That case and that book

[nrenka]

(reposted to add relevant information in place of posting again)

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

<snip>

> "Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed
> himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual
> information conveyed in the work."

I think the problem here is that we're reading 'ideas' in a
significantly different way--and this is where Castle Rock is so very,
very relevant, because it says that the details of a piece of
fictional expression are protected. The Seinfeld Trivia book broke
the fictional facts of that world up--not quoting them directly, but
rendering them into a question and answer format--and was still ruled
to be violating. It's much easier and clearer to talk about 'ideas'
in the way that you'd like to when we're discussing literary analysis
and criticism, which often develop methods which scholars can then
derive for their work on material they were not originally developed
for. When you come to *fiction*, copyright is much stricter than
non-fiction.

The 'ideas' of Harry Potter would be the more nebulous things that we
could talk about thematically, such as the overall tropes of the plot,
themes, etc. The unique creations of JKR's world (such as the unique
aspects of creations from Fantastic Beasts, or the characters
discussed in Quidditch Throughout The Ages) are the particular way
that she has expressed herself, and as such are well defended. This
is why the phrasing in the trial was often like:

15 Q. My question to you is whether, isn't it true that over 90
16 percent of the Lexicon manuscript quotes or paraphrases
17 Ms. Rowling's work?
18 MR. HAMMER: He's already said that he doesn't know.
19 She's testifying now in the form of this question.
20 THE COURT: Objection sustained.

If there were a valid legal objection to 'quotes or paraphrases',
which are treated as co-equal there, Hammer would have raised that as
his objection against Cendali.

I found another interesting argument here:

http://wise-old-sage.blog-city.com/gaiman_joint_authorship_and_transformative_wo\
rks.htm

which notes on the whole derivative/transformational argument, which
is even more fundamental than the argument over paraphrase, etc.

Also, idly googling around (how did we ever live without Google?) I
found another interesting copyright case:

http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_williamsbroadus.html

where you again get "direct quotation or close paraphrase" treated as
equivalent issues.

Since I'm feeling generous with my linkage, here's the opinion on
Castle Rock:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/150_F3d_132.htm

I'm intrigued by this "fragmented similarity analysis" test and will
have to read more about it--that seems to be where the comparison
chart of FB and various entries:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2007cv096\
67/315790/36/13.html

would nail the defense.

Actually, let me add on here and quote the extremely, extremely
relevant bit from Castle Rock:

"As to Ringgold's qualitative component, each SAT trivia question is
based directly upon original, protectable expression in Seinfeld. As
noted by the district court, The SAT did not copy from Seinfeld
unprotected [p*139] facts, but, rather, creative expression. Cf.
Feist, 499 U.S. at 364 (finding no infringement where defendant
produced a multi-county phone directory, in part, by obtaining names
and phone numbers from plaintiffs' single-county directory). Unlike
the facts in a phone book, which "do not owe their origin to an act of
authorship," id. at 347, each "fact" tested by The SAT is in reality
fictitious expression created by Seinfeld's authors. The SAT does not
quiz such true facts as the identity of the actors in Seinfeld, the
number of days it takes to shoot an episode, the biographies of the
actors, the location of the Seinfeld set, etc. Rather, The SAT tests
whether the reader knows that the character Jerry places a Pez
dispenser on Elaine's leg during a piano recital, that Kramer enjoys
going to the airport because he's hypnotized by the baggage carousels,
and that Jerry, opining on how to identify a virgin, said "It's not
like spotting a toupee." Because these characters and events spring
from the imagination of Seinfeld's authors, The SAT plainly copies
copyrightable, creative expression."  [end quote--this is linked to above]

To me at least, you could replace that last sentence with "Because
these characters and events spring from the imagination of J. K.
Rowling, the Lexicon plainly copies copyrightable, creative
expression."  And note how it's phrased--it's not dependent on the
exact wording from Seinfeld, but rather on the description of the
events...paraphrase?

It's late, but I hope people will read through these documents. 
They're interesting.