. So what? She earned her money lawfully. She - and only she - gets to spend it how she chooses. It's HERS. Not anybody else's. How much money she has is irrelevant to her right to defend herself against theft.

The specious ideas I've seen posted here regarding just that issue - how Rowling "should" spend her money - reflect the ignorance (not to mention jealousy, perhaps?) of the posters such ridiculous ideas.


The entire issue regarding the lawsuit is no more and no less than a matter of law.

In this case, it's quite clear-cut.

Stephanie, NJ, USA

i think the website is http://www.hp-lexicon.org

not .com

do you not check your links at The Times?

not that i care for Harry Potter.....

Jon, Birmingham, UK

How many reference works did J.K. Rowling use to write those novels (spells, latin names, maps etc.) If her books were swept clean of those, what would be left behind?

Guess all the "Cliff's Notes/Encyclopedias" will soon be missing from all libraries/internet sites/blogs. More's the pity.

Monopoly is such a karma-maker.

Tessa, WX, UT

Difficult to feel sorry for a woman with that much money. I suggest that if she wants to prove her good will then she should give at least 80 percent of her fortune to charities; that would still leave a huge amount on which to live lavishly for the rest of her life.

Johanna, Paris, France

Info from "Copyright Law of the USA and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code".

VanderArk's website was non-profit (ergo "fair use"); his proposed book is for pure commercial profit (specifically barred as "fair use").

The nature of his book is NOT any of the specifically permissible reasons as set forth in Section 107: "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research". It is therefore specifically barred from coverage under "fair use".

VanderArk's book is merely "hard copy format" of his website, no more & no less - his 'site in a book, & is clearly nearly all copied straight from Rowling's books verbatim. Ergo, the "amount & substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work" is nearly all of it. Bars V from coming even close to covered under "fair use".

The effect of V's book on the potential market for/value of R's copyrighted work directly relates to her long-ago-announced Encyclopedia for charity.

Stephanie, NJ, USA

I dont understand what´s her problem. After all, Sherlock Holmes, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, has non canon information which is written by fans...

And besides she did it too. Harry Potter has obviously many influencies of Lord of the Rings.

DM, London ,

I think JK Rowling is being incredibly petty. I understand that she feels someone is plagarising her work, but if this was the case, why did she praise the website - and use it? Surely it's the same thing, but minus the profit. Also, is this woman's greed endless? Didn't she sue (or try to sue) a poor village in India for replicating the Hogwarts building? I think she needs to get off her high horse and appreciate the interest her books generate. In reference to the plagarism, i have noticed many uncanny resemblences between HP books and the Lord of the Rings books.......just a thought.

Blossom, Birmingham, UK

Any lexicon filled with sentences that were created initially by J.K. Rowling would be breach of copyright surely. The creator of a sentence, paragraph, or whatever owns the copyright . And copyright is to stop others taking credit for and making money from this work.
The right to publish commentary, criticism, oer even praise is not threatened here, as I see it, providing such commentary is entirely original and not just copied.
It's lifting entire sections created by JKR and using them to make money without even the decency to attribute them to JKR that galls me. As she points out if such attributions were indeed made then about 80/90% of the entire contents of this lexicon would be put inside quotation marks.

Tom O'Farrell, Sarnia, Canada

I for one think it is outragous to say that she is being greedy.
As a writer, i understand that this is her work and nobody elses, these people should be ashamed and they should be throughly punished! She has a creative and brilliant mind and this piece of scum that wishes to take it from her is a monster.
Karma will get him.

Maleesa , Toddville, USA Iowa

Am I the only one who noticed that ALL proceeds are going to charity. How can you possibly say that she is in it for the money? I guess she is, but she wants to give the money away.

Thomas Willson, Spokane, Washington, USA

If JK wants to donate money to charity, I think she has enough already to do that.

JK's suit is baseless.

Of course a lexicon of mythical words is going to have lots of quotes from passages of the works it is taken of. The work of the author of the lexicon is to locate and organize the quotes.

JK is just being overly possessive and greedy.

Keith S, Winnipeg, Canada

I agree with comments about JK Rowlings original ideas and where she actually got them from for many of the characters, unfortunately its a tricky Subject because Writers and artists can demand larger pay packets these days the bottom line is it revolves round money... although its not the money from a personal earnings perspective but perhaps money like JK rowlings quite rightly says could go to Charity... An i think she's a gorgeous lady !

lee harrison, leeds , uk

Greed ............. Give someone else a chance to make some money - does she forget where she started from.. and didn't she steal ideas from other books in writing Harry - Lord of the Rings for example .... The Chronicles of Narnia ....

