Well, stranger than fiction, there is a sub-genre of Slash Fic based on real people. So you might end up with your favorite local newscaster in a love tryst with Britney Spears.

I can't answer for all of them. For those I know about: they are funded (more or less directly or indirectly) by the tax payers.

Yes, the tax payers have interest in free content.
There is a growing tendency to (try to) force scholars to make all of their publications which stem from publicly funded research available as open access publications.

CC permits the authors to grant some rights while retaining others. CC just makes it easier for the users to find out which are legal uses (and which are not) in the case of a documet published under a CC license without having to contact the author or publisher etc..

Advocating the use of CC is not identical to advocating the abolishment of some or all intellectual property rights.

I've been reading all the threads on this topic, and I find myself thinking back to the fall and when there was that huge blowup about Prince and his lawyers going around and shutting down fansites for "copyright" infringement. Also reminds me of the great Napster debate a couple of years back. Artists were complaining because their creative ideas were being downloaded with no profit attached. (though, in reality a musician/band only makes $0.15 per CD)

Now, please excuse my ignorance while I put my thoughts in order.

Lawyers are coming after the Lexicon because people were trying to get it published right? And this would obviously put a dent in Jo's sales if she ever decided to print "the Scottish book" right?

Maybe I'm being naive, maybe I'm totally speaking out of turn, but if Jo supports the fandom and everything that includes (i.e. the lexicon) couldn't there be someway to work together? I don't see why both parties can't benifit from this. The Lexicon looks like it took a lot of research and a lot of hard work to put up. Couldn't this two parties work together to bring us, the fans, something we all want?

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but those are just some ideas. If I'm totally off the mark, here are my apologies in advance.

My state's university system provides pretty good access to journals, though if you're not a student you have to visit the library versus logging in online, and it's generally not difficult to obtain reprints of articles. The thing, though, about expanding access (say, every citizen could get a user name and password for online access to their state's university library system, which would be nice) is that it costs more to provide more people with access, so it's not really free to the taxpayers. The pea is just under a different shell.

I've seen pages with CC licenses and clicked their links to see what uses they allow. CC goes beyond just explaining permitted uses because it allows you, if you want, to select uses that would not stand under fair use in copyright law. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't find copyright and fair use to be very difficult concepts in the vast majority of cases (the Lexicon being an exception, mostly because no one actually knows what would have been in the book). If CC were only concerned with explaining, they could just have set up a website for people to link to from the copyright disclaimer on their material. I don't have a problem with people using CC for their work, but I don't want it to erode others' rights.

But I lumped CC advocates with other groups. For example, the Fair Use Project's mission statement: "The Stanford Center for Internet and Society's "Fair Use Project" ("the FUP") was founded in 2006 to provide legal support to a range of projects designed to clarify, and extend, the boundaries of "fair use" in order to enhance creative freedom." The FUP isn't creativecommons.org, though some of their ideology is quite similar.

Codifying a creative commons is a good thing, I agree. But dragging unwilling participants into it isn't fair.



If I were a band, I would want every single possible 15 cents from every possible CD sale (or better, try to release my music on my own label so I could make a more reasonable percentage). Just because artists make a small fraction of the retail price doesn't mean that isn't still money and that artists don't still have bills to pay. Most people have worked crappy after-school jobs. Just because the paycheck wasn't large doesn't mean it's unwanted.

The rationale for Rowling/WB's lawsuit was partly the potential dent in sales (actually, that's the weakest part of their argument), but they also filed it because they feared the Lexicon book would infringe on their copyrights and trademarks. Remember, RDR wouldn't tell what was or wasn't in the book prior to the courts becoming involved. In fact, they were rude and evasive, which is their right to be, but which one can hardly expect to help in the resolution of a conflict without having to resort to the judicial system.

The problem with both parties working together is that Rowling didn't want to collaborate with Vander Ark. He asked and she declined, which she's entitled to do. First, she doesn't know Vander Ark. Why would she want to work with a stranger? Second, the type of encyclopedia she described on PotterCast is very different from the Lexicon, and she would need no help from Vander Ark to produce what she described.

The fans actually have a better product in the dynamic, always-under-revision Lexicon website than they would ever have in a static book. Especially one that was going to go to press before the Deathly Hallows updates were anywhere near complete.

If RDR and Vander Ark had responded to Rowling and WB prior to the filing of the lawsuit, perhaps the parties could have worked together to ensure that the book didn't infringe, but we'll never know now if that was possible because it was never tried.

This all seems like it was handled badly and everyone is going to suffer, no matter what the outcome is. Whether it be Rowling, Vander Ark, or the fandom. We should be happy Rowling isn't just saying "screw it, all of you are gone".

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I totally agree with bands, authors, any creative team wanting to be recongized (i.e. paid) for thier hard work. Thus why I support the writer's strike. Thus after reading through all these posts, I think my loyalty will lie with Rowling. As a writer (and published poet) I would be wicked upset if suddenly I found out someone was publishing *my* work with a couple of edits. The Lexicon on the internet is one thing, how else am I suppose to find out all the mundane details of Neville Longbottom? Though if I throw something orginal up on a website, I have to pray that people will pay attention to that little copyright symbol and not to try and publish my work as thier own.

This all seems like it was handled badly and everyone is going to suffer, no matter what the outcome is. Whether it be Rowling, Vander Ark, or the fandom. We should be happy Rowling isn't just saying "screw it, all of you are gone".

Well, I just finished reading JKR's statement, and it was a very clear expression of her thoughts on the matter, to say the least. I was unaware that RDR books was also intending to market the book further by using a quote taken from Rowling and plastering it on the back cover as if she were endorsing it.

No kidding that's adding insult to injury, and quite frankly, I'm left to wonder what Rowling really thinks about the matter at hand, other than what was given to us in her statement.

I'll admit to not having been able to follow this case as closely as I would like, but it seems to me that Mr. Vander Ark and RDR are carelessly toying with what could potentially be quite a blow to an enormous and devoted fandom - all for the sake of personal profit - and worse - without any integrity behind it what-so-ever.

Very uncool.