Slashdot Log In
An Appeal In the "Harry Potter Lexicon" Case
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 11, 2008 09:28 PM
from the soon-to-be-on-sale-in-diagon-alley dept.
from the soon-to-be-on-sale-in-diagon-alley dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "RDR Books, the would-be publisher of the book version of the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' Web site, has filed an appeal from the judge's decision in Warner Bros. Pictures v. RDR Books, the case involving the Harry Potter Lexicon. The judge, after a bench trial, issued an injunction and awarded statutory damages of $6,750 (as we discussed at the time), holding that the Lexicon was not protected by fair use due to (a) sloppiness in attribution in sections, (b) the length of some of the quotes, and (c) imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style in portions. I recently wrote an article criticizing the opinion, but doubting that an appeal would be taken in view of the small damages award. I guess I underestimated the resolve of the defendants and defendants' lawyers — who include the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society."
Related Stories
[+]
J. K. Rowling Wins $6,750 In Infringement Case 521 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "J. K. Rowling didn't make enough money on Harry Potter, so she had to make sure that the 'Harry Potter Lexicon' was shut down. After a trial in Manhattan in Warner Bros. v. RDR Books, she won, getting the judge to agree with her (and her friends at Warner Bros. Entertainment) that the 'Lexicon' did not qualify for fair use protection. In a 68-page decision (PDF) the judge concluded that the Lexicon did a little too much 'verbatim copying,' competed with Ms. Rowling's planned encyclopedia, and might compete with her exploitation of songs and poems from the Harry Potter books, although she never made any such claim in presenting her evidence. The judge awarded her $6,750 and granted her an injunction that would prevent the 'Lexicon' from seeing the light of day." Groklaw has an exhaustive discussion of the judgement.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Harry Potter (Score:5, Funny)
The boy is groomed into his new existence by a large, hairy bear of a man who shows Harry a hidden underground community of "wizards"(the gay subculture) living right under the noses of the general population . Harry's first visit to this subculture involves traveling through "Diagon Alley", a play on the word diagonally (not straight).
Re:Harry Potter (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It has been a long time since I laughed to tears. That was perfect.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
you should get out more.
diagonally (not straight) (Score:5, Insightful)
Diagonal lines are as straight as any other lines.
Parent
Re:diagonally (not straight) (Score:4, Funny)
I, for one, embrace the perpendicularly-challenged, and do NOT deny them the root of their diversity.
Parent
Re:Harry Potter (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Harry Potter (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't think his point was to point out a parallel to a real-life minority... He just wanted to call Harry Potter gay.
Parent
Hey, Fallwell (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot the hot-n'-heavy scene with Tinky Winky.
imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Interesting)
...(c) imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style in portions...
Is that even an enforceable law? If so most authors should have their books contested, as people learn partly through imitation and experience. Throwing weak points out like that makes me suspect of the ruling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, a writer's style is not supported by copyright to my knowledge -- only the actual words. And the "length of quotes" in the book... Have you ever read a research paper? Sometimes over half of each of the previous works are cited and included! That said, lack of proper attribution... That IS just sloppy, and they have every right to call them out on it. Though, being the Harry Potter lexicon, it's hard to imagine any other source than JK Rowling's works.... -_-
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure you can compare the HPL and a research paper. The actual text in Harry Potter is the basis of a billion dollar industry [the-numbers.com] and Rowling's publishers have very good lawyers. Fair use has rules about quote length and attribution and it seems like this guy broke them. Of course a lot of research papers may break those same rules but it would be very unlikely anyone would sue over that.
Slashdot is schizophrenic about copyright, if someone had taken big chunks of GPL code and used them in a closed source application everyone would be baying for blood, but for some reason Harry Potter is considered entertainment and therefore OK to copy, a bit like movies and music. In a sense Harry Potter is open source - the text is freely available. It definitely isn't Creative Commons though, so while you are free to cite it you are not free to make derivative works, unless you have an agreement with Rowling herself.
From what I've read this guy cut and pasted big chunks of the original text and didn't add much himself. While the whole thing was non commercial he was safe but as soon as he started to make money he wasn't. It's actually the literary equivalent of using GPL code in a commercial, closed source application.