K, Greece,

This is actually not the first time there have been attempts to restrain uses of the Harry Potter books that constitute something of an attack on the principle of fair use and comment. Warner Brothers have also sought to get academic essay collections to drop quotations from the novels and have forced one set of editors to change their proposed title. People have alos been warned that they must be less critical fo the books. I do think there are signs that the Harry Potter proprietors are unusually touchy, and while we might all side wiht Rowling about this book, there is a risk to the principle of criticism of living authors if she wins.

Jane Lumley, Oxford, England

Comment "NO PART OF THIS PAGE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT PERMISSION.
HARRY POTTER, characters, names, and all related indicia are trademarks of Warner Bros. ©2001-2007." Did VAN ARKEL seek permission?

steve tea, manchester, cheshire

Nobody should be allowed to write about, comment on, or even read the Harry Potter books. By reading them you allow your brain to make an illicit copy of proprietary material in your memory-cells, which is a kind of theft.

John B, UK,

As a fifteen year old I myself have grown up alongside Harry (not literally) as because Im the black sheep of my family sought of thing, I used to be a jerk and the harry potter books made me pull up my socks and get in line, and Ive always loved to sit down and read the books, and in doing so i think its changed my life, J.K. is such an inspiration and has poured joy into the life of kids and adults across the world, she announced that she'd publish a Harry potter encyclopedia and for lexicon to just scoop up her ideas like that I say *shakes head* "shameful" I hope J.K. sues them for all theyve got, and knowing what such a great person she is I bet she'd give it straight to a charity even before she leaves the court room.
(comment to J.K. Rowling if reading)
"Woo! you go girl.. don't be upset Know that if lexicon publishes that book, I wont buy it and ill make a peticion to have it removed from all shelves around my area"

Cam, Berkeley Vale, Australia

Four comments from people claiming she is doing this to make more money. This after the article in question clearly states that any future reference work from her own hand would be purely for charity and that she has twice demostrated this.

I worry about the general public, I really do. No wonder we live in such a reactionary society where people don't bother to consider any situation from all angles. They just look at the headlines and have their opinions set by their initial interpretation thereof.

I will trust the court to reach a decision on this matter.

Rick T, Dubai, UAE

If the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' is using wholesale material from Rowling's books without acknowledgement then this definitely counts as plagiarism, regardless of whether the rest of the book explores the origins of Rowlings characters, plot devices etc. If the publishers are claiming it is a scholarly work then they should abide by scholarly law, which requires constant and due referencing, even for paraphrasing. The cornerstone for scholarly work is original thought, however, it seems Steve Vander Ark has confused the two by not following simple publishing standards. Perhaps if he rewrote it, and acknowledged Rowling's work where applicable, it would be acceptable, but then perhaps this would show just how much of it is actually just a regurgitation of her books - which is NOT scholarly!!! There have been other books written about Harry Potter which Rowling has not contested as they have not stolen directly from her work, so I don't think it is selfishness on her part.

Ella, London,

If that's the first you've heard of it, Ron, than you clearly havent been listening much to her. She's been saying she would donate the proceeds from her lexicon for years.

Sarah, Chelmsford,

Watch it, Emily, you might be sued for plagiarism ;).

You make an excellent point, though. But the Lexicon says he had to repeat the year (using a quote from JKR), not that it was a mistake in the book. It just doesn't explain why he had to repeat the year. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

M. R., Stockport,

I think she's being a bit of a bully. She's benefited greatly from the free publicity, marketing and promotion that the Harry Potter fan sites have provided all these years for her books and associated merchandise. She created her characters, but she did not create, nor does she control, the literary world at large. She's allowed several books regarding how the series would end to be published. It seems to me that they used her characters and referenced her books, didn't they? Maybe the difference is that they helped to promote her books....which meant more money for her. She's a little too impressed with herself , in my opinion.

Lynn, Philadelphia, USA

Why do people insist on writing comments addressed to Rowling herself - do you honestly think she gives two hoots what some sycophant on a newspaper's website thinks?

