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.

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?

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hence my preference for driving - even if I wind up stuck on the Beltway for an hour, if I'm driving I at least feel some sense of control over the situation.

Dream on.

they just gave me two automated options - both identical. Can one really call them options at that point?

This reminds me of Pat Oliphant cartoon about a country that was having "elections," but the current dictator was the only name on the ballot. People are looking at a campaign poster and his little bird character is saying, "One man, one vote. What could be more democratic that that?"

you could do that because the nature of the thing you're creating is so different than the HP volumes.

So in your opinion, that qualifies as sufficiently transformative to fall under fair use? Even using direct quotations from the books? (And I don't mean to shine the bright spotlight on you -- I know it's complicated.)

What shenanigans?

Both the author and publisher are, what is the word -- skeevy.