[HPFGU-OTChatter] Prayers For Lexicon Steve and the great debate on Copyright.

[Lee Kaiwen]

Teri Gardner said this On 16/04/2008 16:18:

> And 100% of the lawyers I've spoken to believe that 
 > fandom endeavours are copyright infringement by their
 > very nature.

"Fan endeavors" is overly ambiguous. Did these lawyers distinguish 
between the various types of endeavors, or do they consider everything a 
copyright infringement? And what legal precedents back up their opinions?

I found several of your points interesting, but your post seems to 
indicate that the major issue lies in how much of the RDR lexicon is 
merely rearrangement, and how much is original scholarly contribution. 
But that's not the impression I get from what little I've read of the 
case. JKR (or at least the press on JKR's behalf) seems to be making 
much over the impact RDR's lexicon will have on JKR's, but that seems to 
hinge not on how much original content the RDR lexicon has but on the 
bare fact of its existence. Yet if original content is really at the 
crux of the case, and the RDR lexicon is found wanting, it seems to me 
all RDR would need to do is rework its lexicon to add original content. 
Then we'd be back in court all over again.

You also argue that mere rearrangement of a work constitutes 
insufficient argument for original contribution. Yet I have on my 
shelves several gospel harmonies that are nothing more than 
rearrangements of biblical texts. They are copyright under the 
assumption that rearrangement in and of itself, even apart from other 
commentary or analysis, constitutes a scholarly contribution. And, as 
the author of one of those harmonies, I would disagree with the 
implication that "mere" rearrangement of texts constitutes insufficient 
original scholarly contribution to merit copyright protection.

> Since there is an exchange of money ... that is against copyright 
 > laws

Has this ever been tested in court? Could the argument be made that the 
exchange of money is for services that are ancillary to the content -- 
e.g., the cost of maintaining membership rolls, production and mailing 
of monthly newsletters, or what have you. But then, I may be talking out 
my posterior. I'd love to see legal precedent, if there is any.

> the other books out there ... have been put out with the
 > blessing of WB and JKR.

Is the Internet a publishing medium (I know the legal precedents are 
still out on this one)? Since JKR has already given her blessing to the 
electronic edition of the lexicon, what bearing does that have on the case?

> and even critiques and commentary can only quote so much 
 > of an original work for its purpose.

What's a "quote"? Doesn't it mean mean verbatim reproduction? If instead 
I'm simply producing a Cliff Notes summary of the HP series without any 
verbatim citations, does that still constitute a "quote" under copyright 
law?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have no strong personal feelings on 
the case. I'm mostly just intellectually curious about the legal issues. 
I also realize I don't have access to all the details of the case (and 
as usual, that's where the devil is), so I will be most interested in 
reading the decision once the case is decided.

I do agree that fandom seems to be in for a bit of a rough ride 
whichever way the case goes.

CJ