Aside from that, I doubt very much whether she reads The Times - The Guardian or The Independent is probably more up her alley.

As for her being close to tears, yeah right - obviously she's a good actress as well as a good author. The latter of these might be proven incontrovertibly one day when she writes about something else other than HP.

P.S. Have read and enjoyed all her books, before I get flamed by a bunch of demented Rowling fans for daring to speak ill of the great woman!

Alex, London,

Anyone who makes money out J K Rowling should be taken to court... If I spent a long time on my writing and then some nobody came along and took the years of hard work I put into it I would react the same.. What joy this lady has given to children and adults, not only in this country but worldwide, it is a talent that no none has achieved for a long time.
Money that she has made for charities are not to be sniffed at..
Leave her alone anyone who thinks she is greedy..
J K Rowling knows what it was like to be poor, she has now got a lot of compassion for others who are in this postition, that is why she wants to help the Charities..

Valerie Andrews, Wokingham, Berkshire

I'm totally behind Ms Rowling on this one. The HP Lexicon is an amazingly informative website but is there really any need to publish it in a book form? I think Mr Vander Ark has overstepped the line by now wanting to make a profit from his website. I also think his lack of respect for Ms Rowling is astonishing. If she objected to me publishing an encyclopedia about Harry Potter then I would stop doing it, no question about it!
I think the Lexicon book is different to other unofficial reference guides that have been released. Previous guide's merely act as companion's to the books, whereas the Lexicon book is said to directly lift most of the text from the books, which I think is wrong and blatant plagerism.
There's also no way that some so-called fan knows more about the books and can answer more questions about them than the woman who wrote them. I will be waiting to buy the OFFICIAL encyclopedia, with all proceeds going to charity.
Good luck with the rest of the case, Jo!

Laura, Essex,

So many commenators here yell about JKR wanting more money. She doesn't need, nor I imagine does she want more money. I think she wants justice. JKR has spent a lot of time and effort creating her stories by dint of hard work and dedication. She is something rarely seen in a celebrity - a decent human being.

People like Vander Ark leech off people like Ms. Rowling.

Her law suit is to do with intellectual theft. I hope she wins hands down. If she doesn't other paracites like this one will try to make their fortunes off other author's ideas and hard work.

David, Atlanta, USA

"If the majority of the text in this reference book is lifted (and the figures used suggest this is the case) "

It's not "lifted". The book is a reference book to the Harry Potter books, so most of it is based on the Harry Potter books. Quel surprise. You can make statistics say anything you want.

It didn't seem to bother Warner Brothers when they used it as a reference for their films.

(please note: I'm against this book, but I think they're taking it too far)

M.R., Stockport,

Sounds like it´s get money out of public with minimum effort.

The reader also needs to be protected, and to be conned into buying a book that is 90% others works is wrong. I know you have the choice to put your hand in your pocket, but sometimes it´s not always easy to know what you´re buying.

Let´s forget how much money Rowlings has as this can either highlight the case that she is actually doing it for moral reasons or, on the other side of the coin, greed. Would you like to find your lifes work, something you have worked hard on, seemingly passed off by another as ones own?

You often read that parts etc of this publication can not be reproduced without the publishers authorisation, so why should any other works be exempt from this?!

ian, Helsinki, Finland

One of the problems that she faces is that so many people have ALREADY muscled in on her work and are piggybacking on it already. What about the movies and other merchandising that has already been produced. No one else has profited from that have they??? The movie studio, Daniel Radcliffe etc. They have all benefitted from JK Rowling's "generosity" of licensing her creation.
This publisher is hardly going to become a millionaire by selling 10000 copies orginially based on a website that was a labour of love. She will find it difficult to set a new precedent in publishing and copyright law methinks.
P.S. it always irritates me that these millionaires try to earn themselves kudos by "Donating" to charity. It all sounds a bit hollow to me.

mc, Budapest, Hungary

Dear oh dear, Rev Campbell, you really should consider your words more carefully. "Sickening", "unimaginable implications", "utter contempt"; such phrases might be applied to genocide in Darfur, or the machinations of Mugabe, or any one of a dozen different atrocities the world over. Its hardly appropriate to this article. Your post shows a disturbing personal antagonism to Ms Rowling, a lamentable lack of Christian spirit, and a poor grasp of the issue, which would appear to be less about the creation of a reference text, and more about a simple case of lazy plagiarism

Dr Tim Ward, Taunton, Somerset

Never mind the legal ins-and-outs, the way in which Rowling has handled her testimony is so evidently staged and geared toward emotional blackmail that I don't think she deserves to win this case. Her vile treatment of one of her biggest fans who has shown nothing but respect for her is nothing short of insulting.

