It is such an outrageous assertion of copyright control, it makes me sick. And that an author would take the stand in support of such a bold-faced attempt at silencing scholarship for the sake of profit makes me even more sick
( ... )
interesting. you're much smarter about these things than i am, but wouldn't this be considered a derivative work? i mean, didn't gregory hamilton have to get permission from l. frank. baum before he published "wicked?"
i read the article and came away from it not thinking that she was being greedy at all. i mean, she created these characters, so why should someone else be making money off of it? maybe i'm just being naive.
he's not making money off the characters so much as off the work he's done analysing them (and the books in which they exist). it's no more a 'derivative' than The Spenser Encyclopedia or A Faulkner Encyclopedia or any number of other literary encyclopaedias, which are critical material and do not require authorial permission (not least b/c the authors are dead, of course).
again, the only distinction is that there is a possible popular market for this. no one gets rich writing a Shakespeare encyclopaedia (of which there are several), and nor are there movie studios involved trying to protect their 'branded content'. but someone might make a little money of this venture, so down the litigators swoop...
Well it doesn't sound like it's a book of 'literary criticism', just a lot of cobbled together quotes and facts about the Harry Potter world taken from her books with no other insight added. And she thinks it's rubbish and doesn't want her fans spending money on it. I don't see the problem at all. I'm sure she doesn't have a problem with 'Cliffs Notes On Harry Potter'.
Comments 11
Reply
Reply
i read the article and came away from it not thinking that she was being greedy at all. i mean, she created these characters, so why should someone else be making money off of it? maybe i'm just being naive.
Reply
again, the only distinction is that there is a possible popular market for this. no one gets rich writing a Shakespeare encyclopaedia (of which there are several), and nor are there movie studios involved trying to protect their 'branded content'. but someone might make a little money of this venture, so down the litigators swoop...
Reply
Reply
;)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment