Leave a comment

Comments 6

norton_gale November 1 2007, 21:43:02 UTC
Got a link to the complaint? I searched the SDNY docket today on PACER and couldn't find it.

Reply

rubymiene November 1 2007, 23:39:10 UTC
Nope. Alas, I have no access to PACER.

Reply

norton_gale November 3 2007, 03:28:05 UTC

violet_quill November 1 2007, 21:57:45 UTC
I actually just did a rather extensive analysis of this after picking the brain of a copyright prof:

http://violet-quill.livejournal.com/350720.html

It's actually really fascinating. :) (Er, the issues, not my analysis. LOL.)

Reply


cdaae November 3 2007, 15:07:30 UTC
This is the bit that gets me...

It also cites the "lengthy plot summaries and detailed descriptions" of characters.
"These descriptions, character details and plot points comprise stories created and owned by Ms. Rowling, who has the sole right to control their distribution and who did not give permission to the Defendant to publish a book that stands to make millions of dollars off the back of Ms. Rowling's creativity."

Surely so long as the descriptions, summaries, etc, are put in one's own words, rather than copied en mass from the books, they are not infringing anything?

Reply

rubymiene November 5 2007, 06:09:18 UTC
One hopes the judge will see it that way, but it falls under the fair use analysis. There's bad case law stating that 'fictional facts' don't count as 'facts' under copyright law, thus 'fictional facts' can be copyrighted. Seinfield managed to stop a trivia book.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up