Nia, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion

It's her work, she created it, she owns it. Nobody has the right to steal it. How dare could anyone even infer that she's greedy, she's not the one stealing it, she's the one who created it. WAKE UP, THE WORLD WOULD NOT HAVE THESE PIECES OF WORK IF IT WAS NOT FOR HER.

The greedy ones are those who wish to prosper from her, for they do not have the intelligence, nor the insight to create their own, so they most definitely do not have the right to steal from her.

She has every right to defend what's hers and if true justice prevails then the law will be on her side.

BSK, Toronto, Canada

I think JKR is right. She is not greedy as she has stated the proceeds of her book would go to charity. What puzzles me about this lexicon is that it said in the report that it gives more insight into characters such as Luna Lovegood. How can it give more than is written in the books. The rest must still be inside JKR's head. The previous comment is right though. The media has decided for us the public what is important for us to know about and what is not important. But we've all read this story so we have perpetuated it.

Jo, Oxford,

To Polly below,
It's hard to understand why you think LKR is "greedy". As the article clearly states, she's attempting to preserve her work and create her own encyclopaedia in order to donate proceeds to charity.
When did you last give to charity?

Robert, Whitchurch, Cheshire, UK

J.K. Rowling is rich, famous, and too noisy.
She should shut up and go spend her money.

Ray Sutton, North Vancouver, B.C., Canada

"I work for an educational publisher and we use extracts from books, but we can't use Harry Potter extracts because Rowling doesn't allow reuse of her books for education. Which I find incomprehenisible and rather sad actually.

SamW, Cambridge, England"

Whatever the rights or wrongs are, I would argue that Rowling is motivated by greed, and a desire to control, as backed up by SamW's comments.

As a former teacher herself, Rowling should be utterly ashamed of herself - apparently her books are only allowed to be used for education purposes if she makes a shed load more cash out of it.

Interesting how some people's values change significantly as soon as they get some dosh!

Alex, London,

Emily - is that you JKR?

Anthony, Belfast,

Not to nit-pick, but I believe that the said Marcus Flint spent the greater part of an academic year trapped in a broken vanishing cabinet after he was pushed into it by the Weasly Twins. (And the said vanishing cabinet went on to play great significance in the last two books.)
He would then have had to re-do the year of lessons that he missed, making it 8 years he was physically within the walls of Hogwarts, but only 7 being taught.
So although on the face of it, it seems like a mistake, it actually isn't. Whoever thought that it WAS a mistake clearly isn't a big a fan as they say they are....!
Which means that the proposed lexicon isn't actually that useful or accurate, so their defence is fatally flawed.
The only person who knows EVERYTHING about the HP world is the author herself. How can anybody else claim that they have a better knowledge?

Emily, Northampton,

What a greedy woman!

polly, northampton, UK

What is truly sickening is the focus of the world media on people who presently would appear to have a secure future while matters of monumental importance might as well be draped in a cloak of invisibility (now did I take that from Rowling or the Twelve Dancing Princesses?)

In Ghana, last Wednesday, a 9-year-old boy died after being shut up in a room by his parents.

He had admiitted to being a wizard.

http://www.myjoyonline.com/news/200804/15297.asp

The boy was the child of a fisherman who probably gave what little money for advice that the child would die because he had not found a victim for his cult.

Christopher Kimberley, New Quay, United Kngdom

I work for an educational publisher and we use extracts from books, but we can't use Harry Potter extracts because Rowling doesn't allow reuse of her books for education. Which I find incomprehenisible and rather sad actually.

SamW, Cambridge, England

For a woman who has spent a huge portion of her life dedicated to producing books which have brought such pleasure to the lives of millions, spent hours, days toiling in a tiny room to produce three dimensional characters we know and love, we can only have an inkling of the bond she must feel for her books.
Encyclopedias at least are made for educational value; designed to inform. This work seems little better than a copy of Rowling's books, not fit for the paper it is published on. If 99% of its entries are "lifted", how can this not be a breach of copyright? If the publisher was adding commentary on every character, it would be a legitimate alternative to Rowling's anticipated work. But to allow him to profit from the name which Rowling put into the hearts and household of children and adults around the world, whilst putting no effort in return seems preposterous, restricting the ability of hard working authors to claim the characters they painstakingly create as their own.

