This isn't a come-on. I'm in a very serious relationship with a landscape architect.

Oliver ,'Conviction (1)'


Natter 58: Let's call Venezuela!  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


brenda m - Apr 15, 2008 3:48:50 am PDT #1814 of 10001
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

this may be difficult for her to do unless everything is a direct quotation from those book.

My understanding - and it's been a little while since I was following this - is that this is substantially the case.

In fact, I bellieve that the original intent was to include a bunch of original writing that had been posted to the website, and when those writers balked at being used without permission, it got stripped down to virtually only the quoted material.


Sparky1 - Apr 15, 2008 4:03:30 am PDT #1815 of 10001
Librarian Warlord

My understanding - and it's been a little while since I was following this - is that this is substantially the case.

Even so, courts have recognized substantial re-organization of material as creating a new (reference) work. Theoretically, even if every word was quoted material that still doesn't mean that it's not fair use.


Dana - Apr 15, 2008 4:06:33 am PDT #1816 of 10001
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.

WB claims that 90% of the Lexicon is quotation from Rowling's work.

It's interesting to hear y'all's perspective on it, because the segments of fandom that I'm familiar with are cheering for WB and JKR to drop an anvil on RDR's head.


hippocampus - Apr 15, 2008 4:09:50 am PDT #1817 of 10001
not your mom's socks.

It sounded from the NYT article that Rowling supported, or at least was positive about the website when it was in that form - in the same way she supports a lot of fan sites, but when they went to actively bind, publish, and sell the portion of the site as a book, that is when she grew concerned.

ION - comcast has gone full dada. they just gave me two automated options - both identical. Can one really call them options at that point?


amych - Apr 15, 2008 4:11:41 am PDT #1818 of 10001
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

the segments of fandom that I'm familiar with are cheering for WB and JKR to drop an anvil on RDR's head.

It's true, but I also wonder to what extent people are responding to the incredibly bad fan-etiquette. I mean, there are certainly people on either side of the question whose legal analysis I trust way more than mine, but a lot of the reaction I've seen seems to be to the incredible assiness (in a certain culture, that is) of "I'm going to take my fan website and publish it".


Dana - Apr 15, 2008 4:20:12 am PDT #1819 of 10001
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.

courts have recognized substantial re-organization of material as creating a new (reference) work. Theoretically, even if every word was quoted material that still doesn't mean that it's not fair use.

Can you provide examples of this? Because it doesn't make any sense to me.

I think there's also the fact that the Lexicon site was not only the work of Steve Vander Ark. I don't know how the site ran or what's happened to the contributions people made, but I do know that he didn't ask anyone for permission to use their work, and he didn't include them in his book contract.


Nutty - Apr 15, 2008 4:44:37 am PDT #1820 of 10001
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."

the segments of fandom that I'm familiar with are cheering for WB and JKR to drop an anvil on RDR's head.

I'll concur that a lot of the basic emotional reaction for this is the violation of "Thou shalt not profit," bolstered in this case by some incredibly ridiculous shenanigans on the part of the defendant-publisher.

The shenanigans alone tend to make me think that the defendant is probably in violation of some law, somehow, just because you don't pull shenanigans like that unless you're up the creek and flailing with your arms absent a paddle.


brenda m - Apr 15, 2008 4:48:02 am PDT #1821 of 10001
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

Yeah. I think in a lot of ways this is a very bad test case, since there were alarms screeching at about every step of the way on this. Hopefully that means that the outcome won't be too determinative, whichever way it goes.


Sparky1 - Apr 15, 2008 4:49:56 am PDT #1822 of 10001
Librarian Warlord

some incredibly ridiculous shenanigans

What shenanigans? I've read that they didn't ask permission, but that's part of the argument -- they didn't have to because they're not violating copyright.

Dana, theoretically, if you were to take the complex world of HP, and create a list of characters, who they were, who they were related to, etc. using only citations from the books, you could do that because the nature of the thing you're creating is so different than the HP volumes.

I think one of the things that makes fair use so incredibly difficult for everyone is that none of the factors that go into it are exclusive, and that makes it impossible to establish any bright lines.


hippocampus - Apr 15, 2008 4:53:44 am PDT #1823 of 10001
not your mom's socks.

hey NYistas - I'm headed up to Polytechnic University for a conference next Friday... anyone know how long that might take from Philly? Driving, not amtrak this time (though I love amtrak & dream about taking the PNW route).

I'm not sure what the schedule is yet (a little free-form, just coming up for the day) but if you're local, and coffee or tea is of interest, give me a yell.