By: Annmarie Machado
Warner Bros. announced a new Max Original TV Series coming 2026, based on all seven Harry Potter books written by J.K. Rowling. The project will last for ten consecutive years, debunking the “1 book, 1 season” assertion by fans. The recent announcement of a Harry Potter television series has reignited discussions about the complex web of creative rights surrounding one of the most beloved literary and cinematic franchises in the world. Beyond the casting speculations and plotline predictions of fans eagerly anticipating new adaptations of the Wizarding World, lies a complex web of international copyright law. It is crucial to examine the legal landscape governing these creative endeavors and the potential for cross-border implications. Adapting a beloved literary work like J.K. Rowling’s fantasy epic into a new medium presents a fascinating case study in navigating the often-murky waters of intellectual property rights across borders.
At the heart of the matter lies the question: who controls the right to adapt the Harry Potter stories for television? The answer hinges on copyright law, which grants the original creator exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works based on their creation. In Rowling’s case, as the author, she holds the copyright to the Harry Potter books. This includes the characters, plots, and the unique world she has built. However, various production companies and studios have also secured adaptation rights that grant them permission to create derivative works, like television shows, based on the original source material. In this case, Rowling’s production company Brontë Film and TV, announced it will work in association with HBO Max.
Moreover, copyright is a territorial right. Rowling’s control over adaptations only extends as far as the copyright laws of the countries where she has registered her work. International treaties, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, establish a minimum standard of protection for copyrighted works across member states. However, these treaties don’t guarantee identical rights in every jurisdiction.
Imagine a scenario where a production company in the United States secures the television adaptation rights from Rowling. This would grant them the exclusive right to produce a series based on the books within the US. However, this wouldn’t prevent another company from acquiring separate adaptation rights for a different territory. This potential for multiple adaptations, each catering to a specific region, highlights the fragmented nature of international copyright law.
Even within a specific territory, copyright rights aren’t absolute. Fair use, a doctrine prevalent in common law jurisdictions like the US, allows for limited use of copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, parody, or news reporting. This could potentially open the door for fan-made content like short parodies or critical analyses without infringing on Rowling’s rights.
Beyond economic rights, some countries recognize “moral rights” for authors. These rights allow creators to control how their work is treated, even after they’ve sold the adaptation rights. This means an author can potentially object to an adaptation if they believe it misrepresents the spirit of their original work or significantly alters its core message. For instance, Rowling might have a say in how the characters are portrayed or the overall tone of the television series. Moral rights were actually worked into the deal for the TV series, ensuring that Rowling has creative control over any exploitation of her work, albeit Casey Bloys, the Chairman and CEO of HBO & Max Content’s assurances that this would be a “faithful adaptation.” In a statement, Rowling, herself, stated “Max’s commitment to preserving the integrity of my books is important to me, and I’m looking forward to being part of this new adaptation which will allow for a degree of depth and detail only afforded by a long form television series.”
The U.S. is a signatory to the Berne Convention, which guarantees moral rights for creators; however, while the Berne Convention ensures a baseline level of protection for creators across member countries, it does not dictate the exact way member states have to implement them in their national laws. The U.S. did not ever fully implement moral rights into their code. Instead, they created a law (Visual Artists Rights Act) that only grants these rights to a small number of visual works. This limited approach to moral rights, as well as fair use, is distinct to the U.S. and unlike Europe, for example, where copy right holders enjoy many more protections for their creative works.
Unlike the United States, where copyright offers limited protection regarding how a work is treated, the European Union recognizes a broader concept of moral rights under even ordinary copyright law. These rights, enshrined in EU directives, grant authors like J.K. Rowling greater control over their creations. For instance, the Resale Right Directive grants authors a right to a royalty resale of their work, even after it’s been sold. More importantly, it grants them the right of paternity (i.e., the right to be identified as author or director) and integrity (i.e., the right to object to derogatory treatment). This means Rowling, in a European jurisdiction, could potentially object to an adaptation that significantly alters the characters or the core message of her books, even if she had sold the adaptation rights.
The Hhole (for Mannheim) case exemplifies how moral rights have been applied. In this case, “the author[] ‘installed a multimedia and multidimensional spatial installation, Hhole (for Mannheim) 2006’ in a wing of the Kunstalle Mannheim (Mannheim museum of modern and contemporary art).” The wing, including this work of art, was later demolished. A copyright dispute ensued, and the German court ruled in favor of the author of the artwork, recognizing an author’s right to object to the destruction of his work, even though it was commissioned for a specific location. This case demonstrates how moral rights, in this case the right to integrity, can be applied in Europe, and the power moral rights hold in protecting an author’s control over how their work is treated, even after it has been sold.
While opponents in the U.S. might argue that moral rights could stifle creativity and limit artistic freedom for derivative works, the United States would greatly benefit from adopting a moral rights regime. Currently under U.S. copyright law, J.K. Rowling can control derivative works, but not necessarily how her work is treated creatively. While she negotiated control for the HBO Max series, this relies on individual contracts and is not guaranteed for future adaptations. Moral rights would grant Rowling greater control over how her characters and world are portrayed, ensuring adaptations stay true to her vision. A moral rights regime would strengthen Rowling’s position in future negotiations. Instead of relying on contractual agreements, she could have a legal right to object to objectionable adaptions. Moreover, the counterargument that creativity might be stifled is not really the case, as moral rights typically focus on preventing harmful distortions, not minor creative liberties. The U.S. should implement a system similar to Europe, where, as demonstrated above, moral rights exist alongside fair use limitations.
Evidently, navigating these international complexities can be a daunting task for producers. Adapting a beloved literary work across borders requires a deep understanding of territorial rights, limitations, and potential pitfalls. Despite the challenges, the global and enduring popularity of Harry Potter presents unique opportunities for creative storytelling and ensures that there will be a continued demand for new adaptations and spin-offs. As the world of Harry Potter expands to television, a delicate balance must be struck between fulfilling fan desires and respecting the legal protections afforded to creators and copyright holders.