Parent
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair use has rules about quote length and attribution
No, it doesn't. Fair use ultimately boils down to 'you can use as much as is fair, given the overall circumstances.'
When you time shift television, you're 'quoting' the entire thing, and stand a good chance of successfully claiming that it's a fair use. In other circumstances, however, excessive copying can sink a fair use argument handily.
There's also no attribution requirement, but if you claim that you were engaged in a particular type of fair use, and that type of use normally involves attribution, failure to include the attribution may harm your argument, and ultimately, your defense.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A long time ago when I was in an class someone told that all quotes had to be attributed and you could only quote one paragraph from each source, and you had to add some sort of original commentary tying the quotes together to make a point that was not present in any of them individually.
-- this quote was originally uttered by Hal_Porter
I notice you did not name this "someone". Does that mean that your quote is illegal?
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Informative)
That is all very nice, but it is terribly inaccurate. I mean, you could have at least looked at Wikipedia!
Without getting bogged down with details, fair use was not created for the benefit of universities or academics, though they have certainly been beneficiaries. And as law that was essentially a creation of the courts, until quite recently, there wasn't even a statute. Congress didn't even formally take note of the doctrine until the 1976 Act (fair use dates at least to the mid-19th century) when they included a statute (17 USC 107) which I shall reproduce here, in its entirety:
That is fair use. And notice what it actually said: "[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright." The factors are just components in a test to figure out if a test is fair. And it's not a mathematical test, or a bright line test. You needn't succeed with all four factors. In some cases, you can do quite poorly on most, and still succeed. But it depends on the details of "any particular case." Just because it was fair for Alice to do something doesn't mean it will be fair for Bob, if their circumstances are not precisely identical.
There are no numerical limits here, no 10% of this, or 2500 of the other, or any such nonsense. Those are not legal guidelines, those are the creation of laypeople who are flummoxed by the lack of clear guidance from the courts, since with the case-by-case nature of fair use, and the rules and interpretations (not included here; they'd be too much work than I'm prepared to invest in a /. post) there can never be clear guidance. Even canonical examples (parody, time shifting, etc.) are not really inevitably fair. It is a fuzzy, messy matter of equity, and apparently those folks just can't stand that, so they have guessed and unfortunately, you think their guesses are gospel.
This is of course, not true, and I can immediately see instances where what they advise is probably fair (they don't know, of course, no one does) might not be, and where what they say is probably not fair might be.
If you're interested in fair use, if you want to get a grasp on what it is, and where it comes from, and what the rules are, you will have to read a lot of cases regarding it. And then, like the courts, you will be left with a vague sense of it, which defies easy explanation, but at least you can look at a set of circumstances and have a good idea of whether it is fair or not. Because fair use must be able to accommodate any circumstances (the Folsom court could not have even imagined time shifting video tape) it can never be pinned down.
In any case, you might want to stop spreading your misinformation. Those are just guesses by and for people who can't stand fuzzy rules, regardless of the fact that the rules actually are fuzzy, and need to stay that way.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the rules actually are fuzzy, and need to stay that way
Agreed that they are fuzzy. Do not agree that they need to stay that way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt you could make the argument that some chunk of source code or a research paper, shared and used by a very small minority of people, should be subject to the same rules as a cultural icon shared by over a hundred million people. At what point do corporations stand aside so that the PUBLIC can own their own culture? By the law as you (and many others) interpret it -- never. In my opinion, corporations can suck a big one on this -- they don't own culture, and that's what harry potter has become, whethe
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's weird, isn't it?
You'd almost think there was more than one person posting here.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair use has rules about quote length and attribution
Not according to Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig in his book "Creative Commons". What is and isn't "fair use" is a murky gray area.
Lessig's book (available on the internet under a CC license) is written in a manner a layman can understand and is a must-read for anyone interested in copyright reform.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair use has rules about quote length and attribution
Not according to Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig in his book "Creative Commons". What is and isn't "fair use" is a murky gray area. Lessig's book (available on the internet under a CC license) is written in a manner a layman can understand and is a must-read for anyone interested in copyright reform.
