Discussion on WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA - Cont'd |
 Feb 27 2008, 08:28 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Waiting for Wednesdays  Posts: 9,056 Joined: 7:57am January 28, 2005 Location: Hiding from Hurricanes   |
The former version of this thread was getting a bit longish, and as we'll get new information today (or possibly tomorrow) I felt it was time to start a new thread.
[slips on Ruby Red admin slippers] Please remember that we're trying to keep this hotly debated topic as civil as possible. We ask that you remember that this thread open for discussion on the information regarding this case, and do not use this thread to personally attack anyone involved or anyone posting on this topic. This thread is here to discuss the facts on the topic at hand, and to bring about a deeper understanding for all of us. Previous discussion links ... Most recent thread titled WB/JKR vs. RDR/SVA Part I Part II Part III Part IV "The Impact of this suit on Fandom" We do ask that we all remember to remain calm and fair in our discussion of this topic. We understand that this is a sensitive topic and just ask that before you post you look at your words with the eyes of an outsider. Thanks everyone for being understanding, and we look forward to the discussion. Doris -------------------- |
 |
 
 
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 09:57 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary Posts: 498 Joined: 3:02pm March 30, 2005 |
Ok, since I thought I made some good, relevant points before last thread's close, I'll copy it forward.
As usual, everything I post is only my opinion. QUOTE(limany) I think that is a very instructive way to look at this. What of the lexicon book is copyrightable? As far as I see, any original text or graphics, to whoever wrote or created that text or graphic. Also, without a tangible agreement of these contributors and artists ceding copyright of their work to this "HP Lexicon", which I haven't seen, the notion that everything on the lexicon site is 'copyright the HP Lexicon' seems meaningless from a legal standpoint. Plus there's still the question of what exactly this "HP Lexicon" is supposed to be, as far as being a legal entity capable of having any copyrights. QUOTE If authors of preexisting works retain copyright to their materials within derivative works, what then is left of the lexicon book after you take away the previously copyrighted materials? What is left of that after you take away anything not written by Steve, himself, I wonder? QUOTE(DaisyRenee) Steve did admit in his declaration to the court that about 40% of the book was written by Lexicon volunteers in their work for the website. ...so forty percent of the book is a combination of Jo's work (or other HP source) and the work of a lexicon volunteer other than Steve. Therefore, he probably should have gotten their permission to use any commentary or exposition associated with that forty percent, perhaps through an agreement to share profits. Had this been gotten, it should have been documented in the court submissions, along with proof of rights to publish the JKR/ WB/ similar material. Just as a side note, Michelle Worley, assistant editor, has a live journal, which is linked in her profile from the "Editing Team" page in the lex. It seems to detail quite a bit of the work she herself did for the lexicon site. This gives a good idea of the dedication and effort put in by this lady, among others, to building the Lexicon site. And, yes, Steve; his hard work and love and dedication are impressive as well. I commend that. I simply cannot condone the idea of him taking the work that he and many others did to freely codify Jo's world and claiming it as solely his own for material gain apparently intended for himself alone. QUOTE Judge Patterson also has a copy of Steve's contract with RDR, in which he claims to own all the required rights to publish the book. Rights which would include the rights to publish the commentary and exposition by the 'Forty Percenters', material from the cards copyrighted to Electronic Arts (I believe), possibly material copyrighted to Warner Brothers, and material copyrighted to J. K. Rowling. RDR is basing it's defense, apparently, on the book not needing permission because it is presented to be fair use. However, by signing the contract to publish, RDR agreed that Steve does indeed have the rights necessary to publish everything contained in the Lexicon book. Whether he asked for proof of this is irrelevant. Steve claimed to have rights to the material, and RDR agreed to both publish and to indemnify based on that claim of rights. Any later claim of the material being fair use is based on undocumented reasoning, as far as I see. I suspect it may also be based on the intervention of the FUP, and in fact may have been at their suggestion. ( If I recall correctly, the fair use defense didn't make an appearance until the inclusion of lessig and Fazone as co-counsel.) Such an inconsistent reversal makes no sense from the perspective of the defendant, who agreed to publish based on the contract stating that the author had rights to the material. If this is indeed truth, who cares if the book is fair use or not? However, the switch from a claim of rights to a claim of fair use makes perfect sense- in my opinion- if this defensive tack was a suggestion by counsel who saw that the case could be used to promote their project's agenda, whether or not such a tack served or aided the defendants. I can well imagine how such a proposition, made to