Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Is that really this guy's real name - "Vander Ark"?
|
That's his surname. His first name is "Steve" (or more probably, "Stephen"). (We aren't descending to making fun of the names of the people involved in the case, are we?)
I suppose I could wade through the trial transcripts, but I'm still not seeing where this "90%" duplicate text figure is coming from, based on my perusal of the online version of the Lexicon.
I think what kicked off the business was the publisher's plan to use Rowling's comments about the website version of this content (which she praised highly) as a jacket endorsement for the book. That was apparently settled out of court. And I can see where Rowling can justifiably complain that her comments about a free fan site should not be construed as being endorsements of a commercial printing of the same content. There were some other issues also settled out of court, leaving this claim about content, which is apparently not being regarded as open-and-shut for either side.
Those who want an example of entries might look here:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/dumbledore.html (Dumbledore's entry) or here:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/bestiary/thestrals.html (Thestrals). Yes, I see some quotes-- and by APA standards, they aren't attributed correctly, as they have no page number, only the book number, but I don't know how they would have appeared in the print version. Most of the content in the entries seems to be original in the sense of being a summary, covered under critical review use. I would think if there were serious merit to a claim of copyright infringement, the site would have been issued a DMCA notice, but maybe that happened and I missed it.