What if Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock actually did share a romantic relationship? What if Sauron had won the War of the Ring? What if Katniss had not volunteered for the annual Hunger Games and had let her little sister participate in the deathful competition to fight for her bare life? Who knows…? Authors inevitably leave the readers of their stories deprived of information, additional plotlines and answers to countless "what ifs".
Imaginative homo- and heterosexual relationships, the continuation of deceased characters or simply alternative endings of novels rob true devotees of sleep on a regular basis. So much so that discontent of fans, combined with their creativity and willingness to awaken the author within themselves, has enabled fan fiction to emerge as a popular form of fan labor with many subgenres. Being loosely defined as "any prose retelling of stories and characters drawn from mass-media content", fan fiction has appeared in fan magazines and other forms of print since the 1930s.
The "explosion" of the internet in the late 1990s and early 2000s, however, has taken fan fiction to a new level of popularity. Fellow fans across the globe can interact with fan fiction, and the writers are given international recognition within their respective fandoms.
This widespread recognition has also had the effect of attracting the attention of original authors, and them being confronted with stories revolving around the universe that they created. While many authors have publically stated their tolerance for or even praise of fan fiction, and have even encouraged it, others have dispraised it for its shrewdness, sexuality or often times its dreadful style of writing. However, authors have taken legal actions against plenty of their admirers in the past – regardless of their personal stance on fan fiction.
This paper will deal with the infringement of the author’s rights through fan fiction under the U.S. Law and "probably most famous lawsuit ever brought by an author against a fan" – J.K. Rowling against Steven Vander Ark (and RDR Books).
Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. How is the Author's Work protected?
- 2.1 Intellectual Property
- 2.2 Copyright Law
- 2.3 Fair Use
- 3. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books
- 3.1 "The Lexicon"
- 3.2 Rowling's Reasons for taking Legal Action
- 3.3 The Ruling
- 3.4 The re-edited Version
- 4. Conclusion
Objectives and Key Themes
This paper aims to examine how fan fiction can infringe upon an author's rights under U.S. law. It explores the legal protections afforded to authors through intellectual property and copyright law, considering the limitations imposed by the Fair Use Doctrine. The analysis focuses on a significant case study – J.K. Rowling's lawsuit against Steven Vander Ark – to illustrate the practical application of these laws in a court setting.
- Legal protection of authorship under U.S. law
- The interplay between intellectual property, copyright, and fair use doctrines
- Analysis of the J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books lawsuit as a case study
- The impact of fan fiction on authorial rights
- The complexities of balancing fan creativity with legal protections for original works
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: This introductory chapter sets the stage by posing hypothetical scenarios illustrating the creative potential and appeal of fan fiction. It defines fan fiction as "any prose retelling of stories and characters drawn from mass-media content," highlighting its rise in popularity due to the internet. The chapter contrasts authors' varying attitudes towards fan fiction, ranging from tolerance and encouragement to legal action, setting the context for the paper's exploration of legal issues.
2. How is the Author's Work protected?: This chapter delves into the legal frameworks protecting authors' works. It begins by explaining intellectual property law, using the analogy of physical property ownership to illustrate the author's right to control their creations. The chapter then focuses on U.S. copyright law, outlining the author's rights and the conditions under which a work is legally protected. Finally, it introduces the Fair Use Doctrine, explaining its role in limiting an author's control and its potential impact on both authors and fan fiction creators.
3. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books: This chapter presents a detailed case study of J.K. Rowling's lawsuit against Steven Vander Ark and RDR Books over the publication of "The Lexicon," an unauthorized Harry Potter encyclopedia. It examines the creation and content of "The Lexicon," Rowling's reasons for legal action, and the court's ruling. The chapter also discusses the subsequent re-edited version of the Lexicon, showing the lasting impact of the legal battle on the interplay between fan works and authorial rights.
Keywords
Fan fiction, authorial rights, copyright law, intellectual property, fair use, J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., RDR Books, "The Lexicon," legal precedent, transformative use.
Frequently Asked Questions: J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., and the Lexicon Case
What is the main topic of this document?
This document provides a comprehensive overview of the legal battle between J.K. Rowling and RDR Books concerning the unauthorized publication of "The Lexicon," a Harry Potter encyclopedia. It explores the legal framework surrounding authorial rights, copyright law, and the concept of fair use, using this case as a prime example.
What legal concepts are discussed?
The document delves into intellectual property law, U.S. copyright law, and the Fair Use Doctrine. It explains how these legal concepts protect authors' work and the limitations placed upon those protections.
What is the significance of the J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books case?
The case of J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books serves as a crucial case study illustrating the practical application of copyright law and fair use in the context of fan-created works. It highlights the complexities of balancing fan creativity with the legal rights of authors.
What is "The Lexicon," and why was it a subject of legal dispute?
"The Lexicon" is an unauthorized Harry Potter encyclopedia. J.K. Rowling took legal action against its publication, arguing that it infringed upon her copyright and intellectual property rights.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit?
The document details the court's ruling in the case and discusses the subsequent re-edited version of "The Lexicon," illustrating the impact of the legal battle on the creation and distribution of fan works.
What are the key themes explored in the document?
Key themes include the legal protection of authorship under U.S. law, the interplay between intellectual property, copyright, and fair use doctrines, the impact of fan fiction on authorial rights, and the complexities of balancing fan creativity with the protection of original works.
What is fan fiction, and how does it relate to this case?
The document defines fan fiction and discusses its increasing popularity, particularly through the internet. The case of "The Lexicon" serves as a significant example of how fan-created works can potentially infringe on an author's copyright.
What is the purpose of the chapter summaries?
The chapter summaries provide concise overviews of the content and arguments presented in each section of the document, offering a quick understanding of the main points discussed.
What are the keywords associated with this document?
Keywords include: Fan fiction, authorial rights, copyright law, intellectual property, fair use, J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., RDR Books, "The Lexicon," legal precedent, transformative use.
For whom is this document intended?
This document is intended for academic use, providing a structured analysis of the legal and creative aspects of fan fiction and its implications for authors and copyright law. It is suitable for researchers, students, and anyone interested in the intersection of law and creativity.
- Quote paper
- Henry Quevedo (Author), 2017, Admirer or Adversary? How Fan Fiction infringes upon the Author’s Rights, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/425379
