Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A copyright case to watch

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    And here s news of the ruling: Rowling testified earlier this year that the lexicon was
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      And here's news of the ruling:

      <http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/09/08/harry.potter.lawsuit.ap/>

      Rowling "testified earlier this year that the lexicon was nothing more than a
      rearrangement of her material." The judge "ruled in Rowling's favor because the 'Lexicon
      appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide.'"

      Carl


      --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
      >
      > <http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080416/en_nm/harrypotter_lawsuit_dc_19>
      >
      > Money quotes:
      >
      > "Earlier Vander Ark, who is based in London, said he had no choice but
      > to use words similar to Rowling's own descriptions in his lexicon due
      > to having to define creatures from a work of fiction and not the real
      > world."
      >
      > DING DING DING! _Precisely_ why a lexicon of a fictional world runs
      > afoul of copyright restrictions.
      > "'It's a reference book,' he said. 'If I was writing a reference book
      > to Shakespeare, I wouldn't list Shakespeare.'"
      >
      > Vander Ark neglects to notice the subtle distinction that
      > Shakespeare's works _are in the public domain_, unlike Rowling's.
      >
      > And unlike Tolkien's.
      >
      >
      >
      > Carl
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.