You don't have to go to Lawrence Lessig for that. There isn't a lawyer in the country who thinks that "fair use" has straightforward, easy-to-follow rules. It is definitely a murky gray area. This vagueness favors the big content holders -- 6 motion picture companies and 4 record companies -- who like nothing more than litigation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess that unless the law has changed, you can protect no such thing as "writing style" under any kind of "IP protection". Even words, which are still "quite concrete", IMO do not constitute a copyrightable work, unless you really made them up. Well, this might be just the case, but I still believe it is in public interest not to prohibit usage of *words*, no matter how exquisitely refined a word is from the creative point of view. I guess the best thing you can do is to apply for copious trademarks.
But -
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not even part of the law at all! Copying "style" is not covered by copyright or patent or any other intellectual property laws that I am aware of. This judge is effectively ruling based on his OPINION and isn't even considering the law. I have to wonder if that is even legal. I think judges get away with far too much.
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair use necessitates attribution- making it clear when text is being quoted or paraphrased, and when new material is being added by the author. One of the points cited by the judge was the sloppy attribution and long quotes. By imitating Rowling's style while including long, unattributed portions of her work the authors of the Lexicon are making it unclear where her text ends and theirs begins, making their work appear to be a new composite work derived from Rowlings text rather than a work that comments on, satirizes, etc. Rowlings material.
The gist of the decision seems to be that if the Lexicon did a better job of clearly identifying what is Rowling's work and what is their own. That makes it hard to argue that they are commenting on or sampling Rowling's test in a manner compatible with fair use. Imitating Rowling's style is part of what creates the confusion.
Parent
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Informative)
Fair use necessitates attribution- making it clear when text is being quoted or paraphrased, and when new material is being added by the author.
No it doesn't.
This particular defendant, however, claimed that he had written a reference guide. Since the novels are not reference guides, this would be a transformation of the copyrighted works, and it strengthens a fair use argument to show that the defendant has used the underlying work in a transformative manner. The court noted, however, that due to the lack of attribution, it wasn't actually a very good reference guide. This undercut the claim of it being a transformative work. That, in turn, weakened the fair use argument.
If he had instead written a parody, he would not have had to include attributions, since parodies are a type of transformative work where attributions aren't really expected. Such a parody could easily be a fair use.
Imitating Rowling's style is part of what creates the confusion.
It might further harm the 'it's a reference guide' argument, but copyright does not protect mere writing styles, nor does copyright care about confusion. Copyright chiefly cares about copying. A novel written in Rowling's style that didn't copy anything protectable from her corpus of work, would not infringe her copyrights.
Parent
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Interesting)
Rowling has an exclusive right to create derivative works
Which is not implicated in this case; the guidebook was not a derivative work. Rather, the author got in trouble for his excessive verbatim copying.
imitating the style used in the series and its associated works
Would also not constitute a derivative work.
Derivatives are defined in the law:
As you can see, merely being based upon a preexisting work isn't enough. In practice, the derivative has to recast, transform, or adapt the preexisting work. An adaptation, like "Harry Potter: The Opera" would be a derivative. A sequel book, such as "Harry Potter and the Endless Revenue Stream" would be a derivative work. But as the court pointed out, a mere reference guide is not a derivative work, because it does not recast, transform, or adapt the thing to which it is a guide. This was covered pretty well in the Beanie Baby case, and the point was repeated in this case.
Likewise, merely using the style of the Harry Potter books would not constitute a derivative work, because that doesn't recast, transform, or adapt the preexisting books.
undercuts Rowling's ability to profit from the work in a way that a guide book written using a different style would not.
So? Copyright does not include a right to profit. Imagine the absurd results that would occur if it did: A scathing review of the latest book or movie that caused it to be a big flop would constitute copyright infringement! Even if it didn't copy so much as a word. Likewise, a rival author who wrote a series of dreadful books about vampires which drew away the audience for Harry Potter could be accused of infringing on the basis that her (bad) original works were undercutting Rowling's profits, despite a total lack of copying anything.
Parent
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Informative)
That's true. But not really all that relevant here. The Lexicon was not supplanting the market for the novels. And as the court pointed out, "[n]otwithstanding Rowling's public statements of her intention to publish her own encyclopedia, the market for reference guides to the Harry Potter works is not exclusively hers to exploit or license, no matter the commercial success attributable to the popularity of the original works." There was a concern, however, that the lexicon might harm the market for some of the existing ancillary works it copied from, since it copied so much.
