I was watching some videos on MTV today only to find a new and quite useful article regarding the Lexicon trial between J.K. Rowling/Warner Brothers and RDR Books (our reaction podcast should be up by tomorrow evening). The article is a week old, but it's still quite handy, as it talks those of us who are not versed in the art of legal jargon through the issue of "fair use". When the trial wrapped up last week, it was still hazy who was in the right and who was in the wrong under the eyes of the law because of the vague "fair use" laws. So for all of those still confused, you can check out the article here.
It's unofficially a duel between the richest, most successful author in the world and a 50-year-old librarian, but the case of J.K Rowling v. RDR Books, now playing out in a federal court in New York, doesn't hinge on magical knowledge, superior weaponry or even powerful friends, but on a somewhat-complicated U.S. law known as the doctrine of fair use.
So what, exactly, is fair use, and why is Rowling arguing in court that "The Harry Potter Lexicon" breaks the guidelines established for it to work? And why can we quote liberally from "Harry Potter," at seeming random if I like ("Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!"), while Steve Vander Ark is being enjoined from doing what, at face value, appears to be the very same thing?
The answer lies in a piece of legislation only 30 years old and the four provisions it outlines as the foundation of fair use.
No comments:
Post a Comment