[cc-community] fan sites, fair use, and Harry Potter
Rich Vázquez
rich.vazquez at gmail.com
Sat Mar 1 10:08:21 EST 2008
In my opinion, Rowling has been an example of hyper copyright and
marketing. Secrecy is cool and was cool around the releases, but the
violations of her marketing plan were hardly the moral outrages she
portrayed each time.
For instance, rebuking people people for reviewing her book the same way
they review others in the same time cycle.
Not a direct fault of Rowling, but Canon was ready to identify their
customer.. seemed to be volunteering and preparing:
""From what we know, the device is one of the original Rebel cameras,
probably a 350D, and given that they've been out for three years, it's
likely the owner would have had it cleaned or repaired in that time.""
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2104250.ece
And finally:
Complaining about the lexicon, when she and warner brothers have referenced
it for profit:
""Warner Bros. has told Steve Vander Ark they're on our site every day,"
Rapoport said. "They've borrowed, without permission or credit, the Hogwarts
timeline, which isn't in the books, as a DVD extra. They've updated it in
between editions of the DVD, as the site's been updated, using word-for-word
language, down to our typographical errors.""
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1573306/20071101/id_0.jhtml
This information was in coverage back in November, but seems to be missing
now...
As we know via the writer's strike, up to now, studios didn't feel obligated
to compensate most folks for "promotional material" on their DVDs.
--
Rich
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Greg London <email at greglondon.com> wrote:
> Someone is commercially publishing an unauthorized encyclopedia of the
> Harry Potter universe. The interesting bit was that the publisher is
> arguing that since Rowling allowed free, fan-based websites, their efforts
> to sell a commercial book were justified.
>
> Rowling has been one of the most friendly authors as far as allowing fan
> based derivatives goes. It's a weird argument that the publisher is making
> though. If the courts actually upheld it, that would mean that CC-NC would
> also open authors up to unauthorized commercial derivatives of their
> works.
>
> I assume the courts aren't going to buy that one, but who knows.
>
> http://omg.yahoo.com/jk-rowling-bashes-harry-potter-lexicon/news/7070?nc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
--
--
Rich Vázquez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080301/ddbce371/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the cc-community
mailing list