And more generally, there still isn't a right to profit. Remember, fair use only arises where there is prima facie infringement of an actual right, such as the right to reproduce the work in copies. Writing a bad review would not be infringement at all, unless it included quotes or something. Writing a competing series of terrible books would not be infringement either. Only if there is some underlying infringement would a fair use argument (and the fourth, monetary, factor) come into play. In the case of a review, I would be utterly amazed if a court decided that the loss of sales attributable to the review was relevant under the fourth fair use factor. I certainly cannot recall such an absurd outcome ever having happened.
Parent
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:4, Interesting)
But if you're going to publish a 'reference' book, you have to do so in such a way that it doesn't take on the qualities of a derivative work.
That's usually pretty easy.
If you take long quotes from a book and then insert additional explanatory text around them in the same style, you haven't created a guidebook, you've created a modified version of the source work./i>
I suppose that's possible. But it would be an odd guidebook. You're essentially describing Cliff's Notes with extensive paraphrasing of the story between long verbatim quotes. That's an abridgment, and it would be a derivative.
We can immediately see that the Lexicon in this case isn't like that; it's organized alphabetically, not chronologically. A lot of text about the man-eating Aardvark from book 4, followed by the entry for the magical Albatross from book 1 is hardly putting the original story back together out of snippets and paraphrases.
Please remember that the court did not find the defendant to have infringed on the derivative right; the Lexicon is not a derivative work. Rather, the issue was verbatim copying, and too much of it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A parody could be fair use, but substantial quotation doesn't belong in parodies.
That depends on the parody; every case is different. Besides, it is well-established that parodies have to copy quite a lot in order to make it clear just what they are parodying. This could involve verbatim copying, though it needn't necessarily, but there will be a lot of copying no matter what.
but surely it can't be a very high percentage of the total work.
First, the issue is how much was copied, not the ratio of copied:new
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An example is the Harvard Lampoon's Bored of the Rings (which I quote from decades old memory so the quote is probably inexact), passage lifted from Lord of the Rings in bold:
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Informative)
...(c) imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style in portions...
Is that even an enforceable law?
No, it isn't, IMHO.
Parent
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm puzzled by the mention of "writing style".
Me too. I don't know why the Judge considered that a factor at all. I think the 2nd Circuit will disapprove that.
Parent
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Informative)
Uhhh, wtf?
You can do things in the same style, you just can't copy an original work (i.e. note for note, stroke for stroke).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Imitation of [Author X]'s writing style" would cover any written satire of the author. Since satire is universally accepted as protected and allowed under copyright law, imitation of style cannot be considered copyright infringement.
As a matter of fact this extends beyond writing to all works that can be copyrighted. Imitation of style covers, essentially, any possible satire.
Parent
Re:imitation of J. K. Rowling's writing style... (Score:5, Funny)
I believe the case was Woosh vs Woosh 2006, Woosh County Court, State of Woosh
Parent
Summary of Previous Posts (Score:3, Informative)
What does her wealth have to do with it?
I was not aware that society's subjective judgment of whether someone has made "enough" money from one's intellectual property was a factor in copyright law. Either there's a copyright infringement or there isn't. Rowling's wealth and success are irrelevant.
--
Hold your horses!
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up a moment! NewYorkCountryLawyer, I normally respect your posts, but this one is in need of some serious scrutiny.
As it happens, I was listening to the details of the case this morning on NPR. The problem with this specific book is not that it focuses on the Harry Potter series. The problem is that nearly every description was lifted from the books in a reasonably clear case of plagerism and/or derivitive works. Most reference books contain unique descriptions and commentary above and beyond the information presented in the source material. However, this particular lexicon made no effort to add such value over the books themselves.
In effect, it was merely a reorganization of J.K. Rowling's books into a dry reference. Something for which only the author has a legal right to grant.
THAT is why the judge found against the lexicon. And he did so with a strong warning that this book is an exception to the usually legal practice:
--
Erm...What?
Why the bad attitude in the submission post?
Someone was trying to release a commercial product whose premise was stealing content from an established work.
If they didn't get hit hard on copyright infringement, they'd get hit hard on trademark infringement, and rightly so.
