Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Reference guides and companion books about literary works have been a critically important part of literature since its inception, and the right to publish them stood largely unchallenged. We agreed to help defend the Harry Potter Lexicon because J.K. Rowling's claims threatened that right, and because we believe the fair use doctrine protects the Lexicon, and other publications like it. We tried the case in April in a Manhattan Court and waited through the summer for a decision.

Today we found out we lost. In a thoughtful and meticulous decision spanning 68 pages, the Court recognized that as a general matter authors do not have the right to stop publication of reference guides and companion books about literary works, and issued an important explanation of why reference guides are not derivative works. Needless to say, we're very happy the Court vindicated these important principles.

But the Lexicon did not fare so well. The Court held the Lexicon infringed Ms. Rowling's copyright, was not protected by fair use, and permanently enjoined the publication of it. (Read the full decision here.)

Needless to say we're disappointed, as is our client, RDR Books. Careful and thoughtful as the decision is, we think it's wrong. So stay tuned to see where we go from here. In the meantime, thank Roger Rapoport, the Publisher of RDR Books for having the courage to stand up for free speech and fair use. He fought a fight that not many would have the stomach to fight, and we are proud to fight with him.

While you're at it, thank Steve Vander Ark. It's not easy to stand up to your hero, or bear the unjustified scorn of your fellow fans.

Finally, remember that avada kedavra -- the killing curse -- is not always fatal. One wizard survived it. Three times. And it was he who cast the spell (and won't be named here) that ultimately suffered for it. Maybe someday the Lexicon will be known as The Book That Lived.

Many have worried about the role of intermediaries who provide platforms for sharing information and expression on the internet, and their sometimes profound power to make content disappear. But here is an example of one intermediary -- a big and very important one -- that did the right thing.

Students for a Free Tibet posted a video on YouTube showing their protest at the Chinese consulate in New York, which included various images relating to the Beijing Olympics, all to speak against China's human rights record -- a fair use to be sure.

The International Olympic Committee filed a DMCA takedown notice and the video was removed. Upon learning more about the content of the removed video, YouTube contacted the IOC and asked them if they really planned to pursue a claim about this [really very preposterous position] and if not, to withdraw the takedown notice. To the IOC's credit, they retracted the notice and the video was reposted within hours.

So here is an intermediary who took an interest in free speech and fair use, even when it didn't necessarily have to. Yes, that followed widespread outrage among bloggers and others. Yes, the situation would have been much tougher if the IOC had maintained its irresponsible position. But we should all be pleased to see YouTube going out of its way to do more than it's required to do under the law to protect free expression.

In a decisive victory for defendants beleaguered by baseless copyright infringement claims, U.S. District Court Judge Pauley ruled last week that Plaintiffs Ralph Vargas and Bland- Ricky Roberts must pay Defendants BT and East West Communications $175,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Building on the tremendous success they have achieved with the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use, the Center for Social Media today released another valuable tool for content creators -- the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video

The ability to easily create and share online video presents unprecedented opportunities for self-expression, but has at the same time generated significant confusion about what is permissible versus impermissible copying. As part of the panel that helped shape this Code of Best Practices, I hope it creates a growing consensus about how to balance the rights of copyright holders and the rights of those who would use content for new, valuable, and expressive purposes.