That case and that book

[Carol]

Carol earlier:

> > 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. 

Nora replied: 
> Actually, I don't think it is.  I've read so much about this whole
thing that I can no longer remember anything to cite, but copyright
law does, IIRC, protect these kinds of 'fictional facts', where the
only source is from the copyrighted material.  That's the issue where
the Seinfeld trivia book got whacked.  I don't know whether the trivia
book quoted the facts in the exact wording which they appeared as
dialogue in the show--I'm guessing not--but they did lose that case.

Carol responds:
Ideas aren't copyrightable. Can you find a link to a discussion of
"fictional facts" that might be relevant? I'm pretty sure that the
issue is wording. (JKR, as you probably know, views the Lexicon as
being mostly her own words. I don't want to repeat points already
made, so I won't go into any more detail here. This thread is a new
one; a number of others explore the controversy in more detail, and
everything I say here presumes that the reader has read my previous
posts.)

Nora: 
> Another point that's come up, the massive amounts of work involved
in the Lexicon, are also, I think, irrelevant to copyright <snip>

Carol responds:
Yes. We've already discussed that, and I think we've come to a
consensus on that particular point. (The amount of work that JKR has
done is equally irrelevant.)

The four points involved in a Fair Use decision are listed in numerous
posts. Amount of work is, of course, not one of them.

Carol, hoping that Nora will provide links to those other cases (my
own links mostly involve copyright law in general)