Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The issue at the centre of the case is that Ms. Rowling, as an author, has an exclusive right to commercially exploit her work. She was willing to turn a blind eye to the freely-accessible web site (as she was perfectly entitled to do) but not to see a book commercially published which violated her copyright and which would have inevitably damaged sales of a book she was intending to write herself.
Please do read the judgement, Axel, if you haven't already done so.
|
Perhaps you should read it a little more carefully yourself:
Quote:
|
Notwithstanding Rowling’s public statements of her intention to publish her own encyclopedia, the market for reference guides to the Harry Potter works is not exclusively hers to exploit or license, no matter the commercial success attributable to the popularity of the original works. [...] The market for reference guides does not become derivative simply because the copyright holder seeks to produce or license one.
|
(emphasis mine)