I agree with J.K. Rowling. Other penning "Guides" to Harry Potter is copyright infringement. She conceived the characters and circumstances in H.P., and anyone else using the characters to create a "Guide" is taking advantage of the original work to script their own view (based on their interpretation). That would be like someone scripting another "personality" for Micky Mouse or Donald Duck, based on their particular view. Making money on that is "literary piracy" and should be illegal and punishable by law. I will soon be a published author and I will be pretty angry if I learn someday that another author, or a group of authors, have created a guide to my work, altering the original characters for economic gain. That's not literary creativity; that's a sneaking way to climb aboard another's creative work to benefit economically.

But these guides aren't rewriting the stories or scripting any new personalities for the characters. They are like cliffs notes, or literary criticism - completely valid. The Harry Potter lexicon seems pretty dedicated to preserving Rowling's Harry Potter canon intact - it's not like fan fiction.Yes, maybe it's piggybacking, but it's also perfectly legal. These sorts of things only contribute to the value of the original work for the really hardcore fans.

Not to mention that "none" of the core characters are uniquely her own, they have all been "inspired" by others work and retooled to fit the story she created.

A witch is a witch, a wizard is a wizard, a wand is a wand, a familiar is a familiar, a broom is a broom, an elf is an elf… Should I go on?

No matter what name you characterize the "thing" with, its original concept is already preexisting. Should Wiccans be allowed to sue her for wrongly portraying "witches and wizards". They've been around a lot longer the "Harry Potter", so therefore should maintain all creative rights to the concepts created which lead to magic, witchcraft and wizardry.

Better yet, and just as ridiculous sounding. Should the Heritage Dictionary or Merriam Webster be allowed to sue her for using words and concepts that they have already defined in print?

Oh wait, those are just research"guides" created for those interested in the subject material… By folks who have compiled lists of words, phrases etc relevant to the core content.

lol, you really think she conceived the original idea? you should read (or look up) "Books of Magic" to see where the idea of HP came from. yeah, after the first book JK used a few original ideas, but HP is a direct rip-off of the main char in "Books of Magic". I think it's hilarious that she's really this gung-ho about FANS WHO'VE PAID HER MONEY publishing what amounts to a tribute book when she didn't even come up with the original plot or characters to begin with.

They're not rewriting stories, but they're taking things she made up about her own world and slapping a copyright on them and then trying to make money off of it while rearranging them, without giving her her due. That's the issue here. She didn't give permission for them to do so and they're going ahead anyway.

This is the real JT Barker . I was just thinking about doing an artical on my blog about how I as a high school student fould my love for reading through the harry potter books.

Pls check out my blog at JTBarker.wordpress.com

EXACTLY! I agree with Bradie... I think she is more disturbed that they are just putting her materials together and trying to make money out of it.