This paper examines the influx of secondary creativity involving culturally iconic literary characters (i.e. Harry Potter fan-fiction) and considers whether, and how, copyright law should account for the unauthorized appropriation of these protected literary characters. Traditionally, the courts have held that characters are independently copyrightable if they meet one of two tests: the distinct delineation test espoused by Learned Hand in the Seventh Circuit opinion, Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation (1930), or the story being told test put forward by the Ninth Circuit in Warner Brothers Pictures v. Columbia Broadcasting System (1954). These existing standards for character protection focus on the rights and the entitlements of the original author. This paper argues that copyright law should do more to focus on the creative rights of readers, who often seek to employ iconic characters as tools for cultural dialogue and artistic expression. This shift towards readers' rights may require more than just the expansion of fair use principles over a greater number of secondary uses. What is required, more fundamentally, is a re-conceptualizing of the idea of protectibility in the first place. Certain iconic characters, because they are imbued with so much cultural meaning, are no longer singularly-owned forms of authorial expression; they have become, instead, collectively-owned concepts - tools for expression - in a society constantly engaged in creative dialogue. Hence, on the idea/expression continuum that allows copyright protection for expressions but not ideas, culturally-appropriated characters should fall more appropriately into the realm of the unprotected idea, and in this way, allow greater freedom for secondary uses.
Download the paper from SSRN here.
Meanwhile, J. K. Rowling and Warner Brothers are suing Steven Van Ark and his publisher over the Harry Potter Lexicon, a book based on Mr. Van Ark's website, claiming copyright infringement. Ms. Rowling plans to release her own Potterpedia in future. Mr. Van Ark's position is that Ms. Rowling cannot claim to own all works that mention her characters or works. That would bring literary criticism or commentary to a halt. Read more here.
No comments:
Post a Comment