That case and that book

[Carol]

Lee (CJ) wrote:
> As I read the Castle Rock decision, the court seems to have given
far more weight to the transformational argument than it did to its
point about protection of fictional facts. <snip>
> 
> "We have stated that 'substantial similarity' requires that the
copying [be] quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to support
the legal conclusion that infringement (actionable copying) has
occurred. The qualitative component concerns the copying of
expression, rather than ideas[, facts, works in the public domain, or
any other non-protectable elements] . . . . The quantitative component
generally concerns the amount of the copyrighted work that is
copied...."  <snip>

Carol responds:

Right. The *amount" of copying, which varies from work to work, and
the kind of copying matter. "Actionable copying" involves
"expression," not ideas.

Lee (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." <snip>

Carol responds:

Right again. "Transformative *purpose*." The Seinfeld trivia book had
the same purpose as the as the TV show. In contrast, the Lexicon (in
whatever form) is intended to supplement JKR's works and inform, not
entertain, the reader.

So, I agree with you. The Castle Rock decision is not relevant to JKR
vs. RDR.

Carol, hoping that the Lexicon case will provide a precedent
supporting or expanding fair use