a bewildered and desperate RDR, could have been accepted without much critical thought. After all, these guys are experts, right? Do I think RDR and SVA are in the wrong? Yes. Do I like seeing them, in my opinion, manipulated by powerful people for their own purposes? Not at all. This redirection from the earlier claim of having full right to publish will likely not cause the matter to be overlooked. Also, the court could well demand to see proof of SVA's rights to publish any and all of the material used in the Lexicon book, based on this item in the publishing contract. QUOTE(dresdenfiles.fan) Shows how much I pay attention, but there was another high-profile copyright infringement case [though not JKR/WB] that was settled in January. Pardon me if I'm repeating something that's already been talked about at length, but I just came across the article. QUOTE(E! News) All told, <Judy> Brown was responsible for compiling 19 of the joke books, all of which were little more than a collection and repackaging of the comics' acts—or as the original lawsuit put it, "no more than alphabetizing original works." In addition to the stand-ups themselves, NBC got in on the litigation act against Andrews McMeel Publishing, Sterling Publishing and Rowman & Littlefield, as any stolen joke of Leno's is a stolen joke of theirs. Any comic yarn spun by the host on The Tonight Show qualifies as the studio's property, and each episode since 1992 has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. It seemed particularly pertinent to this situation, considering this is exactly what RDR/SVA have done in regards to Rowling's work. I agree. That's an excellent example. This post has been edited by Hinoema: Feb 27 2008, 10:00 AM -------------------- The Et Al |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 11:24 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Junior Dishwasher at The Leaky Cauldron Posts: 629 Joined: 11:34pm July 24, 2007 Location: Jamison PA USA |
QUOTE(dresdenfiles.fan @ Feb 26 2008, 09:08 AM)  Note what Posner had to say in regards to this: "Were control of derivative works not part of a copyright owner's bundle of rights, it would be clear that PIL's books fell on the complement side of the divide and so were sheltered by the fair-use defense. A photograph of a Beanie Baby is not a substitute for a Beanie Baby." I have re-read this ruling several times today. I think I understand your point better now. A resource book or guide book falls on the complementary side. The main points in Posner's ruling notes that no one could compete with TY in the area of guidebooks were they not able to include the pictures which are derivative. This is best captured in this quote: QUOTE Ty goes so far as to argue that PIL not only cannot publish photos of all the Beanie Babies but cannot publish color photos of any of them, and perhaps cannot publish black and white photos of any of them or even sketches but must instead be content with the name of the Beanie Baby and a verbal description. Such a guide would sink like a stone in the marketplace no matter how clever and informative its text, since Ty licenses publishers to publish photos of all the Beanie Babies in the licensees' collectors' guides. It would be like trying to compete with a CD of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony by selling the score. In this case no one could compete with JKR in the area of resource books were they not able to detail characters, plot etc. To concede that only she has the right to describe and detail the elements of her work would be to hand her a monopoly on this type book. Posner makes this argument with respect to TY: QUOTE Granted, there is some question how, if Beanie Babies collectors' guides are indeed a complement to Beanie Babies (and they are), and Ty has a monopoly of Beanie Babies (and it does), Ty can get a second monopoly profit by taking over the guides market. Posner mentions that SAT may have been subterfuge for copying the scripts for the series. This is right after he notes the dubious aspect of the ruling that places the court in the position of judging the quality of a book. I still think he sees this as a bad ruling. But you are right that he sees it possible to apply the 2nd portion of the ruling to one of the three versions of the Beanie Baby books, this is the one that is really just a picture book with no evaluative or informative commentary. Now I am sure some will make the point that all Lexicon Book is solely subterfuge for copying the HP series. I would note the JKR/WB brief claims the Lexicon Book contains nothing critical, scholarly etc and present examples that fit closest to their argument. On the other hand, RDR praises the merits of the book and give examples with as much commentary as description. The truth lies somewhere in between. The point where the Beanie Baby guide could leave the comfort of protection of fair use was when the book had little or no commentary and became a picture book which would have been derivative. It seems to me the Lexicon Book is the sort of book that is meant to be a companion to the series. It is complementary. Excluding the possibility for describing fictitious facts would create a monopoly of this type book for JKR. The question left in the Posner reasoning is that of subterfuge for copying the series and thereby making the Lexicon a substitute for the series. This is the central focus of factor 4 of the fair use analysis. Posner makes this point and it is also supported in footnote 37 of the Seinfeld ruling. Whether it competes with the