{"id":721,"date":"2013-10-29T15:25:09","date_gmt":"2013-10-29T13:25:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/?p=721"},"modified":"2013-10-29T15:25:09","modified_gmt":"2013-10-29T13:25:09","slug":"dont-touch-my-harry-the-writers-battle-with-fans","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/2013\/10\/29\/dont-touch-my-harry-the-writers-battle-with-fans\/","title":{"rendered":"DON\u2019T TOUCH MY HARRY!!: THE WRITER\u2019S BATTLE WITH THE FANS <\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

I\u2019m reading the Harry Potter<\/em> saga again \u2013for the third time around\u2013 in preparation for my elective subject next semester. Also the academic materials that I\u2019m going to use as background reading, and which include the Casebook recently edited (2012) by Hallett and Huey. In this volume there\u2019s a very interesting piece by Pamela Ingleton, \u201c\u2018Neither Can Live while the Other Survives\u2019: Harry Potter<\/em> and the Extratextual (After)life of J.K. Rowling,\u201d in which the author examines very critically Rowling\u2019s multiple attempts at limiting the use by other persons of any element of her saga. Rowling is, indeed, resisting the death of the author with all her might, just as \u2013Ingleton argues\u2013 Voldemort resists his own demise.<\/p>\n

No author can today totally restrain the use of their characters in websites for reference, or in fan fiction of any type (slash fiction included), unless they assume a certainly hostile stance against their own fandom. Authors can, however, do very scary things. <\/p>\n

I\u2019m not quite sure I fully understand the legality of the matter but the question is that Rowling sued in 2007 RDR Books when they tried to publish a print version of Steve Vander Ark\u2019s website \u2018The Harry Potter Lexicon\u2019 (http:\/\/www.hp-lexicon.org\/<\/a>). Her argument was that the volume took too much material from her own books and that, anyway, she wanted to publish her own companion (which she never did). The judge agreed with Rowling but granted RDR Books the right to publish a modified version, arguing that \u201cthe Lexicon\u2019s purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled\u00bb (http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Harry_Potter_Lexicon<\/a>). The book was published in 2009 as The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Harry Potter Fiction<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Now, the Lexicon webpage<\/em> warns, sounding like one of Rowling\u2019s Howlers, that \u201cNO 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. \u00a92001-2012.\u201d Yes, Warner Bros., not JK Rowling \u2013something Ingleton does not comment on. I do not know why Rowling gave rights to Warner Bros. over her work and I\u2019ll have to assume this is part of their (lucrative) deal regarding the films. No matter how well-paid she is, the fact is that Rowling is no longer sole owner of Harry and company. This is very worrying, as corporations, whether in publishing or in film, have no real sympathy for the free circulation of culture \u2013academic work included. Wikipedia\u2019s entry for \u201cLegal disputes over the Harry Potter series\u201d (http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Legal_disputes_over_the_Harry_Potter_series<\/a>) is a much better horror story than Harry\u2019s persecution by Lord Voldemort, believe me.<\/p>\n

Although in principle, researchers and students should not worry about asking for permission to deal with any literary subject they wish to pursue, I\u2019m beginning to wonder whether Warner Bros. (or other big brothers) will ever knock on our door. Some form of tolerance from authors and corporations applies to non-commercial websites but anything generating income is suspect \u2013which leaves academic publications stranded in a (very dark) grey area. The Casebook I\u2019m using has its own copyright notice and no warning about the contents being subjected to copyright by Rowling or Warner Bros. Technically, it is as \u2018unauthorised\u2019 as the book-form Lexicon (it\u2019s fascinating to see how \u2018author\u2019 connects with \u2018authorization\u2019 in this context). If you ask me, I\u2019m not sure whether unauthorised work can be restricted, though I grant that I do not see Rowling suing Palgrave Macmillan (even though they are<\/em> making money out of her talent, not the Casebook authors). <\/p>\n

Nor do I see either Palgrave Macmillan or RDR publishing something called The Lexicon: An Unauthorized Guide to Philip Roth Fiction<\/em>. Clearly, the most popular fiction generates the more commercial spin-offs. Yet, then, I wonder why always those who already make so much money are the ones that most insist on defending their copyright. Even against admirers who only want to further publicise what they do. I understand the author\u2019s protectiveness of her own work and I certainly believe that making money out of other people\u2019s creativity is wrong. Yet, derivative or secondary work produced for non-commercial reasons by fans and academic seems quite another matter. And I very much doubt that RDR\u2019s book has made millions. <\/p>\n

So far, Rowling is giving his lawyers (and Warner Bros.\u2019) plenty to work on but there\u2019ll come a time, 75 years after her death, when Harry Potter<\/em> will be out of copyright. Unless she has already hidden her horcruxes, Rowling won\u2019t be able to control her hero\u2019s fate. I cannot be sure that this is 100% positive, seeing the horrors produced on the basis of Jane Austen\u2019s novels, but it\u2019s the way culture works \u2013much more so today, when younger audiences are used to sharing anything and everything on the net with little sense of property.<\/p>\n

Food for thought… <\/p>\n

Comments are very welcome! (Thanks!) Just remember that I check them first for spam; it might take a few days for yours to be available. If you like my blog, you can subscribe using the RSS feed (right-hand column, below Blogroll.) You\u2019ll get an email message for every new post. VISIT MY WEB: http:\/\/gent.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/<\/a>
\n<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I\u2019m reading the Harry Potter saga again \u2013for the third time around\u2013 in preparation for my elective subject next semester. Also the academic materials that I\u2019m going to use as background reading, and which include the Casebook recently edited (2012) by Hallett and Huey. In this volume there\u2019s a very interesting piece by Pamela Ingleton, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":98,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[408],"class_list":["post-721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-harry-potter","tag-research"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/721","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/98"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/721\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/webs.uab.cat\/saramartinalegre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}