|
My spin on this .... I read the court's decision and it is certainly correct with regard to limitations on the amount or the original work which may be used in the derivative work. If the Lexicon was mostly quotes of the original material with little or no new contribution in the sense of scholarly analysis, then it doesn't fall into the fair use exception. This is true regardless of what you may think about Rowling.
The court clearly didn't think the suit was "frivolous" (as I believe Mr. Card termed it), or it would have been dismissed on those grounds.
As for good old Dumbledore, I honestly don't care what JK Rowling thinks about him. Since she didn't write him as a clearly gay character, then I am not forced to perceive him as one simply because she said so at a press conference.
That's the wonderful thing about reading, you are allowed to use your own imagination to fill in back story. That's one of the reasons I don't pay much attention to "fan fiction" or to web sites devoted to a particular series of books. Those are all someone else's input ... and I prefer to stretch my own imagination, not to have someone else do it for me entirely. Not even the author. Once she completed the books, then, as far as I'm concerned, it's all up to me to fill in any holes. That's the beauty of fiction.
The author owns the literary rights to the characters as long as the copyright exists. But no one owns my imagination but me. In my imagination, Dumbledore is completely asexual .... since that's how I prefer my old and wise wizards.
And, I still am not seeing any reference to the Federal courts as "corrupt." I've really got to stop reading and re-reading that article looking for something that I'm just not seeing.
|