author in a secondary market is irrelevant. This is where the going gets tough for me with the claims of loss to the charities in the JKR/WB filing. Lawyers on both sides do this and they have to cover all angles. I have literally thought this over and over all day trying to understand this in context of this case. I can't forsee any reasonable conclusion that the publication of the Lexicon Book would serve as a substitute for the original. It is meant to be a guide to the series. It is not like the book mentioned in the TY case that has no critical, evaluative or other commentary. I think even the staunchest critics will agree that it is not without those elements. Perhaps the judge here will find that there is not enough, and maybe more would have made a better book, but to my mind that seems to put him in the position of book critic. QUOTE(DaisyRenee @ Feb 26 2008, 12:34 PM) Henrietta points out something really interesting here. I'm going to stick with the wall analogy, because I think it works. Once Steve knocked down the wall and organized it into piles, that was the end of the project. And all we have to look at are little piles of raw materials that no one bothered to make into anything else. Sure, taking the wall apart was work. So was sorting all the materials into like piles. But it's still just little piles of rubble. Now, there are a thousand different things a person could do with these piles of raw materials, but the Lexicon book doesn't seem to do any of them. Each entry seems like the raw materials of a transformative work that were never processed into anything transformative. I think the use of transformative here is clarified in the Posner opinion. QUOTE The distinction between complementary and substitutional copying (sometimes--though as it seems to us, confusingly--said to be between "transformative" and "superseding" copies, see, e.g., Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994)) is illustrated not only by the difference between quotations from a book in a book review and the book itself, Marion B. Stewart, "Calculating Economic Damages in Intellectual Property Disputes: The Role of Market Definition," 77 J. Patent & Trademark Office Society 321, 332 (1995), but also by the difference between parody (fair use) and burlesque (often not fair use). A parody, which is a form of criticism (good-natured or otherwise), is not intended as a substitute for the work parodied. But it must quote enough of that work to make the parody recognizable as such, and that amount of quotation is deemed fair use. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., supra, 510 U.S. at 579, 580-81 and n. 14, 588; Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., supra, 268 F.3d at 1271; Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109, 114 (2d Cir. 1998); Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1400 (9th Cir. 1997); 4 Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, sec. 13.05[C], pp. 13-203 to 13-218. A burlesque, however, is often just a humorous substitute for the original and so cuts into the demand for it: one might choose to see Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein or Young Frankenstein rather than Frankenstein, or Love at First Bite rather than Dracula, or even Clueless rather than Emma. Burlesques of that character, catering to the humor-loving segment of the original's market, are not fair use. Benny v. Loew's Inc., 239 F.2d 532, 536-37 (9th Cir. 1956), aff'd by an equally divided Court under the name Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc., 356 U.S. 43 (1958) (per curiam); see 4 Nimmer & Nimmer, supra, sec. 13.05[B][1], pp. 13-194 to 13-195, sec. 13.05[C]; cf. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., supra, 510 U.S. at 580-81 & n. 14, 591. The distinction is implicit in the proposition, affirmed in all the cases we have cited, that the parodist must not take more from the original than is necessary to conjure it up and thus make clear to the audience that his work is indeed a parody. If he takes much more, he may begin to attract the audience away from the work parodied, not by convincing them that the work is no good (for that is not a substitution effect) but by providing a substitute for it. I agree with Posner that the term transformative is confusing here. It would be fair for its complementarity. I cannot agree that it would be substitutional. The issue was raised also that SVA's declaration states the book is 40% from staff members. The statement actually says the website is 40% staff members writing. I think rumor that the staff was upset is rumor. They appear to all be intelligent people. Since they volunteer, why would they stay had their work been so blatantly taken. Has there been a mass turnover there? -------------------- Our judgements judge us, and nothing reveals us, exposes our weaknesses, more ingeniously than the attitude of pronouncing upon our fellows. - Paul Valery
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 11:36 AM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary Posts: 498 Joined: 3:02pm March 30, 2005 |
QUOTE(luna'scieling) I would note the JKR/WB brief claims the Lexicon Book contains nothing critical, scholarly etc and present examples that fit closest to their argument. Several experts consuted do so, as well. QUOTE On the other hand, RDR praises the merits of the book and give examples with as much commentary as description. Which ones? Where? I haven't yet seen an example from the Lexicon book that has as much as/ more commentary and description than paraphrasing. I'd like to see that. -------------------- The Et Al |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 11:47 AM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Junior Dishwasher at The Leaky Cauldron Posts: 629 Joined: 11:34pm July 24, 2007 Location: Jamison PA USA |
