Thoughts from a different perspective

[Carol]

Alla wrote:
<snip>
> I do not want to quote too much, but I just have to quote this,
whole thing as you know is up on Leaky here.
><snip>
> "Just two years before this case was filed, Mr. Vander Ark was
approached by two fans asking, as the e-mail on the screen indicates,
whether they could publish or it might be possible to publish the
Lexicon Web site in book form.  
> And Mr. Vander Ark said "as editor of the Lexicon, I get mail every
   so often from fans asking me to publish the Lexicon in book form so
I've dealt with this question before.  
> Basically, it is illegal to sell a book like that.  Jo has reserved
all publishing rights to her intellectual property.  Which means     
              
she is the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or      
  encyclopedia to her world.  And since we're fans and supporters of
Jo, we wouldn't do anything that would violate her rights, even if we
could get away with it."
  
> Oh as far as I am concerned this speaks for itself indeed. No, of 
course it does not determine any liability, but boy it speaks volumes
to me as to whether Steve knew what he was doing. <snip>

Carol responds:
 
I disagree. Certainly, it shows that he changed his opinion as to
whether publishing the Lexicon was legal, but I don't agree that it
shows that he knew what he was doing. In fact, it's clear as day from
this quotation that Steve at the time had no idea of what was and was
not protected by copyright. Nowhere in copyright law are we told that
 "a guide and encyclopedia to her world" can only be published by the
author of the original work. Only the author can *authorize* such a
work, but that's not the same as "publishing" it (steve's word) or
writing it herself. And the whole point of the Fair Use Doctrine is to
protect *un*authorized works. 

Clearly, Steve V. should have informed himself regarding fair use and
copyright law before making any such statement. And his ignorance of
the law and the doctrine also enabled RDR to persuade him that he was
wrong in the first place.

I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I'm not at all sure
that the Lexicon (with the exception of a few passages and entries)
violates the law. Much of it seems to fall under fair use; other
portions fall into a gray area not covered by the existing wording of
the law.

Knew what he was doing? I don't think so. He was afraid that he would
be violating th4e law (JKR's "intellectual rights" being apparently
boundless in his original view) and was talked out of it by RDR, who,
he thought, knew more than he did about the matter. (Whether they did
or not is beside the point.)

The Lexicon may not violate JKR's intellectual rights at all, or only
on a small scale in some places. The idea that a guide or encyclopedia
not authorized by the author violates copyright in and of itself is
simply mistaken. No such provision exists.

An author's rights to her intellectual property are *not* absolute.
The Fair Use Doctrine exists to allow uses of that work, including
quoting and copying, within certain guidelines, to protect the rights
of those who wish to write *about* the work.

It's just a shame that Steve V. didn't know his own rights and his own
limitations when he made that statement. Now he appears to be a liar
and a hypocrite when he was incorrect in the first place.

Carol, hoping that Steve's mistakes, failing to inform himself and
trusting RDR without first checking with a copyright lawyer, don't
cost him and other writers of fan guides too dearly