The Harry Potter Trial

I told you I was going to cover the Harry Potter trial over on Weird Ink because it is less to do with the subject and more to do with the industry, but as I was writing the first article, I came to the definite conclusion that it has everything to do with, not copyrights, but creative rights, so I wanted to draw your attention to the article and expound on it a bit more as it applies to that subject, in general.

We've discussed creators' rights here many times before. A big fan of Dave Sim, who almost single-handedly brought the concept to the forefront of the comics industry in the late-80s and early-90s with his self-published, Cerebus, my own interest in - and knowledge of - this subject comes largely from his work in this field. Now, Sim did not "invent" this idea - actually, Neal Adams was a big proponent of creative rights in the comic book industry long before Sim ever came along, and there were others along the way, to be sure - but Sim did more for Creators' Rights in the sequential art field than anyone before or since.

We creators quite literally put our hearts and souls into these projects. When you do a work-for-hire or seek simply to develop a "product," it's nothing like an actual, personal creation; I could write stories for a "property" - say a Spider-Man or X-Men - all day long and not much care what happens to the characters and concepts after the project is done, and I would only care about what had happened to these concepts before I started as a part of the job (research). But, were I to work on them for an extended time, I would certainly develop ties to them and have a vested interest in the matter - it's just a part of the process ("all writing is autobiographical" - I don't know who said it, but it's apt). Still, at the end of the day, I know that these characters and the elements surrounding them are properties I do not own and did not create, so a certain creative separation is maintained.

When it comes to my own creations, they really are like children - and that idea has become clichéd specifically because it is so apropos. Even though I have created concepts and characters for others to work on, there is a difference between those and the ones I have actively worked on and developed after creating them; I only invested as much of myself and my creativity as was necessary for their creation - after that, their development was up to whomever they were created for. Sometimes I watched with fascination, sometimes I cringed and disavowed myself of any involvement, but usually, I casually learned a bit about their development here and there along the way, and impassively shrugged or smiled - whatever.

Rowling has a vested interest in all things Harry Potter, but she does not hold the copyright to those properties or the franchise, in general. At best, the only rights I can see her having a claim to are along the lines of right to first-refusal. This reminds me of the D&D debacle, many moons past:

Gary Gygax vehemently disagreed with TSR when the company wanted to make a 2^nd-edition of the venerable game, but Gygax, though one of the original authors and creators, did not own the rights to the game. TSR basically bought him out and sent him packing, though fences were later mended. And while the 2^nd-edition was a success in many regards, the 1^st-edition D&D books contain far more information, are a far more interesting read, and in the end, are far more flexible. When all was said and done, TSR did irreparable damage to the product by basically repackaging the information previously available in 10 books into 50! Fans felt ripped-off and disenfranchised and resorted to a lot of house rules and improvisation. The community became divided, as no two games were alike, and the entire hobby suffered (and hasn't recovered since).

I can see the same thing happening here. Vander Ark was an ardent fan of the series and Rowling herself praised his site and admitted she often used it as a reference to her own work! Now, she's on the stand, calling it "lazy" and "sloppy." There are going to be a lot of rabid, though stupid, "super-" fans who will side with her out of sheer loyalty and nothing else - they will condemn Vander Ark, call him a traitor (as Rowling, herself, did), and so on and so forth - never once bothering to understand that Harry Potter is a Warner Brothers' property, not a JK Rowling property! More intelligent fans will bother to learn the legalities surrounding this case and, no matter who they side with, understand that Vander Ark spent years of hard work and effort in his endeavor, as well. Either way, the Harry Potter fanbase has been divided by this and Rowling really has no legal leg to stand on.

From a creator's perspective, I still disagree with Rowling. If she was going to donate all the proceeds of her own Potter Encyclopedia to charity, then why not co-author the book already in-progress and do so with her half of the proceeds? After all, if it's really not about the money, then why not correct the "lazy, sloppy" work already done and put her stamp of approval on it? That solves everything: it eliminates the "sloppiness" of the work and guarantees better sales, as well as pleases the fanbase - and she can graciously turn all those proceeds over to charity, just like she claims she was going to with her own work!

Once again, the Internet has forever changed an industry, but the ruling here is not going to affect copyright law because Rowling does not hold the copyrights to Harry Potter. However, this is going to set a very solid precedent as to creators' rights and all of us should be watching this intently. On the one hand, many of us who produce supplementary work based on others' may be branded criminal; on the other, implied creators' rights that so many have fought so hard to establish these past several years may be all but eradicated.

This is the Siegel & Schuster case in reverse, with the creator as the bad guy (gal, in this case).

© C Harris Lynn, 2008