By Christine Kearney NEW YORK, April 16 (Reuters) - Author J.K. Rowling said on Wednesday
publication of an unofficial encyclopedic companion to her Harry Potter books would \ open the
floodgates\ and threaten other authors. The British author and Warner Bros., a subsidiary of
Time Warner Inc., <TWX.N> are suing independent U.S. publisher RDR Books, which plans to
publish \ The Harry Potter Lexicon,\ a 400-page reference book written by Steve Vander Ark
based on his fan Web site (www.hp-lexicon.org). \ This case is about an author\ s right to
protect their creation,\ Rowling, 42, told a New York court. \ If this book is allowed to be
published the floodgates will open.\ \ Are we, or are we not, the owners of our own work?\
said the author of the seven Harry Potter books that have sold about 400 million copies. \ It\ s
not just my work that is endangered.\ Rowling, estimated by the Sunday Times to be worth
about $1 billion, said she was outraged her work was considered fair game because it was so
popular. She has called Vander Ark\ s book \ sloppy, lazy\ work, unlike other Harry Potter
companion books already published, which added original commentary and criticism. An
emotional Vander Ark, 50, wearing spectacles similar to those worn by Harry Potter, said on
Tuesday his book was intended to help readers and celebrate Rowling\ s work. He denied
accusations of plagiarism. A lawyer for RDR books said the book by Vander Ark, a librarian who
has spoken at Harry Potter conferences in several countries, would promote Rowling\ s series
and not hurt sales. Two literary experts testified for each side on whether Vander Ark copied too
much text, citing works on authors like C.S. Lewis and James Joyce. In closing arguments, Dale
Cendali, a lawyer for Rowling and Warner, said the lexicon reproduced \ tremendous amounts
of text\ without attribution. \ There has been no testimony that it would add anything new or
original,\ she said. \ The lexicon is filled with errors.\ But Anthony Falzone, a lawyer for RDR,
said Rowling could not suppress a book just because she thought it was no good. \ Copyright law
does not permit an author to suppress a book because she doesn\ t like it,\ he said. U.S. District
Judge Robert Patterson urged the sides to settle, saying the case reflected an emerging part of
copyright law with no clear precedents. \ I may need a reference guide to this case,\ he joked.
He is expected to take several weeks to reach a decision. (Editing by Alan Elsner)