What constitutes copyright infringement of books that are produced with intent to be references of other books?  It is generally determined by the amount of creative content that appears to be taken from the original work.  When author and Harry Potter fanatic, Steven Vander Ark, created a book titled, "Harry Potter Lexicon", author of the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling felt a significant portion of her work was being infringed upon.   Last year Rowling and Warner Brothers Ent. brought action against Vander Ark and his publisher, RDR Books in attempt to prevent them from releasing the publication.

Earlier this week the New York Southern District Court ruled in favor of Rowling and Warner Brothers.  The defendants argued the lexicon was a transformative use entitled to first amendment protection.  However, the Court stated, "[The] Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide."  Vander Ark, who operates a popular Harry Potter fan site of the same name, claimed he pursued the publication primarily out of admiration for the series and the author, and also at the desire from his regular web viewers.  He also says that, although he lost the case brought about by Rowling, he is still a fan. 

The irony here is that Rowling previously seemed to also be a fan of the Lexicon website. The NY Times says, a Rowling actually granted the Lexicon a "'fan site award'" in 2004 and [she] commented in interviews that she even relied on the site — which provides an annotated catalog of characters, spells, magic potions, locations and events in her books — while writing."   However as Rowling stated, "I went to court to uphold the right of authors everywhere to protect their own original work."  Rowling also stated that she originally had hopes to create a work similar to the one Ark attempted to publish and donate the proceeds to charity, but she now currently finds herself too distressed to do so.