4 ms·
"So that means Rowling has no control over her fantasy universe, even when it's just reflecting what she wrote?" That is right, and it's by design, as long as
by decode 18y ago
"So that means Rowling has no control over her fantasy universe, even when it's just reflecting what she wrote?"
That is right, and it's by design, as long as you're talking about the concepts and ideas of her universe and not their specific expressions. But again, as I said, it's not clear where the line between idea and expression lies with particular parts of a work of fiction.
The free exchange of ideas is essential to the working of a free society. I can't imagine that much good would come of making the distribution of all ideas subject to the will of the people that came up with them.
- unalone 18y agoI guess it depends what you mean by "concepts and ideas", then. For me, the encyclopedia would cross a line, because it's talking about the plot and the characters using excerpts directly from the series, but "The Bible According To Harry Potter" is an original creative piece that Rowling shouldn't have veto power over.
- fatdog789 18y agoThat's wrong. Fictional facts are considered expressions, not ideas (See the James Bond and Seinfield cases). JK can control any fictional facts from her work, like Hogwarts, or the characters. She can't control the underlying ideas, such as a wizard school, or an orphan boy hero.
- decode 18y ago"Fictional facts are considered expressions, not ideas" My understanding is that fictional facts must stand the tests of originality and specificity. Neither unoriginal ideas, nor vague characters/settings have copyright protection. I believe that exactly when a character or setting becomes original and specific enough for protection has been interpreted in different ways by different courts.