Standing up for copyright
JK Rowling was absolutely right to go to court over the Harry Potter Lexicon, says the general secretary of the Society of Authors


Copyright disputes seldom hit the headlines, but when a famous author is involved things are different. There has been much coverage of JK Rowling's legal case in New York, which she won this week to prevent publication of a 400-page Harry Potter "Lexicon" by Steven Vander Ark. One surprising aspect of the coverage has been the reaction of some commentators to the stand she took.

For many years JK Rowling has rightly been feted for doing so much to encourage the enjoyment of books. However, over the last few months some observers have suggested that she has been a bit precious in trying to stop publication of a book that would probably not harm Harry Potter sales and might even increase them. In my view we should applaud a writer who is prepared to give time and energy to protecting copyright, which these days is so often infringed with careless impunity. For most authors the practicalities of pursuing copyright infringers can be dauntingly complicated and expensive. Here was an author willing to stand up and be counted.

It is sometimes assumed that authors favour tougher copyright protection, not least because their livelihoods depend on the advances and royalties they earn from it. However, many writers - including scholars, biographers and historians - want to be able to quote others, within reason, without always having to ask permission. In order to balance the interests of copyright owners and users, it is widely accepted, for example, that the period of protection should be finite and that it should be permissible to quote passages in the course of criticism or review, so long as the dealing is "fair".
Read the full piece at the Guardian online.