Oi!

[ivyblossom]

Well, this just makes me sad:

Rowling acknowledged she once bestowed an award on Vander Ark's Web site because, she said, she wanted to encourage a very enthusiastic fan.

But she said she "almost choked on my coffee" one morning when she realized Vander Ark had warned others not to copy portions of his Web site. She said she now has second thoughts about all the encouragement she has given to online discussions and Web sites devoted to her books.

"I never censored it or wanted to censor it," she said, adding that if she loses the lawsuit, she will conclude she essentially gave away her copyrights by encouraging the Web sites.

"Other authors will say, `I need to exercise more control. She was an idiot. She let it all go,'" Rowling said.

Comments

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

Yes, and I've read them before and didn't see anything about non-scholarly authors needing permission from authors to write a companion text or encyclopedia. Fair use is something different than writing about a text. There are no restrictions on that, and there should not be. I certainly haven't seen what this encyclopedia is doing (nor do I care, in point of fact), but if it's accurately called an encyclopedia then it is simply an informational source that will not contain extensive direct quotations from the Harry Potter books. The fact is that it may be a terrible book that adds little original thought, but in that case a lawsuit isn't necessary - the book will sink on its own merits.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Fair use is something different than writing about a text.

Fair use isn't a concrete law, unfortunately. It's just a convincing argument to get around the copyright laws. That's why it doesn't seem to have restrictions, only guidelines on how to make the argument convincing.

I certainly haven't seen what this encyclopedia is doing (nor do I care, in point of fact), but if it's accurately called an encyclopedia then it is simply an informational source that will not contain extensive direct quotations from the Harry Potter books.

The thing is that that's the main argument that JKR and the WB have made strong in their case as to what the lexicon book is. Despite RDR eventually conceding that point, they still argue that it's fair use anyway and out of JKR's control. RDR wouldn't back down, so JKR and the WB brought on the lawsuit.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

When it comes to writing about another person's books, it doesn't even apply. You can write whatever you want about someone else's work.

If the book is only direct quotation (but I doubt it's that simple) then once again, Rowling's lawsuit is silly. Who would buy such a thing? As I said before, let it sink on its own merits. Being litigious is not the answer.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, if Rowling were to ignore any book that comes along like that, then she loses her right to enforce her copyrights. Copyright would mean nothing if it couldn't be enforced. Being litigious is the only choice at this point to enforce her copyright since RDR couldn't be convinced to scrap publication of the book. Unfortunately, letting this book sink on its own merits is not the way the world works. The situation here hasn't played nice at all when the original author has rights to stop it.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

No. Being litigious is never the only choice, and it's never the right choice.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I had meant that it appeared to be a last choice that got to that point.

Anyway, as for today, it appears that the Judge in this case agrees with you.