I beg to disagree. If the rest of the book really is all SVA's words and pictures a short introductory quote wouldn't be a problem.

I see on justia that there's a notice of right to appeal bundled, but I only get the one page on download. Have you seen the notice anywhere else?

And, while we're discussing the right to publish, did any of these photographs require permission or a release form. I don't know what photos are in the book, but there are different rules for photographing people, places and things. And, just as we found with fair use, it does matter if the subject is private or public, for profit or not. Tummons seems content to know that SVA himself took the photos. But I was reminded of the prohibition of taking photos when they visited the set of OotP.

I don't see JKR filing appeal though. The money wasn't the issue, the copyright was, and her copyrights were upheld by the court via the permanent enjoinment of the Lexi-book.

What I think is meant here is that SVA has used HP quotes for chapter headings, just as he's done in the template for the Lexicon website. So, these are actually layout design elements that could be seen as needing permission. It might be possible to use the same quote within the critical context of the work and have it considered fair use, but the moment it becomes a decorative element it doesn't.

In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

Now, I will say that knowing this makes the notion that RDR may have to pay additional costs at the court's discretion completely understandable. I would say that reaction from some came from misinformation that was being spread such as the idea that fees like $475,000 for a single memorandum might be tacked on to the $6750 the judge thought was reasonable for the infringement. I would say the notion that paying for unreliable charts that never made it into evidence as well as their preparation might be a bit galling. I would say paying for testimony and prep work of expert witnesses the likes of Melanie Bradley who never made it to court because of her squeeing over her own derivative work of the long dead Jane Austen would be a bit intolerable. Some rather exorbitant figures were being bandied about here and elsewhere as if they were a given. The key words in the statute, IMO, are may and at the court's discretion. If Judge Patterson awards costs and fees I am sure they will be reasonable.

Now, I will say that knowing this makes the notion that RDR may have to pay additional costs at the court's discretion completely understandable. I would say that reaction from some came from misinformation that was being spread such as the idea that fees like $475,000 for a single memorandum might be tacked on to the $6750 the judge thought was reasonable for the infringement. I would say the notion that paying for unreliable charts that never made it into evidence as well as their preparation might be a bit galling. I would say paying for testimony and prep work of expert witnesses the likes of Melanie Bradley who never made it to court because of her squeeing over her own derivative work of the long dead Jane Austen would be a bit intolerable. Some rather exorbitant figures were being bandied about here and elsewhere as if they were a given. The key words in the statute, IMO, are may and at the court's discretion. If Judge Patterson awards costs and fees I am sure they will be reasonable.