Phil (and others). Wasn't there a case recently where a guy made an "Encyclopedia" of the Harry Potter universe ? And then Rowling sued him? Or something like that. I vaguely remember it. Will
In a message dated 9/20/2008 9:29:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
Which is to say that the "transformative" aspect of fair use is a very, very important one.
**************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001)
On 2008.09.20 14:27:29 -0400, WJhonson@aol.com scribbled 0.6K characters:
Phil (and others). Wasn't there a case recently where a guy made an "Encyclopedia" of the Harry Potter universe ? And then Rowling sued him? Or something like that. I vaguely remember it. Will
Yes, the case recently ended. I read the judge's decision. It was interesting, but more or less irrelevant to Wikipedia: Vanderark was fined the statutory minimum, and he only got that much because he quoted quite a bit from Rowling, and didn't even quote a lot of his quoting. Further, the judge was less than impressed by how much context and analysis he did. Further aggravating factors were the commercial nature of the encyclopedia, missteps in promotion of it, and less than good-est faith on their part.
So if anyone is seriously worried that we, or the Harry Potter Wikia, might be next - that's just copyright paranoia. Neither meet the judge's points in multiple ways.
-- gwern ICE K3 Magazine Templar CRA 669 covert UOP 737 terrorism
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
So if anyone is seriously worried that we, or the Harry Potter Wikia, might be next - that's just copyright paranoia.
Forget copyright law, I never understood how Harry Potter Wikia isn't an obvious trademark violation. But I guess it isn't?
On Sep 20, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
On 2008.09.20 14:27:29 -0400, WJhonson@aol.com scribbled 0.6K characters:
Phil (and others). Wasn't there a case recently where a guy made an "Encyclopedia" of the Harry Potter universe ? And then Rowling sued him? Or something like that. I vaguely remember it. Will
Yes, the case recently ended. I read the judge's decision. It was interesting, but more or less irrelevant to Wikipedia: Vanderark was fined the statutory minimum, and he only got that much because he quoted quite a bit from Rowling, and didn't even quote a lot of his quoting. Further, the judge was less than impressed by how much context and analysis he did. Further aggravating factors were the commercial nature of the encyclopedia, missteps in promotion of it, and less than good-est faith on their part.
So if anyone is seriously worried that we, or the Harry Potter Wikia, might be next - that's just copyright paranoia. Neither meet the judge's points in multiple ways.
Though this is one of the major reasons we need to deal with fictional works primarily from an out-of-universe perspective, yes, this just about sums it up.
Honestly, the main reason a lot of our plot summaries need trimming is that they're too detailed to follow easily, not that they're copyright problems.
-Phil
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 2:27 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Phil (and others). Wasn't there a case recently where a guy made an "Encyclopedia" of the Harry Potter universe ? And then Rowling sued him? Or something like that. I vaguely remember it. Will