Ivy Blossom lives Here

I know that, but I tend to thinking that writing about it and just rearranging already written text are two different things. When something is released to the public domain, aren't things are not as restricted as something still under copyright?

From:

If it weren't copyrighted text, we could download the books from archive.org or the gutenberg project. There's no restriction on writing about something, copyright or no. People are conflating copyright and trademark here, methinks.

In my experiences with the lexicon, Steve did not just "rearrange text". He wrote articles on elements of the stories, quoting the books for support. I haven't seen the item up for publication, and I presume you haven't either, so perhaps we're not in the best position to judge, but if Steve was publishing the lexicon, I don't see why that's a problem, really. Fandom doesn't like people selling fanworks for its own reasons, but I don't quite get JKR's reasoning here, as stated in the article.

Even if he did go ahead and publish it, it wouldn't hamper anyone from picking up JKR's own encyclopedia. I'm looking forward to hearing more details about why she's doing this now. I remain unimpressed.

From:

I haven't seen the item up for publication, and I presume you haven't either, so perhaps we're not in the best position to judge

Actually I have seen it. It's in the legal documents that both parties in the lawsuit turned in that was also publish online free to view by everyone. That's why I'm writing these comments firmly by authoritative voice because I've seen both parties arguments and the material that they used to support those arguments.

What I see is a strong case against RDR, and RDR contradicting and backpeddling in their statements.

JKR is emotional because she encouraged a fan that she thought she could trust to like her work. Steve asked to help her work on her own encyclopedia. JKR's reps said no, and then Steve went on to write his own encylopedia even though he previously told other people it was wrong to do so. What kind of fan does that?

From:

The law doesn't care whether he's a good fan or a bad fan.

From:

But the law would care if he intentionally wrote the book against JKR's wishes, legally or not. That's what's being determined here. RDR is using the fact that she supported his site as a fact to support their point. JKR explains why she did so and how it's affected her. It's up to the Judge to decided what's relevant.

From:

Well no, it wouldn't. Rowling's "wishes" are not legally binding, whether she stated them aloud or not. IF the book copies her work directly to a greater extent then allowed by law she could legally consent to it being published anyway if she wanted to. You are the one arguing in part that what's his name is a "bad fan" who shouldn't have done this. Maybe he is a bad fan, but I don't consider myself a "fan" in that sense at all, and I don't care whether Rowling personally wishes I had written what I have written.

From:

Rowling's copyright is legally binding when she so chooses to enforce it. She has allowed an abundance of other Harry Potter guide books to publish because they fall under fair use. In fact she verbally endorsed one of them from the Leaky Cauldron's latest article about what happened in court yesterday. Bad fan or not doesn't matter, I agree with that. But that's all being part of RDR's defense that JKR has had to repeatedly respond to. I believe that JKR has adequately proven that Steve's book doesn't fall under fair use.

From:

I believe that JKR has adequately proven that Steve's book doesn't fall under fair use.

And she's being a money-grubbing jerk about it as far as I can see. I simply don't believe that the book consists of direct quotations and little else. Why would a publisher agree to publish it? Why would anyone buy it? There must be something else going on.

From:

There is something else going on that you don't seem to know since you haven't read all of the articles and legal documents about the case. Since you already have admitted that you don't care to do so, then you're not going to ever know and not take my word for it either. Since this is hindering our discussion, maybe we should just agree to disagree and end it.

From:

The original lexicon wasn't just direct quotations, but it certainly was pretty much entirely paraphrases and extrapolations from the book with quotation as support...as a lexicon should be. I understand why fandom doesn't like one of its own selling a fandom product, and I presume JKR is unhappy because she thinks this lexicon will get in the way of the sales of her encyclopedia, when it's finished. This is patently ridiculous, because presumably she would add all kinds of new information to hers and not just comb through her previous work to put the details in one place. I understand if they want to work with the publisher to ensure that the cover makes it clear that this is not an endorsed publication, but...bringing a weeping JKR into the court case and saying that Steve did shitty work is...ugly.

From:

That's what I assumed as well. An encyclopedia-type reference shouldn't contain analysis or new information. IT should simply organize the existing work in a way that makes it accessible to other scholars/readers. And I really don't see the need for weeping over it anywhere.

From:

I should add the Rowling did not "allow" the other guide books to exist. She has to legal right to dictate what other people write about her work. Her copyright does not extend over every use of the word "Harry Potter."

From:

I'm sorry, but since you're not taking my word for what she has said in court because you haven't read other articles nor will read the legal documents published online, then you will never believe anything I've said. Because of this lack of belief and information, maybe we should just agree to disagree and end this discussion because nothing good is going to come out of this until you know everything that's going on about it.

From:

You're right, because although you may have read those documents your comments have shown me that you have a rather poor understanding of how the law works. I don't "agree to disagree" with you - I simply disagree with you, and I was never trying to get something "good" to come out of this. I do not have to read every scrap of evidence presented in the trial to have an opinion about the way Rowling comes off in the press.

From:

Nor to understand the basics of how copyright works. My favourite version of this same argument is the one where faculty believe that they own the copyright of their students' notes...because students are writing down short form paraphrases of what the instructor said and did in class, the instructor imagines that they can tell students who they can and can't show their notes to, or whether or not those notes can go online. Unfortunately for them...no. Students own the copyright to their own notes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/11th/942157opa.html), even if there's nothing "original" in them.

From:

Sigh. I don't like it when students sell their notes, but it's not because I believe I have copyright over their notes. But they are making money off of my intellectual work, which I do reserve the right to (i.e., I reserve the right to my lectures, not their notes). But I would never try to sue them or throw a fit about it. I'd probably just go ahead and put them out on a public website so that everyone could access them for free instead.

From:

Yeah, exactly. Why anyone would want to use someone else's perspective on a lecture to study from, I have no idea...

From:

You're right, because although you may have read those documents your comments have shown me that you have a rather poor understanding of how the law works.

Ditto from my view about you. You go with the 'if this is true' when I go with 'this is true.' Your uncertainty and guesses are disproven by the legal documents filed under oath by both parties. All I'm doing is relaying that info to you. Encyclopedias/lexicons/guidebooks fall under fair use to only a certain extent. That's the whole basis of this lawsuit. It's to find out to what extent that they do fall under fair use. I hardly think that a judgement against the book will wipe out true critical analysis and parody.

Two comments ago, I just said that JKR verbally endorsed a HP guidebook while testifying in court yesterday. You then comment back that JKR doesn't support guidebooks at all. I'm sorry, but she really did say that while under oath.

I don't "agree to disagree" with you - I simply disagree with you, and I was never trying to get something "good" to come out of this.

I see. I use that phrase to amicably end a discussion that's apparently going nowhere. Whatever works for you.

From:

Dude, you just don't get it. I never said Rowling doesn't support guidebooks. I said that no one writing such a book needs to get her permission first, and thus she doesn't "permit" anyone to write them because she doesn't have that power.

End the discussion if you want, just don't try to wallpaper over our disagreement with horrible cliches.

From: