HP Lexicon: Analyzing the Pre-Trial Statements
Bluestocking has written a careful and detailed analysis of the Pre-Trial documents in the HP Lexicon case. All of it is great, but be sure you read her final paragraph about the flurry of filings over the past few days and the deluge of exhibits from WB. Attorney David Hammer filed a "Motion in Limine" to the court for those new exhibits to be rejected. In Filing 82 Hammer calls it "sandbagging" the court with too much late evidence.
"WB/JKR v. RDR Books: Pre-Trial Shenanigans"
Now Added: Bluestocking's analysis of David Hammer and Dale Cendali:
The Hammer Strikes Back: I Hope Cendali is Ready!
Also, she writes that anyone who would like to ask a question about the case may do so on her blog. Or if it is easier, post the question here, and she can write the answer wherever she likes.
I just want to post three of Bluestocking's points here, in reference to WB/JKR's case, because these are being endlessly debated and I believe people are missing these points.
WB: amount and substantiality of the portion used- the facts are taken and organized without commentary or analysis.
Fails to take into consideration that Copyright only protects the expression of the ideas not the ideas themselves.
WB: market effect- Ms. Rowling intends to fill the niche for an encyclopedia (Scottish Book).
Fails to take into consideration that the First Amendment is interested in the “Market place of Ideas” which is not served if only one person JK Rowling is allowed to interpret Harry Potter.
WB: Bad faith- SVA tried to publish this book clandestinely.
Fails to consider that the original copyright holder does not control the creation of secondary works which the Lexicon probably falls under.
If there are any updates tonight, I'll add those to this post.
"WB/JKR v. RDR Books: Pre-Trial Shenanigans"
Now Added: Bluestocking's analysis of David Hammer and Dale Cendali:
The Hammer Strikes Back: I Hope Cendali is Ready!
Also, she writes that anyone who would like to ask a question about the case may do so on her blog. Or if it is easier, post the question here, and she can write the answer wherever she likes.
I just want to post three of Bluestocking's points here, in reference to WB/JKR's case, because these are being endlessly debated and I believe people are missing these points.
WB: amount and substantiality of the portion used- the facts are taken and organized without commentary or analysis.
Fails to take into consideration that Copyright only protects the expression of the ideas not the ideas themselves.
WB: market effect- Ms. Rowling intends to fill the niche for an encyclopedia (Scottish Book).
Fails to take into consideration that the First Amendment is interested in the “Market place of Ideas” which is not served if only one person JK Rowling is allowed to interpret Harry Potter.
WB: Bad faith- SVA tried to publish this book clandestinely.
Fails to consider that the original copyright holder does not control the creation of secondary works which the Lexicon probably falls under.
If there are any updates tonight, I'll add those to this post.