That case and that book

[nrenka]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:


> Carol responds:
> 
> As far as I can see, the paraphrases are perfectly legitimate, not
> coming close enough to JKR's original wording to constitute 
> plagiarism or copyright infringement.

See, this is where I think we're hitting loggerheads.  I believe, per
Castle Rock and other decisions, that copyright does not apply only to
the exact specific wording--it's the right to the work as a body, not
only to the exact phrasing.  You can paraphrase and still commit
copyright violation.  I'll be shocked and eat my crow if the ruling
doesn't note that.

Yes.  Paraphrase can violate copyright.  Copyright violation does not
care whether you quote directly or paraphrase.  It's the taking and
the using that matters.
 
> For crying out loud, JKR! Have you never heard of the term
> "paraphrase"? Just ask him to indicate that these creatures, for
> example, the Fwooper, are your inventions and are mentioned only in 
> FB (which he does cite as his source!). That should solve the 
> problem nicely, without all the ughliness of a lawsuit. 

And that's the other problem.  Proper citation is not a Get Out of
Jail Free card for copyright violation--you can cite everything
properly and still violate copyright and the four factor Fair Use
test, depending on how much you take for what you're doing with it.