JK Rowling and Intellectual Property
Just a synopsis of the legal analysis I was going to do regarding the WB vs RDR case involving the Lexicon website publishing a book. Of course, this is just another sojourn into 'not studying land", :-) Plus I have not read all of the arguments yet, because "doh" I am supposed to be studying. So my thoughts are not supported by any research as of yet. Have I bored you to tears yet with the disclaimer? "yawn"
I think that JK Rowling has left herself open for these types of arguments because she did not shut down the use of her material from the very beginning. It is my understanding that RDR is using a Fair Use defense, arguing that Jo has allowed websites to publish this by internet and therefore Jo should be "estopped" (really cool legal term that means "stopped". Riiiight, and you thought law was hard, tee hee) from not allowing the website to be published.
Jo argues that the websites were not benefiting economically from her work product and therefore she did not want to stop them from disseminating freely her work to others that may not have the capacity to get the information otherwise, i.e. movies, fan sites. She also argues that the books published have been scholarly endeavors that have analyzed and critiqued her books i.e. John Granger, got to love his work.
I would put forth that websites and fansites will suffer if RDR wins this case as JK Rowling will have to pursue her rights to stop any other parties from publishing which amounts to her direct work product rearranged. Which could mean policing sites and asking for things to be removed. This type of ruling could definitely stop any new authors from allowing the amount of free access to information that Jo has allowed if they think that they will lose their rights by doing so.
When I get done with the bar next week, I will start looking into what is really being argued and the possible implications for any future actions for copyrighted authors materials. Or in other words, to determine if my legal analysis of short blurbs really just effing sucks.
[Hey Ange, I got to use semin and anal in this post, roflmfao, I has been a good girl yes I has]
I think that JK Rowling has left herself open for these types of arguments because she did not shut down the use of her material from the very beginning. It is my understanding that RDR is using a Fair Use defense, arguing that Jo has allowed websites to publish this by internet and therefore Jo should be "estopped" (really cool legal term that means "stopped". Riiiight, and you thought law was hard, tee hee) from not allowing the website to be published.
Jo argues that the websites were not benefiting economically from her work product and therefore she did not want to stop them from disseminating freely her work to others that may not have the capacity to get the information otherwise, i.e. movies, fan sites. She also argues that the books published have been scholarly endeavors that have analyzed and critiqued her books i.e. John Granger, got to love his work.
I would put forth that websites and fansites will suffer if RDR wins this case as JK Rowling will have to pursue her rights to stop any other parties from publishing which amounts to her direct work product rearranged. Which could mean policing sites and asking for things to be removed. This type of ruling could definitely stop any new authors from allowing the amount of free access to information that Jo has allowed if they think that they will lose their rights by doing so.
When I get done with the bar next week, I will start looking into what is really being argued and the possible implications for any future actions for copyrighted authors materials. Or in other words, to determine if my legal analysis of short blurbs really just effing sucks.
[Hey Ange, I got to use semin and anal in this post, roflmfao, I has been a good girl yes I has]