That case and that book

[Carol]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Hmmm, I thought I saw Steve's book among court's filings on Justia. 
> Then I started doubting myself that it cannot be a public record and I 
> could not find it anyways. Then I saw this link on Leaky.
> 
> docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-
> york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/52/2.html
> 
> I cannot be SURE of course that this is a complete manuscript, but it 
> looks like one to me. Is it? Curious.
> 
> Alla
>
Carol responds:

First, I love the title of this thread. "What are that case and that
book doing in your head, Potter?"

Second, thanks, Alla, for mentioning Justia, which I'd never heard of
before. I went to the Justia home page, did a search for Lexicon, and
found this chronological summary of the case with all sorts of links
to court dockets, etc. (It may be the same URL you gave us earlier
with http://news. added, but links don't work on Yahoo without the
http:// and all that.) There's also a link to other cases involving
alleged copyright violation, which might or might not be useful to
anyone with time to pursue the subject.

justia.com/cases/featured/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv09667/315790/

I didn't follow all the links, but it certainly looks as if all the
relevant documents are there. As for a complete transcript of the
testimony, I don't know. I didn't do a thorough site search.

Interestingly, the Lexicon is described as "an unauthorized compendium
of Harry Potter facts, plots, etc." Since "compendium" can mean either
a summary or abstract of a larger work )or field of knowledge) or a
list or a compilation (a document composed of materials from other
documents), the description seems fairly accurate. (If it were
authorized, even unofficially, like the Internet version, there
wouldn't be a lawsuit.)

So how much quoted material (properly cited) can an "unauthorized
compendium" contain? That's the question, and there's no clearcut
answer, either in the Fair Use Doctrine itself or in legal precedent.
I hope that the judge's decision makes the "gray area" a little less
gray (or opaque).

BTW, I read the Lexicon entries on Chinese Fireball, Sirius Black, and
Peeves (all specifically mentioned by JKR without finding a single
instance of either copyright violation or plagiarism. In fact, the
"Chinese Fireball" entry is merely a list of canon "facts"
(appearance, habitat, etc.) in the same format used for all the other
dragons. There's not the faintest hint of plagiarism, and the fact
that she invented it (It no longer exists solely in her imagination)
is irrelevant. The Sirius Black entry is also carefully put together,
and, unlike the Snape entry, is up to date except that a cross
reference still lists him as having been born in 1958 or '59 and
there's no reference to his appearance as a dead person summoned by
the Resurrection Stone in DH. There is, however, an extensive page of
quotations related to Black that JKR could reasonably ask Steve V. to
eliminate, condense, or incorporate into the article proper.
Similarly, the Peeves entry includes a rather large portion of
(properly cited) quoted material (compiled by someone named Lori
Damerell, not by Steve V. if it matters) which JKR could reasonably
request be eliminated, condensed or revised. At no point, however, is
there any actual plagiarism. Steve V. is not claiming JKR's work as
his own, and all quotations and paraphrases are properly attributed.

Carol, wishing that she could edit the Lexicon, request revisions from
Steve V., edit the revisions, and submit the revised work for JKR's
approval (with reasonable compensation, of course <smile>)