Tara, Colchester,

The website is actually

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/

David, London,

"It is www.hp-lexicon.org - not. com."

Which demonstrates this journalist isn't exactly "informed".

M.R., Stockport,

I bet if you did the same little statistical trick on other reference books you'd get exactly the same results ...

Marauder, Lancaster,

It is different praising a site for being a true dedication to Harry Potter, but why should another cash in on her work? JK was happy to have this as a website, not for profit, for the love of her work. Everyone keeps going on about greed, well, she said the money she will make from her encyclopaedia will go to charity, I doubt Mr Vander Ark will be doing that. I don't understand why people think just because JK has made money from Harry Potter it means everyone else should be able to take a free run at it.

Let is also be said there are loads of books Harry Potter related, paraodies, other reference works and even podcasts where people discuss at great length theories, but she hasn't objected to those. By putting in print Vander Ark's theories etc, it some how makes them solid, factual, when in reality, it is still all theory and personally, as a Harry Potter fan, I would rather have the real deal from JK Rowling than some rip-off.

Beccy, Leicester,

Reference guides are clearly within the letter and spirit of the "fair use" exemptions in law. If Ms Rowling cares so much about charity, why not donate all subsequent proceeds of all her books? It's not like she ever needs another penny as long as she lives, and she already makes millions more every year from interest on her existing riches alone.

This case is sickening, carries unimaginable implications for all forms of publishing, and ought to be dismissed with utter contempt.

Rev. Stuart Campbell, Bath, UK

nick (sydney).. about half your post there was made up of a direct quote from b samuel davis's post. you thief! :0)

and karen the writer.... internet "sight".... I hope you have a good editor.

anyway.... to be fair to rowling, there pretty much isn't an original idea in the series. the whole thing is genre theft. I think that's why people like it. grown-ups who should know better.

she's not bad for an old bird, though. I hope she wins. the last thing this world needs is a pemanent version of half the crap written on the internet by any tom, dick or... oops. nearly opened myself up to a legal action there.

jem, london, uk

If the majority of the text in this reference book is lifted (and the figures used suggest this is the case) then it clearly infringes copyright. It all comes down to a slack job by the author, who seems to be trying to make money with the minimum of effort, and as such he should lose this case hands down.

Ross Liversidge, Ripon, N. Yorks

She's protecting the fans of her books - over 2000 of the entries in this so-called guide are directly lifted directly from her work. Without those the guy would have less than 500 entries of his own to sell. She's helping to prevent people from buying the same thing twice.

He should strip out her work and then see if he can find a publisher who's interested in what's left - i doubt it.

I really find it hard to understand the mentality of the people who are criticising her.

Mark Jones, Birmingham, UK

Precedence. The author has to establish a legal precedence for her work, so there will not be a hundred more dictionaries, encyclopedias, glossaries, etc. published by people who are trying to make a fortune off her genius. She's entirely justified in feeling the way she does. Being rich is no reason to hate a person...

Elan Durham, Santa Monica, CA/US

As far as I'm concerned Vander Ark is piggy backing on Rowling and using her creativity to make a quid. I hope she wins and is awarded damages.

Ian Lee, Fremantle, Western Australia

Sorry, but this is the first I have heard that she intends to donate profits from her own rreferencr book to charity. Me thinks this is a ploy. Reach a settlement; as the publisher’s lawyers say she “appears to claim a monopoly on the right to publish literary reference guides and other non-academic research relating to her own fiction. This is a right no court has ever recognised . . . It would threaten not just reference guides but encyclopaedias, glossaries, indexes and other tools that provide useful information about copyrighted works.”

Ron, Milton Keynes, Bucks

How can such a rich woman be so petty and childish, get a life and I hope all her money wll now be donated to Charity, so at least I dont have to add selfish to her list of characteristics...aaagh !!

Michael Vennard, Singapore,

B. Samuel Davis

"she hasn't made enough money so now she's coming out with an encyclopedia?"

If you read the whole article then you would have that the she is donating the proceeds to charity, as she has already done with her two smaller guides.