SVA has testimony from his own expert witness. This is how courts work. Birchall says there is nothing, SVA refutes that in his declaration and cites these examples:
QUOTE Greyback, Fenrir Werewolf, low-level Death Eater, and friend of the Malfoy family. He killed for fun and especially enjoyed infecting children. … Fenrir comes from 'Fenriswolf,' 'Fenrisulv,' 'Fenrisulf' the gigantic wolf of the God Loki in Scandinavian mythology. Gytrash The Gytrash is a huge, spectral hound that lives in forests. The Gytrash, in the form of a huge dog, horse, or mule, haunts solitary places; it is found in the folklore of Northern England (CS/g). Hanged Man, The The "village pub" in Little Hangleton, this is the place where the villagers gathered the night Tom Marvolo Riddle killed his father and grandparents, to gossip about the murders. Among the villagers present that evening were the Riddles' cook and Dot, who remained permanently convinced that gardener Frank Bryce was to blame for the deaths (GF1). The Hanged Man is the name of a card found in a Tarot fortune telling deck. It signifies that a questioner is trapped or stuck in a position, perhaps between opposites. Floo Network … The Floo Network is made up of various wizarding fireplaces all over Britain. . … flue Eng. originally meant "chimney,” but now means any duct for allowing heat or hot gases to escape from a heating device [NSOED] Weird Sisters A musical group, very popular on the WWN. They are a group of eight musicians who sing and play drums, several guitars, a lute, a cello, and bagpipes (fw). They were quite hairy and wore artfully ripped black robes when Harry saw them at the Yule Ball (Dumbledore had booked them to play) (GF23). "The weird sisters" is a term from Shakespeare's Macbeth, referring to the three witches who accost Macbeth and foretell the future when they hail him as "king hereafter.” Also, in Norse mythology, there are three sister-goddesses of fate - the Norns - who are also referred to as the Wyrd Sisters. The archaic term "wyrd" means "fate" or "destiny.” Von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa (1486 - 1535) 19 Though a talented wizard, Agrippa was imprisoned by Muggles who feared his writing (fw). When he started Hogwarts, Ron had every Chocolate Frog Card except this one and Ptolemy’s (PS6). In the Muggle version of history, Agrippa was a German soldier and physician, and an adept in alchemy, astrology, and magic. In his book De Occulta Philosophia (1531), Agrippa encouraged the study of magic, explaining the world in terms of cabalistic analyses of Hebrew letters and Pythagorean numerology; he believed that magic was the best means to know God and nature. This is why I said the truth lies somewhere in between -------------------- Our judgements judge us, and nothing reveals us, exposes our weaknesses, more ingeniously than the attitude of pronouncing upon our fellows. - Paul Valery
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 11:52 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Flesh-Eating-Slug Catcher Posts: 153 Joined: 9:30am December 6, 2007 Location: Feet on the ground; head in the clouds. |
davidenglish: thanks for the great reply to the grossly exaggerated copyright article. I had caught the Salinger reference as well as the teaching and doodling ones but I was too busy *coughlazycough* to look up the other cases. Essays like this infuriate me because I find them intellectually dishonest. If you need dishonesty to make your point, you have no point.
First, weather or not a case has specifically related to email doesn't matter, the judge would view email and snail mail the same. Also, I have seen things a lot stranger then the examples provided by the emails (like the recent ruling that someone putting a settlement letter that they recieved on a blog and then being ordered to take it down because the settlement letter was copyrighted). CapriciousC: I thought the decision for this case was based on the letters being previously unpublished. I'm not sure that I understand your point about snail mail and email. The link to the jokebook settlement seem particularly relevant. I like the author's reply that she will never, ever ever do this again. It sounds like her legal cousel advised her very differently from RDR's. momwitch: You can donate your movies to a public library where they can be added to the collection. The school's point was that they must pay a licensing fee to show the movies in class (much as our library pays to show movies in our rooms). DaisyRenee did a great job of explaining the budget constraints that surround selection practices. We get patrons with the most esoteric interests that cannot fathom that the general public does not share their interest. Hinoema: Do you think the case is stronger if it's pursued under SVA's rights to the material? And if they had, would SVA be held liable for signing that he had those rights? I've wondered: if the book had included original artwork and essays, would that have balanced against the amount of paraphrased/quoted material? Made the book, as a whole, more legal? Pointless aside: I keep typing the word pint for point. Obviously, I need a trip to London. On you Irons! -------------------- I'm forever blowing bubbles, pretty bubbles in the air. On you Irons!
