|
Hm. I'm quite familiar with the web version of the Lexicon. (In fact, an essay of mine appears in one of the other sections, not the A-Z index.) I don't think the claim that 91% of the content is quoted from the books will stand in court, sworn testimony or not. Many of the entries are for real-world place names, previously existing mythological beasts or artifacts, etc. Mentions of portions of the books are referenced by volume, and not by specific page, which is perhaps where the claim about incorrect citation comes from.
Nor do I think sales of the Lexicon would in any way impact sales of any future encyclopedia efforts Ms. Rowling would like to produce, as (by reputation) such a work would contain substantial material not revealed in the previously published books.
I like the Harry Potter series. But I think Ms. Rowling is a little bit controlling about it. I don't mean from a legal standpoint, but from an emotional one-- for example, she got very worked up when the final chapter of her book was posted online before the print date, and I don't think money was a big part of it. She seemed to need to control the book's release so that fans would have to wait for her (and her publisher's) timeline. I see this as the same sort of thing. She was fine with the Lexicon when it appeared online. There is no particular indication that the online version is going away or wouldn't continue to be freely accessible. As far as I can see, though, the work of creating the Lexicon was substantial and I have no problem with the author looking for a way to be compensated for that work.
And HarryT, she's apparently suing on the basis of copyright, not trademark, so I'm not sure your logic would hold here (though I know what you mean about the obligation to protect trademark).
|