That case and that book

[sistermagpie]

CJ:
> The court rejects the transformative argument in the Seinfeld case 
on 
> the grounds that the *purposes* were pretty much the same:
> 
> "The court rejected defendant's arguments holding that any 
> transformative purpose posed by the book was slight or non-
existent. It 
> concluded that the purpose of the book was to entertain the 
Seinfeld 
> audience with a book about Seinfeld, much the same purpose as the 
> television show."
> 
> It was this lack of sufficient transformative qualities, not the 
point 
> about the protectable status of "fictional facts", that underlay 
the 
> court's reasoning on the other tests:

Magpie:
I constantly feel totally unable to feel like I really get or can 
argue any of the legal distinctions here. (Maybe I should have gone 
to law school like I thought about for ten minutes there in 
college...) But can someone tell me if I'm right in thinking that 
basically this is exactly what JKR believes can be said about the 
Lexicon's book? That essentially it is like reading the SAT in that 
the point of the SAT was that the entertainment value lay in knowing 
the facts, just like in the Lexicon? Like, that an entry about a 
fantastic creature is entertainment the same way her FB book is--the 
fun lying in her creation, the fictional facts? So even without her 
better writing style it's the facts themselves that are entertaining 
(as with the SAT)?

-m