Quote:
Originally Posted by jplumey
Speaking as a fan of Rowling and the Harry Potter universe, I think she has every right to fight this, especially since she has made known for at least two years that she was planning on writing her own encyclopedia. In her shoes I would the exact same thing. Here's a guy that writes a book based completely on someone else's writing, without adding any of his own creative content, and then expects to be able to publish it without so much as asking for the author's approval. It doesn't matter that Rowling used the site on occasion; the site was well done and had her stamp of approval.
All I see here is the Lexicon author's greed. He obviously has no creative talent on his own so he strives to earn a buck of Rowling's.
These are her invented characters, names, and places. Had he actually gotten permission to write the book, and gone through the proper channels he may have gotten an endorsement.
Maybe if Mr. Cards books were as popular as hers he would be in the same position to have to defend his work!
|
It appears to me you aren't especially a fan of Orson Scott Card. Does that mean that if somebody were to make a similar lexicon about his books you'd support its author against Mr Card?
In such a case, whether or not one appreciates the work of the initial author should be irrelevant, the same way whether said author has become a millionaire because of her work or is penniless. That's not what this is about. What it's about is the extent of control that current laws give to copyrights' owners.