Nick, Sydney, Australia

Part of me thinks, why doesn't JK just allow publication & then, after publishers' costs are met, & a small %age of the profits split among JK, publisher, & Steve Vander Ark, give the rest of the profits to charity? Good PR for everyone, & since something like this will probably sell millions & millions of units, it won't be terribly small money for anyone involved. Wasn't she just in the news last week about standing up for Darfur--could be a "support for Darfur" thing.

But, on the other hand, I can understand her opinion that it's all her creation, so why should anyone else profit or put things into the marketplace based on what she created?

I do think she needs to tread carefully though, & think about the backlash suffered by people like George Lucas when he comes down too hard on "Star Wars" subsidiary products. Ultimately, even if Mr. Vander Ark's dictionary comes out, isn't one of the effects additional sales of/interest in the original product, her books & DVDs?

jonas, luton,

Jo, as a writer [unpublished] inspired by your par excellence I am deeply sorry that it has come to this.

No genuine fan of your fantastic work would ever do this to you as you are such a lovely and genuine person.

I will not be paying this Literary Encyclopaedia, and I think it has stretched the context "fair use" to its absolute limits. Infact this will set a precedence that all work every written by an Author famous or not is legally liable to plagarism. Under the title of "Reference Edition"

I myself have struggled to interpret your books in a blog I have yet to finish Book 1 Anthology because I have so many other committments. It is a hobby a passion, like Shakespeare.

A Rowling should be treasured and I hope with all my heart and pray with all my heart that the judge rules fairly and your book, your reference guide is the only one that I will ever read.

Blessed Be Jo, Love and Light to you and to your family and genuine fans.

Andrea Farrell, Liverpool, England

Go Danny from Houston, TX - I totally agree!!

Jackie, London, England

I appreciate the common sentiment in these comments that an author's rights should be respected. However, the majority of the comments show a lack of understanding of copyright law and legal process.

First, just because JKR or her lawyer say that the book in question lifts 95% of its contents word for word doesn't mean that it is true. Most Court cases seem cut and dried if you only hear one side of the argument. (Either side)

Second, copyright does not give an author ownership of everything that touches on or is related to her work. It doesn't protect the idea, only the words. It is (or, at least, has been) perfectly legal to create a reference book. That is not a breach of copyright and the author's objections are irrelevant. An author has the rights given by the copyright legislation - no more and no less.

In short, if the HP Lexicon does rip off large slabs of text, then copyright will protect JKR. If it is a reference book only, then JKR will lose (and deservedly so).

Adam, Adelaide, South Australia

She should put the book into turnitin.com; it will show that it is 95% copyrighted...that would be proof enough.

Brittany, Los Angeles, California

It is www.hp-lexicon.org - not. com.

Caitlin, Boston, MA

I hope she wins; this is clearly plagiarism and I completely understand her reasoning. If I had spent nearly twenty years working on something, I would fight it, too. As a writer I would do the same. It's absolutely her right to defend her work and be able to dictate who can publish what, using <i>her</i> creations. I support her to the fullest in this.

Elizabeth Kaylene, Waterbury, CT

I hope that J. K. Rowling wins this law suit because Harry Potter is her creation and she should be respected for it. this seems to me like a violation of her own mind let alone stealing the words off her pages.

Marie, West Midlands,

She has every right..the money is going to charity anyway,good luck to her.

Jean Matthews, london, england

Don't kid yourself - this is all about the money. Jeez - I thought she had had enough of Harry Potter! A real class act this one - she hasn't made enough money so now she's coming out with an encyclopedia?

Hey J.K. how about getting out of the sand box and letting someone else play for awhile?

B. Samuel Davis, BERKELEY HEIGHTS, United States

New York is a monopoly publishing town where "anything goes" and it is unlikely Rowling will receive a "fair trial." The term "fair use" is a misnomer produced by a right wing Supreme Court designed to free media from requesting permissions or purchasing material for production. Anything that ends that monopolistic delusions should be celebrated - including a book on the real issues of infringement for profiteering.

Anne Hiltner, Hightstown, NJ

Talk about blatant theft.

Mia, Chevy Chase,

If, indeed, only 403 lines of the "lexicon" are original, then this book is NOT a reference tool, but an abridged reprint of the novels. That would constitute not "fair use" but plagiarism and copyright infringement.

