That case and that book

[nrenka]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:


> As an example, I offer the Wikipedia article on "Spoo" from the 
> Babylon 5 sci-fi series:

<snip>

> There is nothing original in the spoo article; every fact -- both 
> real world and fictional -- could be obtained elsewhere, if I were 
> willing to do all the research. I *could* sit down and wade through 
> the entire series for all references to spoo, or I could simply 
> consult the spoo article's list of spoo-referencing episodes.

<snip>

What a beautiful example of a derivative work that is. :)

It's certainly not analytical--I'd return it to one of my students
with a "where's your thesis?" note at the very top.  It may well be
*useful*, but I don't think it passes the transformation test, which
to my reading of the examples and cases, is somewhat more stringent
than it's often taken to be.  Campbell sez: "..."transformative,"
altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message." 
'Expression' is slippery here--is the compression of the text into one
place enough to count?  Because the meaning is certainly not changed.

Oh, that tricky phrase "any other form in which a work may be recast,
transformed or adapted."  The fact that anyone could do the Lexicon,
given the time and motivation, and have it come out substantially
similar, working on the principle of not adding anything of commentary
or personal bias...well, we'll see.

> And this also raises a question of infringement at Wikipedia. If the 
> "facts" cited in SVA's lexicon are (per Castle Rock) legally 
> protected and by that fact infringed, what about the spoo article? 
> Are not the spoo "facts" the property of the series' creator? Is 
> Wikipedia not infringing his copyright merely by retelling them?

Oh, I think Wikipedia frequently infringes.  But it's the prerogative
of a copyright holder to enforce copyright as he pleases, without
dilution of those rights, as copyright is not trademark.  You may
object that that's capricious, but it's the law as it stands. 

This is why the 'implied license' argument rightfully scares the crap
out of all of us who like fandom.  If RDR wins on that (unlikely),
it's nothing but motivation for creators to crack down on fan sites
they might otherwise let slide, as long as they're not profiteering.