National News
Viewing comments for:
Harry Potter Case Illustrates Blurry Line in Copyright Liability
National News • April 21, 2008
For a time, "Harry Potter'' superfan Steven Vander Ark seemed to be living a geeky dream.
His Web site — an obsessive catalog of spells, characters and creatures in J.K. Rowling's novels — was a ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: Is Rowling the only one affected? | Chuck | Apr 22, 2008, 6:27 pm |
| Is Rowling the only one affected? | KLS | Apr 22, 2008, 4:38 pm |
| RE: Dang muggles | Chuck | Apr 21, 2008, 6:51 pm |
| RE: Dang muggles | nancy | Apr 21, 2008, 5:00 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Enid Blyton | andy | Apr 21, 2008, 3:30 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Enid Blyton | Brianna | Apr 21, 2008, 3:24 pm |
| RE: RE: Enid Blyton | Joey | Apr 21, 2008, 3:08 pm |
| RE: RE: Enid Blyton | The Traveler | Apr 21, 2008, 3:01 pm |
| RE: Enid Blyton | Nobody Important | Apr 21, 2008, 2:23 pm |
| Enid Blyton | Elaine | Apr 21, 2008, 2:07 pm |
| RE: Dang muggles | matt | Apr 21, 2008, 11:57 am |
| Dang muggles | lastbat | Apr 21, 2008, 11:30 am |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: RE: Dang muggles
So let me get this right. Lexicons are OK under fair use. She has even used it as a reference herself in the past. She "plans" to write her own version, but has not. But somehow THIS lexicon is NOT OK?
Sad to see her take the RIAA/MPAA approach of bringing out the lawyers to sue the biggest fans.... just sad. Don't you have enough money already, Rowling?
JK Rowling is a BILLIONAIRE. I find it hard to see how a little-known "lexicon" will hurt her financially. This case Stinks of Greed.