The judge apparently admits to being an ardent Potter fan. One would have to see the Lexicon text to judge whether "fair use" was violated.
Against Monopoly
defending the right to innovate
IP in the News
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
Rowling wins
JOHN ELIGON describes the close of the Harry Potter case link here. Author Rowling won. Eligon quotes the judge's ruling, "Plaintiffs have shown that the lexicon copies a sufficient quantity of the Harry Potter series to support a finding of substantial similarity between the Lexicon and Rowling's novels." The ruling blocks publication of a Harry Potter Lexicon written by Steven Jan Vander Ark. For details, see Ligons piece.
[Posted at 09/09/2008 07:31 PM by John Bennett on IP in the News 
comments(2)]
Comments
I really thought this was going to be a slam dunk for a positive harm, productive use fair use defense along the lines of the Publishing International Ltd. case of their guide to Beanie Babies. The fact that Rowling encourage the development of the web analogs of the lexicon without asserting a possible copyright to a derivative product would seem to have indicated that she wasn't interested in moving in this direction, mitigating the positive harm aspect, while actually promoting the productive use side of the infringement defense. Here's hoping Mr. Vander Ark appeals the decision.
[Comment at 09/10/2008 07:57 AM by Stephen Spear]
Stephen:
I too am surprised. In general, such lexicons are permitted. I guess Mr. Vander Ark must have copied sufficient portions of Rowling's books to cross a threshold between fair use and infringement. I wonder if Vander Ark will try again, using less material for Rowling's books, or whether he will throw in the towel, or appeal?
[Comment at 09/10/2008 08:15 AM by Lonnie E. Holder]
Submit Comment
Most Recent Comments
A Texas Tale of Intellectual Property Litigation (A Watering Hole Patent Trolls) Aunque suena insignificante, los números son alarmantes y nos demuestran que no es tan mínimo como
at 06/29/2022 08:48 AM by Abogado de Accidente de Carro en Huntington Park
at 11/27/2021 05:53 PM by Nobody
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:57 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:47 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:47 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:42 PM by Anonymous
at 01/06/2021 06:42 PM by Anonymous