(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	kelmendi 2008-09-12 05:03 am UTC (link)
	Dear Author's got some fail going on in their comments section. It is only somewhat mitigated by La Nora being her usual clever self. (Reply to this)(Thread)

hinoema
2008-09-12 07:53 am UTC (link)

Major cookies for Julia Sullivan.

"The effort wasn’t “by an individual”–the online Harry Potter Lexicon was a group fan endeavor, and Vander Ark wasn’t the only person who wrote content or edited the entries by any means...

The 10% of original material wasn’t even all his.

Everyone keeps overlooking the fact that Vander Ark wasn’t the only person who was responsible for the Harry Potter Lexicon website. The website was a group fan project with many contributors: Vander Ark was the editor and webmaster.

Stanford’s press releases, as well as the brief, keep repeating this fact (which is accurate): the online Lexicon was created by a large number of contributing fans, and Vander Ark coordinated that.

Which is why Rowling supported it: it was a group fan project.

But the planned RDR print version was playing on the fans’ contributions for the financial benefit of Vander Ark and the publisher. No financial benefit was to accrue to the fans, even in those cases where their work was contained in the manuscript (there was quite a bit of questioning about it in the trial, and Vander Ark suggested that he “might” offer compensation to some of the contributors whose work was used).

It’s not at all clear that Vander Ark owned the intellectual property rights to any of the material in the manuscript that was submitted in the litigation, actually."

Special thanks to Ryo Kyo for Getting the Fine Point.

"Most of all, as a fan (not especially of Rowling’s work but of other books and TV shows), I’m glad of the failure of the argument that Rowling allowing the not-for-profit Lexicon fan website to exist was tantamount to giving permission to any for-profit print version. If the judge had agreed with this argument, every internet fan site would immediately have to be shut down by show and book creators, or those creators would risk losing copyright protection for their creations."

WE HAVE A WINNAR!!!

Honestly, this entire person's entire position sounds like it could be summed up as 'I'm having a bad week and needed somehting to complain about and won't let it go because then I'll have to admit I jsut wanted an excuse to complain".

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	wook77 2008-09-15 07:02 am UTC (link)
	There's follow-up commentary too - here. Nothing from Jane as of a couple minutes ago. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -