Not quite sure what to make of this

[feliciakw]

Fandom and copyright are always a convoluted mix.

Does this cross a line?

Comments

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

I would say no. It's a reference work, which surely comes closer to an educational resource than to a derivative work. Copyright doesn't grant a creator the right to prevent others studying, discussing, analyzing, and writing *about* their works.

[kerravonsen]

I gather that the copyright thing is that most of the content is lifted word-for-word from the books, rather than any actual discussion or analysis going on.

[mistraltoes.livejournal.com]

That's just it, there aren't, as far as I can tell, any large sections of prose taken from Rowling's books. My recollection from reading earlier articles about the proposed book is that it's just a hardcopy version of the Lexicon--which, as far as I've browsed it, talks about the content of the books, but limits actual quotations to a pertinent line or two at the beginning of each topic. That seems to me as if it would fall within the legal limits for fair use in this type of book.

Mind you, I'm not supporting a fan profiting from Rowling's work. It's just that this kind of reference falls closer to academic use for me than it does to a derivative work. I've heard that U.S. publishers are already shying away from legitimate academic uses of quotations because they're afraid of the expense of groundless suits from the copyright holders. If there's an actual ruling on this in Rowling's favor, it may have a chilling affect on fair use, both in academia and in fandom. Neither of which I want to see.

[scionofgrace.livejournal.com]

I'm on the side of the Lexicon. I mean, we've got The History of Tolkien's Middle Earth For Dummies and The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion, so what's wrong with a printed unofficial Lexicon?