click here to skip the menu and go to the page content

rebecca's pocket

about / archive / syndicate

.: January 2008 --> JK Rowling vs Harry Potter Lexicon

JK Rowling vs Harry Potter Lexicon

» Why JK Rowling doesn't have a leg to stand on in her copyright lawsuit against the Harry Potter Lexicon. Adaptations are protected; discussions are not.

Update: Dineen writes: "Hey Rebecca! Can't post on Slate or register on your site at the moment, but wanted to let you know that she does actually have a leg to stand on. Read the unfortunate decision in Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998), aka, the Seinfeld Trivia case. Someone created and published an unlicensed book of Seinfeld trivia, with details about characters and lines in the show, arguing that doing so was fair use and merely a compilation of facts. The court held that the facts about the show weren't really facts, but rather expressions of the creators' imaginations, and the most important fair use factor of effect on the market was in Seinfeld's favor since they had plans for their own derivative books based on the show. See also Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd. 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993), which was plot summaries and quotations from the TV show Twin Peaks - again, the court held that the amount of material taken from the original was substantial and adversely affected the market for authorized books about the show, and so denied a fair use defense to copyright infringement."

"I don't necessarily agree with it, but there is strong precedent in her favor."

Sorry about the inability to comment, by the way. I just can't make it work.

 [ 01.10.08 ]



» primary link / supplemental information / internal link

my book

» the weblog handbook
amazon editors' best of 2002, digital culture

recent posts