That case and that book

[nrenka]

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

Okay, I'll be heroic and try to explain this all, although I bet it's
been covered before.

> Doddie again:
> 
> I only mean that there have been others, with websites who have 
> published books based upon JKR's text with their opinions, 
> characters, settings and predictions listed...was it only said 
> books "flawed" predictions that allowed them to be printed, or 
> perhaps the college professor's books published who taught/teach HP 
> classes that also require the purchase of the entire series in 
> addition to their coursework?!? 

It's because these books were primarily things like opinions and
analysis, where JKR's works and characters and plots were cited, but
then the bulk of the text of the book was analysis, conjecture,
discussion.  That's perfectly allowable, as long as you don't take
more than what you need from the original.  This is one thing that
Fair Use protects, the right to engage in analysis of works that the
author might not approve of or agree with.

Emily Blumsack's declaration here discusses many of the other books
which the defense cited, and explains the plaintiff's reasoning for
why those were okay.  

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/blumsackfeb27.pdf

<snip>

> In the U.S. no challenge=legal precedent.  (hence the plaintiffs in 
> said current copright suit did not file complaints against the 
> website in any civil court action..or, if they did...some sort of 
> agreement was met that did not include book publishing at the time, 
> otherwise, there would be no current case.

You will also notice that there are things listed that were *not*
okay, and action was taken/things worked out.

In addition, copyright does not work on the principle that trademark
does, where if you do not vigorously defend your rights to the
trademark than you lose them.

> DD,
> (--who really doesn't understand why they'd allow the website all 
> these years, yet not a book based predominantly upon a previously 
> web-based publication.)

The website was a collective fanwork and not for profit; the book is a
commercial venture.  It took a while to even figure out what exactly
from the website was going to BE in the book, thanks to RDR's
confusing statements (and the comment to JKR's people to "just hit
print".)  I can tell you a lot of people who had contributed essays to
the website were not amused by the idea that they would be included in
the book, without having been asked.

The copyright holder has the prerogative to pursue charges of
copyright violation or to let them fly--I'm unsure about how much
consistency is required.  But there is a history here of going after
publications which they considered violating--and letting many others
go by.  David Langford, who did "The End of Harry Potter?", made
comments that CLLA was all "sweetness and light" to work with:

http://news.ansible.co.uk/a248.html

"That J.K. Rowling/Warner Bros lawsuit against RDR Books, prospective
publishers of a condensed print version of Steve Vander Ark's Harry
Potter Lexicon website, chugs on remorselessly. Even my name was
bandied in the legal filings, with RDR citing my own HP exegesis as
one of six works which didn't get sued despite 'especially striking
similarities to the Lexicon in both format and content'. I can't see
the likeness myself, and neither can JKR/WB, whose counter-filing
agrees that the Langford epic wasn't marketed as 'an encyclopedia or
guide'. I also heard from RDR, asking how I got away with it -- that
is, whether JKR/WB had been horrid to me. In fact, once Gollancz had
let the author's agents see early proofs, all was sweetness and light."

I hope this is helpful.