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 12:20 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song Posts: 6,598 Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005 Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag  |
In his declaration, SVA speaks of having written 60% of the Lexicon and his staff having written 40%. However, he doesn't provide any evidence to back up this claim. And this division of labour does not refer to the copyrighted material; it only divides the responsibility for organizing the text along a 60/40 split. How much of each entry is original, quoted or paraphrased must be determined on an entry by entry basis. However, the copyright of original material on the site is listed as belonging to the Harry Potter Lexicon and not SVA; so the fact that the domain belongs to MA/TLC and SVA shares authorship with his staff makes his claim to copyright suspect.
QUOTE(coweatyou @ Feb 27 2008, 09:33 AM) But what if you have to break the law in order to do everyday things? The law should be based on societal norms, not the other way around. Well, I fail to see illegal downloading music as an everyday thing. It's really a middle-class teen thing. And I'd hardly call that demographic the societal norm. QUOTE 1) First, weather or not a case has specifically related to email doesn't matter, the judge would view email and snail mail the same. Also, I have seen things a lot stranger then the examples provided by the emails (like the recent ruling that someone putting a settlement letter that they recieved on a blog and then being ordered to take it down because the settlement letter was copyrighted). Dear me, coweatyou, I think you fail to understand the nature of mail, both electronic or snail. It does belong to the author. That's why in yesteryears a couple who broke up would return each other's love letters. And I'm sure you've heard of Netiquette or Network Etiquette. Here's an excellent review of these manners.But, I repeat, including a copy of the original email to its author in one's reply is not copyright infringement. Forwarding it in its entirety may be. And certainly posting it to a public forum without permission is a major breach of Netiquette. But you brought up my other contention that being sued and fined maximum statutory damages is not the likely outcome. Instead, one is more likely to be asked to take it down. That's what most fansites do when they're asked. And, as was the case with the 'lexicon' book, being asked politely usually precedes a C&D letter and is a long way from a lawsuit. QUOTE 2) I see this happen all the time. And to be frank, if it is being used for educational purposes, it should be allowed. This is pretty standard practise. Well, I'd check your university's protocol on such things. We've discussed this before and there is a certain amount of leeway when copying excerpts, but to just approve wholesale copying of anything in the classroom would bankrupt educational publishing. It can't be allowed. And, although it may be commonplace, it's NOT standard practice. QUOTE 3) Notice that his citation is of BMG Music v Gonzalez quotes that "copying of more then a couplet or two is deemed excesive" and is not fair use, even if used in the classroom. Yes, I saw that John Tehranian quoted this case, but it's irrelevant. That's about downloading music. The hypothetical Prof John would only be liable for copyright infringement if he assigned the poem by e.e. cummings as part of the set syllabus and it was not contained in the required textbooks. Assuming it is part of the textbook, reading aloud the poem would not constitute infringement.BTW, Gonzalez was not ordered to pay damages of $4,500,000, which is what Prof John's tall tale of litigation supposes. Instead, she was orderd to pay $22,500. So my estimates of lower settlements --indeed, the minimum since that was $750 x 30-- is the correct one. QUOTE 4) Again this is about what is legal and what is not, not about the chance that you have of being prosicuted. Well, I'd say you're wrong here. It is all about the chance of being prosecuted. Copyright is a civil matter, not a criminal one. (Well, criminal in only rare cases.) Tehranian presupposes that Fair Use cannot be used as a defence in any of his examples and presupposes obsessive litigation. In reality, most of his examples are trivial or not infringement at all. And infringement is often tolerated when it's non-profit and acknowledges the copyright holders right. That's the case with the Lexicon website. It's a non-profit fansite and every request to remove material made by WB/JKR was promptly complied with.Again, lawsuits don't just happen. Lawsuits happen when there's a dispute over the legality of the infringement. This is why I said many, many posts ago that the Beanie Babies judgement wouldn't help the defence because it was a split decision. The judge ruled that a collector's price guide was a fair use, but that a picture book was a derivative work. Where in the 'lexicon' book does one see any evaluation of the HP books or discourse on the publication history or commentary on HP's place in the genre of children's fantasy? One doesn't see it. The 'lexicon' book has more in common with the infringing Beanie Babies picture books than the deemed "fair use" collector's price guide. Tehranian's reasoning is fallacious in that he presupposes one rule of copyright fits all and that only one judgement with maximum penalty is possible. His Kafka-esque tale is as much fiction