The Fair Use Doctrine

[sistermagpie]

> > Kemper now:
> > That's wrong.  If she wins sites will remain up, future fans of
> other works will write fanfic, create fan art, establish fan groups,
> go to conventions, etc.  It is already established that Original
> creators have defined how they are willing or unwilling to grant 
fans
> indulgences.
> > 
> > Many upcoming writers (I imagine) would love to have fans of their
> work starting anything to do with their original work.  Writers
> (artists) want/need a fan base: to spread word, to increase sales, 
to
> quit their day job.  This is why most writers allow for fan
> indulgence.  Why piss off your fans?  They are a writer's pita and
> hummus. 
> >
> Carol responds:
> 
> I'm confused. How could a win for JKR, who is claiming that the
> "rearrangement" of her words and ideas is plagiarism (without, IMO, 
a
> clear concept of Fair Use and the reasons for its existence) be a
> victory for those who want to use her ideas (characters and 
settings)
> in a way that is *already* unprotected by the Fair Use doctrine?

Magpie:
I think a victory for JKR would have little effect on fandom either 
way. An encyclopedia isn't transformative enough to really apply to a 
lot of the stuff fandom does. 

If RDR wins, it could be bad for fandom if the reason for winning is 
that JKR "approved" of the book by approving of the Internet site (as 
opposed to them proving that this particular book was fair use). That 
would force authors to be more careful about "approving" of things 
accidentally that way. They would have to start worrying about losing 
control of things the way they don't now.

-m