An interesting case of plagiarism

A story that’s caught my eye the in the last week brings up an interesting question of ethics, and that word that no journalist wants to hear: plagiarism.

J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books filed a copyright lawsuit against Steven Vander Ark, a Michigan man, who planned to publish the Harry Potter Lexicon; essentially a reference book based on Rowling’s Potter novels. It is currently a Web site. Rowling claimed the Lexicon unfairly copies her work, and that the book contains many factual errors.

Vander Ark, a former librarian, and longtime Potter fan, said he just wanted to publish a reference book for fans. Unfortunately Rowling has plans to do the same thing.

This case brings to mind the question of plagiarism, but it raises an interesting question. Is it plagiarism? Yes, Vander Ark is taking the information from Rowling’s books and compiling it into a work of his own (don’t know if he planned on giving Rowling any credit). However, sites like Wikipedia allow people to write anything they want about any subject. Wikipedia does warn readers when something has questionable sources, but no doubt there are hundreds of articles about the world of Harry Potter on Wikipedia, based on information from Rowling’s books and their film adaptations. So, yet again, is that plagiarism?

It’s an interesting debate, especially since journalists are really touchy about using the work of others. Sometimes using just one quote from another source without attribution is enough to get a journalist fired. Then again if the work, be it a newspaper article or a book, is public information that everyone is using, is that plagiarism?

I think Vander Ark is wrong to copy Rowling’s work verbatim, but if Rowling is only doing this so she can make more money from a book, there’s a problem. Maybe the Lexicon can say: by Steve Vander Ark, based on the works of J.K. Rowling. Or maybe Rowling can be paid some royalties from the book sales.