So are you saying that it's okay to write a song and name it "Burger King" or "Starbucks?" If you accidentally name your song after a business you've never heard of that might be one thing, but if you name your song "Waffle House" it's pretty clear you're trying to use their name to your advantage.
JK's the richest woman in England. Plus she's done with the Harry Potter series. I don't think needs the extra "advertising" someone putting out a lexicon of her book provides. If she wants to alienate her fans, that's fine with her, but it's certainly not stupid of her like you make it out to be. What does she have to lose?
She's not trying to destroy competition. If the authors of the guide would re-write it then she would be perfectly fine with it. The issue she has is that they're blatantly ripping off her work.
Go here and scroll to page 11 so you can see the pie chart of how much material is JK Rowling's as compared to how much actual writing was done for this book.
If you don't want to go there, here's a summary: 91.4% of the book's text is word for word JK Rowling's text, 3% of the book's text is citations or etymologies, and a whopping 5% of the book's text is the own author's work.
If I want to make my own dictionary, is it acceptable practice for me to take Webster's dictionary, pick every third word, cite a couple of them, then throw my name on it? Does that constitute fair use? My old high school english teachers would rip me a new one.
Wo-Ho
So are you saying that it's okay to write a song and name it "Burger King" or "Starbucks?" If you accidentally name your song after a business you've never heard of that might be one thing, but if you name your song "Waffle House" it's pretty clear you're trying to use their name to your advantage.
Re: Re: Other Mints
If you can tell me how to get $0.99 in four coins I will be impressed. :)
Google's not old enough to be president. It was born in the US, true, but it can't run for office for another 25 years or so.
Like she cares what you think
JK's the richest woman in England. Plus she's done with the Harry Potter series. I don't think needs the extra "advertising" someone putting out a lexicon of her book provides. If she wants to alienate her fans, that's fine with her, but it's certainly not stupid of her like you make it out to be. What does she have to lose?
She's not trying to destroy competition. If the authors of the guide would re-write it then she would be perfectly fine with it. The issue she has is that they're blatantly ripping off her work.
Go here and scroll to page 11 so you can see the pie chart of how much material is JK Rowling's as compared to how much actual writing was done for this book.
If you don't want to go there, here's a summary: 91.4% of the book's text is word for word JK Rowling's text, 3% of the book's text is citations or etymologies, and a whopping 5% of the book's text is the own author's work.
If I want to make my own dictionary, is it acceptable practice for me to take Webster's dictionary, pick every third word, cite a couple of them, then throw my name on it? Does that constitute fair use? My old high school english teachers would rip me a new one.
Wait...
So how did they decide to wait for the computers come back up again? Surely they didn't vote on it.