## Facts

- J.K. Rowling authored seven *Harry Potter* novels and two companion works; Warner Bros. held related film rights.
- Steve Vander Ark created a free online fan reference site, the “Harry Potter Lexicon,” which Rowling had publicly praised as useful for checking details.
- RDR Books contracted to publish a commercial print guide marketed as an A–Z reference to the *Harry Potter* universe, relying exclusively on Rowling’s novels and companion books.
- Rowling had announced plans to publish an official encyclopedia and asserted that a competing commercial encyclopedia would harm that market.
- Plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement and sought injunctive relief and damages; the court consolidated the preliminary-injunction hearing with a bench trial on the merits.
- Plaintiffs ultimately pursued copyright infringement and statutory damages; RDR asserted fair use and equitable defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed *Lexicon* book copied protectable expression from the *Harry Potter* works and therefore infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights.
2. Whether the proposed book qualified as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 given its reference/encyclopedic purpose and commercial publication.
3. Whether copyright misuse or unclean hands barred injunctive or monetary relief.

## Decision

- The court found plaintiffs owned valid copyrights and that RDR’s proposed book copied protected expression through substantial verbatim copying and close paraphrase.
- The court held the proposed book was not fair use after weighing all four statutory factors.
- The court rejected the defenses of copyright misuse and unclean hands.
- The court entered a permanent injunction barring publication of the proposed book and awarded $6,750 in statutory damages.

## Legal Principles

- A reference purpose can be partly transformative, but fair use depends on how the work actually uses the protected material, including whether it substitutes for the original’s expressive content.
- Fictional works and highly creative expression receive strong copyright protection; a compilation of “facts” about a fictional world may still appropriate protected expression, including creative selection and arrangement.
- Under factor three, copying must be no more than reasonably necessary to serve the secondary purpose; extensive verbatim quotation and close paraphrase weigh against fair use.
- Under factor four, likely and reasonably developed derivative markets are protected; an unauthorized work that competes with an announced authorized derivative product can weigh heavily against fair use.
- Copyright misuse and unclean hands require evidence of improper use of copyright beyond its lawful scope; enforcing rights against an unauthorized derivative reference work, without more, does not establish those defenses.

## Conclusion

The court held that RDR’s proposed commercial *Harry Potter* reference guide infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights and was not fair use because it reproduced too much protected expression and threatened plaintiffs’ derivative markets, warranting a permanent injunction and statutory damages.


Warner Bros. Ent. Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)