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

[annafugazzi.livejournal.com]

I guess it comes down to determining if this is legitimately a derivative work or not. I'm not sure that works about a work can really be considered derivative in that sense.
Yeah, that's the sense I get too. And SVA may have a legitimate case that his work isn't derivative; I just don't think he does.

But you'll notice that the definition you pasted here is not the one you gave above.
::peering at them more closely::
Yeah, there's a few differences. The first one is a general interpretation of case law re. what the courts have to say about violating/not violating copyright. The second is the definition of what is copyright, which is what a judge looks at when they decide whether somebody has violated it or not.