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]

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.

[twilightbyproxy.livejournal.com]

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.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

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.

[max-ambiguity.livejournal.com]

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.