Like it nor not, J. K. Rowling created the series, and decided to turn it into a commercial enterprise. It's well within her moral and legal rights to make sure a bunch of idiots don't cling to her coattails trying to milk dollars from a popular franchise that they have no legitimate claim to.
--
Amazingly slanted summary
I heard J.K. Rowling interviewed on NPR about this. She listed many of the books that are derivative works that she is thrilled about. The commonality with acceptable books is that they add original thoughts. The targeted book contained no original thoughts but just indexed material from her books, in many cases copying the content and even indexes from her books verbatim.
The lawsuit was to stop the publication of the book; it had nothing to do with the $6k.
Wealth is relevant, at least in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
What does her wealth have to do with it? I was not aware that society's subjective judgment of whether someone has made "enough" money from one's intellectual property was a factor in copyright law. Either there's a copyright infringement or there isn't. Rowling's wealth and success are irrelevant.
I remember seeing this comment in the earlier discussion some time back.
While wealth might not be a factor in whether there's an infringement or not, wealth is relevant to the theory of copyright law. Copyright doesn't exist to make people lots of money. It exists to provide incentive for people to create things they otherwise wouldn't have created.
In terms of economics, paying a dollar more than is required to provide that incentive, or providing a day more copyright, is inefficient. If the author would have created it without that extra little bit, then that extra little bit is a waste. Society is overpaying for creativity.
Of course, determining the exact amount of incentive in each case isn't feasible, so there will always be some overpaying. However, the point is that if copyright were making every rights holder wealthy, it would probably indicate that society was in general overpaying for its creativity. And, as in the case, if one rights holder becomes very wealthy, society is probably overpaying in that instance.
Would Rowling still have written her books if the work only got her half her current earnings? Probably. A quarter or a tenth? Still probable. Would she have written the books if copyright only lasted 15 years, instead of decades? Probably. Society is undoubtedly overpaying for this creativity.
Parent
Re:Wealth is relevant, at least in theory (Score:4, Insightful)
Would Rowling still have written her books if the work only got her half her current earnings? Probably. A quarter or a tenth? Still probable. Would she have written the books if copyright only lasted 15 years, instead of decades? Probably. Society is undoubtedly overpaying for this creativity.
Luckily, we invented a way to redistribute some of that excess wealth back to society: taxation. Of course, the tax regime isn't perfect, but it's overall a much more efficient way to correct overpayment than trying to determine, ex ante or even ex post, how much money a given author deserves for a given creative work. I'll give you that the copyright term is too long, but we shouldn't try to cap how much money an author can make from a work. Instead, we should just set appropriate, progressive income taxes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While wealth might not be a factor in whether there's an infringement or not, wealth is relevant to the theory of copyright law. Copyright doesn't exist to make people lots of money. It exists to provide incentive for people to create things they otherwise wouldn't have created.
In terms of economics, paying a dollar more than is required to provide that incentive, or providing a day more copyright, is inefficient. If the author would have created it without that extra little bit, then that extra little bit
Re:Wealth is relevant, at least in theory (Score:4, Informative)
have to disagree with this. Copyright is there to protect the creator from the theft of what he creates.
No, it is not. Copyright is there to encourage the creation of more works into the public domain. The idea is that if we delay its entry into the public domain, the public's gain (incentive for artists to create more work) outweights the public loss (the temporary monopoly on the right to make and distribute copies).
After all, the idea that you can't do anything you wish with something you bought and paid for (actual, physical property), including copying the content and handing out the copies to everyone you want is ludicrous. The public would only accept it if we had something to gain for it, and that's why the constitution specifically qualifies the right of congress to establish copyright with for limited times, and indicates that it's purpose is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. It doesn't say, "to protect property," because if it had been considered property, there would be no reason to limit the length of the copyright.
And to those of you who will undoubtedly claim that US constitution is invalid because Rowling is British, the lawsuit in question is in US jurisdiction.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wealth is relevant, at least in theory (Score:5, Insightful)
And this relates to the lawsuit how?
I mean, I understand that you don't like Ms. Rowling, because you see her as a money-grubbing miser who is trying to milk as much out of her work as possible. Fine with me.
However, your arguments are starting to sound as though you wish that there were be a legal mechanism to say, "OK, you've made enough money from this, now shut up and let us have at it."
