Peter Edidin at the New York Times writes that J K Rowling sued the publisher of the Harry Potter Lexicon by Steve Vander Ark, causing it to suspend printing while a court determines whether her copyright has been violated link here. The copyright is now apparently held by Warner Brothers, the Potter film maker, so it is not clear to me who is suing whom. In any case, the lexicon (a collection of words that make up the vocabulary of the books) started as a user-contributed website. Grounds asserted are that it "borrows too heavily" from the books and interferes with Rowling's plan to publish her "encyclopedia on the wizarding world." Rowling apparently said on her website that she took "no pleasure" in preventing publication.

But she will profit. This isn't going to end soon because there are fair use questions galore. And two beneficiaries, if we count Warner. Well, the court may decide in time for next year's Christmas sales.

In the meantime, Potter lexicon seekers will have to be content with online version link here.

The Potter lexicon draws comment from Farhad Manjoo link here. He makes two strong points. Rowling actually complimented the online lexicon, though now she is suing. The other is that she should go to a library and see all the other lexicons, "For instance, a list of the allusions in "Ulysses"; or a complete guide to all of the characters in William Faulkner's fiction; or a compilation and detailed analysis of Bob Dylan's lyrics; or a book containing the complete chronology of the events in David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest." For those of you who wish to read the Rowling legal complaint link here; it's only 27 pages long.

Nate Anderson takes up the case of J K Rowlings suit against the author and publisher of the Harry Potter Lexicon and provides some additional expert commentary link here. Bottom line: "William Patry, Google's senior copyright counsel, has looked into the case a bit. His conclusion? 'I haven't spent a lot of time on the site and so don't know if there is other material that might be infringing, but I don't see how a list of spells with this type of commentary is anything other than fair use.'"