Re: A copyright case to watch
- And here's news of the ruling:
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.'"
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
> 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
> 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.