Comments on: Intellectual Property – Carrot and Stick http://normanhollyn.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/intellectual-property-carrot-and-stick/ From NYC to USC, from Queens to Hollywood, this irregular blog will be about things I find that I also find interesting. Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:57:00 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: nick http://normanhollyn.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/intellectual-property-carrot-and-stick/#comment-1115 nick Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:22:13 +0000 http://normanhollyn.wordpress.com/?p=354#comment-1115 Art is fundamentally derivative and that is fine with me, but there is a (sometimes blurry) line that can be crossed over into outright co-option. When that line is crossed, it should be dealt with appropriately. Having said that, the JK Rowling suit referenced in the original article is outright wrong. A companion encyclopedia is pretty much by definition not a copy, it is a reference guide. Rowling was fine with, and even complimented the encyclopedic effort when it was available for free online. She objected when the author decided to sell it in book form. By her logic we could not have a reference or study guide on any copywritten work, which is simply bogus. Her suit has no merit. Art is fundamentally derivative and that is fine with me, but there is a (sometimes blurry) line that can be crossed over into outright co-option. When that line is crossed, it should be dealt with appropriately.

Having said that, the JK Rowling suit referenced in the original article is outright wrong. A companion encyclopedia is pretty much by definition not a copy, it is a reference guide. Rowling was fine with, and even complimented the encyclopedic effort when it was available for free online. She objected when the author decided to sell it in book form. By her logic we could not have a reference or study guide on any copywritten work, which is simply bogus. Her suit has no merit.

]]>