Your posts are usually cogent on other areas... actually, your posts are unusually cogent in other areas, and I admire your expertise in copyright law. Could you give this topic a rest?
Parent
Re:Wealth is relevant, at least in theory (Score:4, Informative)
Could you give this topic a rest?
I didn't bring it up, someone dredged up his comments from the older story. I was just clarifying that the wealth issue has nothing to do with the copyright issue, it's just a dig.
Parent
Re:Wealth is relevant, at least in theory (Score:5, Funny)
Fair enough. Sorry if I goofed on the context.
No problem. I understand. You're a purist, you don't like your issues blended. :)
Parent
Re:Summary of Previous Posts (Score:4, Insightful)
I was not aware that society's subjective judgment of whether someone has made "enough" money from one's intellectual property was a factor in copyright law. Either there's a copyright infringement or there isn't. Rowling's wealth and success are irrelevant.
Oh, it's not. It's a big factor in copyright policy, however, so perhaps that's where the confusion arises. After all, if copyright is meant to promote the public good by encouraging authors to create and distribute works by means of granting them a limited economic monopoly on the work for a limited period of time, how much money authors make, and how often they make it, and how, etc., becomes pretty important.
The problem is that nearly every description was lifted from the books in a reasonably clear case of plagerism and/or derivitive works.
Plagiarism isn't infringing, or even illegal. Plagiarism is when you copy someone's ideas (which are not protected by copyright) and claim them as your own (which copyright doesn't care about). Copying someone's written work verbatim, even with plenty of attribution, and disclaiming any credit for it would not be plagiarism, but could quite easily be copyright infringement.
As for derivatives, this isn't one, and the court pointed that out. The infringing work doesn't retell or recast the story or adapt it in another medium; it's just a reference guide for the books. It merely copied, and it copied enough, and in such a way, that they lost their fair use argument.
However, this particular lexicon made no effort to add such value over the books themselves.
That might be relevant insofar as one would claim that it's a reference guide, and thus transformative, but generally it is irrelevant. What matters is how much you copy, not how much you add. Besides which, the court rejected the argument that the lexicon had to be a work of literary criticism or some such. A mere guidebook is okay.
In effect, it was merely a reorganization of J.K. Rowling's books into a dry reference. Something for which only the author has a legal right to grant. ... The targeted book contained no original thoughts
No, doing that is perfectly fine. This particular author was a little quote-happy is all. Had he been a bit more careful, he would have been well within his rights to write a dry reference. And again, dry references are not inherently infringing. Original thoughts aren't necessary.
Parent
Re:Summary of Previous Posts (Score:4, Informative)
Citation Needed. From the actual decision written by the judge [nytimes.com], there were numerous example of verbatim copying in the manuscript. How did Rowling know that? Because Rowling was aware of the site. The site had verbatim copying. She was fine with that when it was a non-profit website. The minute they tried to make money off her writing, she objected.
Despite the publisher's claims, the judge found that the majority of the book would have been in quotes had the Lexicon properly attributed the work to Rowling.
Again, she was aware of the website which had verbatim copying. You don't have to believe one side or the other. The judge having read Lexicon made a determination that the Rowling was correct: Lexicon copied a lot from her book. The question is if you believe the judge.
Given the fact that Rowling has not sued other companion books like MuggleNet.com's [amazon.com] and the Complete Idiot's Guide to Harry Potter, Rowling isn't against companion books per se. She was against this particular one.
Parent
Re:Summary of Previous Posts (Score:4, Informative)
Given that neither of us have read the lexicon (as it is not published) we are left to believe one side or the other.
The judge got to read it. His ruling mentioned specifically that there were lengthy verbatim excerpts. The combination of this with the practice of poor footnoting/attribution with the imitation of Rowling's style made the Lexicon appear to be a derivative work rather than a text incorporating passages in a way acceptable under fair use.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In other words, you didn't get enough self-righteous indignation in at NYCL last time so you want a rehash of the same bullshit.
Thank you for pointing that out. Such an obvious troll.
Substitution (Score:3, Funny)
If he made a parody of the thing, he'd be safe ?
1. s/Harry Potter/Hairy Putter/g
2. ???
3. Profit !
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)