Elizabeth, Burlington, KY

I am a writer. And, no, I have nowhere near the money she has. But as a writer, all money aside, how dare any of you act as if someone who has money can no longer stand up when their work has been stolen. She has a right to praise the online sight on the internet. She has a right to be upset if it goes to print. It's her work. I can tell you that Disney and Mattel, when it comes to Mickey or Barbie, stand up for any infringement on their characters and hold fortunes greater than hers. Rightly they should. You go, Ms. Rowling!

Karen, Indianapolis, USA

I cannot understand Stephen Desmond's comment given that Ms Rowling is reported in the article as saying the profits from her encyclopaedia will go to charity.

This seems to be a straightforward case of plagiarism and I hope the court recognises it as such.

Graham Howells, Brasília, Brazil

Is this the very same JK Rowling who when honoring the Lexicon with her own fansite award said "This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an internet café while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing). A website for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home." By her standards most literary reference materials which many a reader has relied, most especially students, would be non-existent. Whilst it was on the internet she praised the Lexison to the skies and made liberal use of it by her own admission - but in printed and bound form she derides it? Surely the great JK Rowling can do better than that...

Lisa, London,

I don't think Ms Rowling is after money OR an apology. I think she wants the book not to be published and I am behind her on that.

Having said that, I personally would not bother buying a lexicon written by another party, my husband fulfils that function for, me. An encyclodedia by Ms Rowling herself would certainly be a must have in this house.

Gemma, Leighton Buzzard, UK

money money money, how much does she want

Keith, Perigueux, France

"Because I'm British". Oh, give me a break, please.

Hortense Schneider, Brighton, UK

It matters not whether J K Rowling made a pound or the many miilions her creativity provided. The fact is theft is theft, and theft of anothers creativity is the act of the lowest form of coward.

Timothy Collins, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Whilst Rowling clearly did not invent Centaurs, Three Headed Dogs or much of the wizardry and witchcraft she uses in her books, no-one can deny the extraordinary impact her books have had on children and adults alike. In an age of multimedia and ever-shortening attention spans who else has captivated so many millions to read 700 pages of fiction?
The jealous comments of those who doubt her motives should try seeing beyond their own petty failings and appreciate both her exceptional talent and the right of any author to prevent others not only from profiteering from their creations but in doing so affecting the nature of those stories for future generations.

danny, houston, tx

If that were Bill Gates' software code it would be a different story.

David Masu, Zürich,

She's just plain rigfht. Any plainer than this?

thaddy, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Through her actions J.K Rowling has just lost every ounce of respect i had for her.

Although she has to earn her money somehow now that the potter well has run dry for her.

Whilst she says that she loves her characters she will eventually give in to the temptation to ruin them and will milk the series for all it has through comics and books for young children.

stephen Desmond, Cheshire, England

well if the case is 'not about money' i'm sure she will be happy to settle for an apology.

unlike all the other times she's sued for large sums of money.
apparently being a multi-millionare- is just never enough.

matt, london, uk

I admire J.K.Rowling and the enormous effort she has put into her work but I'm afraid it's not accurate to claim that all those creatures owe their existence to her imagination alone. Any reader with even a minimal knowledge of Greek mythology will quite often recognize a different source for those "original" creations.

And if, as she says, she loves these creatures as her children, then why not let their life and fame grow for as many people as are interested in them? Is it really not a question of who profits from the project, if, as seems, there was no objection to Mr Vander Ark's website?

zoe, LONDON,

I feel strongly that J K Rowling should not be treated in this way
she has put her life into these amazing books and deserves to own the script,wording and everything related to them!

freddy and cathy goodall, horsham, UK

Quite right too ! Why should someone muscle in on her creation, copy every word she has written and then make profit from it. There is far too much of this, especially when students at university, so that they may obtain degrees falsely, copy work which they steal from the internet or pay someone to provide material which will ensure a suitable pass qualification. It is especially galling when many can't even spell words correctly or string a few words together. I hope she wins her case, and her future writing will provide funds for a charity.

phil de buquet, Newport,

I think the judge should rule in favor of J.K.Rowling. The book in question should be b urned and leave the lexicon on the internet. RDR publishing should pay dearly for even thinking about offering to publish this book. The auther of this book new it was stealing material from Rowlings book otherwise he would not have added a clause to keep his rearend covered in case of a lawsuit.

Tim, Camano Island, Washington