The JKR/RDR/SVA case

[pegkerr]

If you said, "Huh?" after reading the title of this post, you are clearly not in the Harry Potter fandom and have no idea of the DRAMA going on in a New York courtroom this week, so feel free to skip.

I wrote about this case before. There are excellent commentaries over at praetorianguard's journal and chaeche's posts at fandom_lawyers.

I still can't believe that Steve did it. I considered myself friends with him back when we worked together on the HPEF Board of Directors. I just can't imagine what he was thinking. It's extremely painful to watch him destroy his relationship with someone he absolutely idolized because he was either a) inexplicably greedy and/or b) inexplicably stupid. I don't know which it is, but watching from afar, either alternative feels awful.

I hope and expect JKR to win this case. I don't know if and how Steve can pick up the pieces of his life again when it's over. (And that's not even the considering the possibility that praetorianguard raised that his erstwhile publisher RDR might turn around and sue him because of the irregularities in the indemnity clause in the contract.) He'd quit his job, and cut himself off by his own actions from the HP community he loved and reveled in.

Hubris indeed.

Comments

[puppetmaker40.livejournal.com]

From the US Copyright Office (and property there of) in regarding derivative works

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

Me again...
This is case does not impact Cliff notes or academic musings on the size of Harry's wand or anything of that nature. This is PLAGIARISM plain and simple. If he handed this into any academic institution, they would not publish it and if this was his master's thesis he would fail and get kicked out of the university with a letter of Reprimand attached to his transcript. This is not a derivative work.

[knitmeapony.livejournal.com]

I'm aware of the phrasing of the law; I just don't agree it's a derivative work. Tim Wu's my favorite article on the subject to date: http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/

(I'd be more explanatory myself, but I'm at work so linking to an expert is a bit easier).

I also think this is one of those moments where reasonable legal minds will disagree, and it entirely depends on where you want copyright law to go. I'm firmly in the creative commons / remix culture camp; I know a lot of people are in favor of deeper restrictions a la Disney. We'll have to see what the judge thinks/feels.