Quote:
Originally Posted by radleyp
The publisher indemnified Vander Ark (something which is indeed unusual) because, we must conclude, it was certain it would prevail in any infringement litigation such as this one. Moreover, the publisher was under no obligation to provide Rowling and Warner's with an advance copy - such a demand seems to me a warning that they would sue if the book were published. This is the now familiar fight over publications on books created by living authors but not "authorized" by them! I am not sure who looks better in the matter. It will be interesting to see where the court comes out.
|
If they were so certain that there was no infringement, why did they stall in providing the copy? Not to mention flat-out lying about why they were not providing the copy; if they were on such firm ground, not just say, "No, we don't have to provide a copy, so there" instead of whining about the dead brother-in-law? And certainly a copyright holder has the right to examine a possibly infringing work. My understanding is that in past cases of similar Potter companions, where an infringement occurred, the publisher and author were given the opportunity to make corrections and rewrites prior to publication.
My point is that the whole thing could very likely have been worked out without a trial--and the book been published in some form--had the publisher cooperated.
And as a friend continually points out to me: the sole reason for businesses to exist is to make money. Of course RDR and WB are out to make money. They are businesses.