as the tales of Martin Miggs the Mad Muggle. QUOTE 5) Let me hit the money issues. First, statutory damages for infrigement is $750 and $30,000 (and I have rarily heard of someone getting the minimum). The max can also be upped to $150,000 or (if they didn't know it was infringing) the min can go down to $200. And the plantiff's legal fees wouldn't matter too much because they are also entitled to legal fees if they win. Dear me, you've just quoted BMG Music vs Gonzales in which the minimum of $750 was applied to each of the 30 incidents. And, as for legal fees, only a token amount is awarded for that. But the judge has discretion in both the matter of damages and legal fees. WB/JKR will never be awarded anything close to what their legal bills will total and the defendents will never be able to pay the token amount awarded.I'm not sure how much experience or education you have in these matters, coweatyou. I gather you're still in college, but are studying this subject. But the fact is that Intellectual Property is fairly simple to understand. And infringement doesn't automatically result in a bill for $150,000. Infringement is often tolerated and sometimes encouraged by the copyright holder. And lawsuits are seen as a last resort. One is more likely to be admonished and asked to refrain from infringing. And most infringement cases happen behind closed doors and are settled out of court. Indeed, everyone was shocked on November 1st to read that the 'lexicon' book was being sued. They were doubly shocked when they learned that negotiations between the parties had been going on for seven weeks. Lawsuits don't just happen; it takes two to tango. 
-------------------- Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter, Sweeter than spring-water, "Gods, I am so happy!" |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 12:23 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Rat Spleen Restocker at the Apothecary Posts: 498 Joined: 3:02pm March 30, 2005 |
That's okay, I constantly type sue instead of use. Am I destined to be an IP lawyer or what? ;)
QUOTE(wondering @ Feb 27 2008, 05:52 PM) Hinoema: Do you think the case is stronger if it's pursued under SVA's rights to the material? And if they had, would SVA be held liable for signing that he had those rights? I've wondered: if the book had included original artwork and essays, would that have balanced against the amount of paraphrased/quoted material? Made the book, as a whole, more legal? Stronger? In all honesty, I don't see how it could be strong at all, I'm afraid. Even the sections quoted above by luna'scieling are merely paraphrasing with the sort of trivia that anyone with access to Google could come up with in five minutes. Plus, it doesn't relate the trivia to the entry. So the entry says: "The Hanged Man is the name of a card found in a Tarot fortune telling deck. It signifies that a questioner is trapped or stuck in a position, perhaps between opposites." Well, yes, and? How does that relate to the "Hanged man Pub" of the HP 'verse? Without something like "Due to the pub's relation to these famous murders and it's use to eternally discuss them, it seems as if the patrons are analogous to the questioner trapped in this position, torn between the opposites of Bryce's innocence or guilt, making the name very apt indeed"- without this kind of tie in, the extra verbiage is just irrelevant clutter. I mention the rights issue not in light of a different approach to the case, but to note that if this statement made in the contract turns out to be false, then yes, there well could be consequences there as well. RDR may consider suing SVA for misrepresentation or breach of contract, which may render the contract void and the indemnification clause moot. (I'll have to research that or ask an expert.) And oh, yes, (she edits predictably), if the amount of original material and analysis far outweighed the amount of quotation and paraphrase, fair use might well apply. Also, if the book were more of an analysis and not an encyclopedia, in this form and format with this extreme degree of paraphrase, it may well have gotten permission from JKR/ CLLA/ etc. (Like the oft cited "Guide to HP Places" that should have been.) This post has been edited by Hinoema: Feb 27 2008, 12:27 PM -------------------- The Et Al |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 12:34 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 2 Joined: 10:28am February 27, 2008 |
I found an interesting rebuttal to the $4 billion dollar article:
Fairly Useful The link is to a late point in the discussion (after the original author rebutted the rebuttal) and contains links to past entries. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2008, 12:55 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song Posts: 6,598 Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005 Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag |
QUOTE(emmessann @ Feb 27 2008, 05:34 PM) I found an interesting rebuttal to the $4 billion dollar article: Fairly Useful The link is to a late point in the discussion (after the original author rebutted the rebuttal) and contains links to past entries.  Congrats on your first post, emmessann. That was a great link. I liked the early post by the blog here and was pleased to see that there was even less infringement than I was willing to concede.
-------------------- Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter, Sweeter than spring-water, "Gods, I am so happy!" |
|
|
|
