That case and that book

[Carol]

Carol earlier:
> > Ideas aren't copyrightable. Can you find a link to a discussion of
"fictional facts" that might be relevant?
> 
> Linked right here:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36126

Carol:

Thanks for the link. But, as Lee has already argued, a book of
Seinfeld trivia, which depends *entirely* on the TV show Seinfeld for
its existence, with the only new material being wrong answers, is
completely different from an encyclopedia or Lexicon both in its
nature and its usefulness. The trivia game was intended as
entertainment and was regarded as impinging on the TV show itself,
which is also a form of entertainment. (I'm not sure that I agree with
the reasoning in the decision, though I do agree that it's copyright
infringement.) But the Lexicon supplements and to some degree
clarifies the HP books (and certainly provides a handy reference when
you can't remember the chapter in which a particular incident
occurs!). It's intended to inform, not entertain, so it doesn't really
compete with the HP books themselves. (Unlike Cliff's Notes and
similar works, which are clearly derivative and need to be authorized,
the Lexicon can't substitute for a reading of the HP books. It would
only confuse, or perhaps arouse the curiosity of, a nonreader of the
HP books, who would have only the vaguest idea of the conflicts and
incidents and relationships in the books.) Nor, as I've argued in
another post, do I think that it impinges on or substitutes for JKR's
unwritten encyclopedia, as she is arguing. 

Carol earlier: 
> > I'm pretty sure that the issue is wording. 

Mora 
> The issue is partly wording, but not only.  Of course, the
discussion of fictional facts there has to be taken with the rest of
the four factor analysis, etc. etc. <snip>

Carol responds:
The pie chart is about words, as I understand it. JKR is claiming that
the "work" is entirely hers because the Lexicon is mostly her own
words or very close and unacknowledged paraphrases.

The four factors (listed elsewhere) say nothing about "fictional
facts," nor is such a concept mentioned in the fair use doctrine.

As far as ideas are concerned, let me quote once again from "The MLA
Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing," second edition (MLA
being the Modern Language Association):

"Like verbatim copying, close paraphrasing of protected expression can
constitute copyright infringement if the borrowing does not meet the
criteria for fair use. *The ideas contained in a work*, though, in
contrast to the original expression, *may be freely used without risk
of copyright infringement*" (21.1.13, p. 44).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36039

Carol:
Granted, use of someone else's ideas without citing your source is
plagiarism, but that's not the same thing as copyright infringement.
 
As for "fictional facts," the use to which they are put matters. Steve
V. isn't trying to entertain his readers (one or two semi-humorous
asides, which JKR seems to object to, notwithstanding), nor is he
parading those "fictional facts" as his own creations or using them in
a book that claims to be a real Harry Potter book, as authors all over
China are doing. He is simply compiling information about them in a
systematic way, and, where necessary (as with the characters as
opposed to the "Fantastic Beasts"), adding summary or analysis, along
with perhaps too many verbatim quotes.

Carol, apologizing for going over old ground but believing that
copyright law and the Fair Use Doctrine are the heart of the matter