posted
Unfortunately for Ms. Rowling, information is not covered by copyright. Even information about things she made up.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering -- there are people in the comments of the linked article saying that the content is 90% from the books. But does that mean word-for-word or does it mean that it's information taken from the books?
It's like the difference between plagiarizing a term paper and writing one -- when you're in an introductory course, you're not likely to do original research or have new insights. A term paper may well just be a bunch of information distilled from journal articles and books, put into a form that the professor requests. But it's not plagiarism if you cite and quote properly.
So if there's nothing particularly original, but nothing copied either, is that violating copyright?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the KEY, the website is 90% ABOUT the books, but by no means is it 90% FROM the books.
Anyone who has been to the Lexicon and has looked around can see this. We are allowed to talk ABOUT and compile information ON these books and others, and that typically does not constitute Copyright violation.
I think they need to come up with a benevolent settlement on this. To do otherwise is going to cost millions in repeated appeals, and is going to cause a fracture and a lot of heartache for all concerned.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
