Harry Potter and the Lingering Legal Opinion
Fresh when it gets here from
Julie Barrett
Monday, September 8, 2008
Or something like that.
A judge has ruled in favor of J. K. Rowling in her suit to bar publication of The Harry Potter Lexicon. IP attorney C. E. Petit has an explanation of some points of the ruling in his blog.
I'm still in the "if you're going to make money off of it, you'd better get permission" camp. I'm no attorney (and I don't play one on TV), but it seems to me that the right thing to do is to get permissions and possibly make monetary arrangements with the copyright holder before producing a lexicon, concordance, A-Z reference, whatever. Commentary, IMO, is a different matter, but it's a slippery slope and I'd want my publisher's legal department to vet any book I happen to produce in that area.
Oh, wait. I did that.
Now, move your beverages FAR away from the keyboard before you see this. Scroll to the bottom.
And with that, I'm going to go retire to the living room to watch The Sarah Connor Chronicles.
Tags: Publishing, Legal
Filed under: Publishing Legal
Comments are closed
Karen Funk Blocher said:
Julie, I love ya, but that is a deeply silly asking price. But of course you know that.
Charles Petit doesn't quite seem to agree or disagree with the opinion itself, just explain the gist of what it means. But from what I know of fair use doctrine and what Petit reproduced of the judge's opinion, it sounds as though the guy and his publisher were well outside the bounds of fair use. And I like that Rowling wasn't happy about having to smack down a fan.
Date: 9/8/2008 9:34:57 PM
Date: 9/8/2008 9:34:57 PM
Julie said:
I can't help but wonder if someone is trying to take advantage of one-click shopping. Sorta like the "I Am Rich" app for the iPhone.
Yes, Petit just explained some of the points. If I somehow implied that he was endorsing or refuting the opinion, that was not my intention.
Date: 9/8/2008 10:01:54 PM
Date: 9/8/2008 10:01:54 PM
lisa said:
Steve Vander Ark even told the publishing company that if he wrote the book he could possibly be sued. He made the publisher promise to legally represent him if that happened.
(can't find the source right now, but I can if anyone wants it)
I am still middle of the road on this case. There are good points on both sides.
If anything good has come of it, JKR has gotten her butt in gear to write HER encyclopedia.
Date: 9/9/2008 11:13:41 AM
Date: 9/9/2008 11:13:41 AM
Karen Funk Blocher said:
Julie, I love ya, but that is a deeply silly asking price. But of course you know that.
Charles Petit doesn't quite seem to agree or disagree with the opinion itself, just explain the gist of what it means. But from what I know of fair use doctrine and what Petit reproduced of the judge's opinion, it sounds as though the guy and his publisher were well outside the bounds of fair use. And I like that Rowling wasn't happy about having to smack down a fan.
Date: 9/8/2008 9:34:57 PM
Date: 9/8/2008 9:34:57 PM
Julie said:
I can't help but wonder if someone is trying to take advantage of one-click shopping. Sorta like the "I Am Rich" app for the iPhone.
Yes, Petit just explained some of the points. If I somehow implied that he was endorsing or refuting the opinion, that was not my intention.
Date: 9/8/2008 10:01:54 PM
Date: 9/8/2008 10:01:54 PM
lisa said:
Steve Vander Ark even told the publishing company that if he wrote the book he could possibly be sued. He made the publisher promise to legally represent him if that happened.
(can't find the source right now, but I can if anyone wants it)
I am still middle of the road on this case. There are good points on both sides.
If anything good has come of it, JKR has gotten her butt in gear to write HER encyclopedia.
Date: 9/9/2008 11:13:41 AM
Date: 9/9/2008 11:13:41 AM
|