This isn't about "internet fair use", it's about publishing a book where 90% of the material comes directly from J. K. Rowling.

And Vander Ark has done this before. He admits on the hp lexicon website to having sold a Star Trek: The Next Generation season 1 excyclopedia at convetions in the late 80s.

Also, Jo isn't contradictory. She told Steve he could have his website. Nobody involed with Harry Potter has sued any of the fan websites or fan fiction writers. She's even praised it.

She even told him he could write the book if he changed it enough so it was more original work. But with 90% of the book being direct quotes from JK's series, there isn't much original content.

The free flow of ideas is the reason ideas dont get protection. Only the expresion of an idea gets a copyright. The lexicon is not an idea for a novel it's an encyclopedia. The idea being different yet needing the original as does paordy makes
it fair use. To say otherwise stifle creativity and is an abuse of copyright.
TYhe idea/exporession dichotomy is how copyright reconciles itself with the 1st amendmemt, by saing copying just for the sake of copying is a valueless contribution tro society and does not "promote the progress of science and useful art" which is the primary purpose of the limited monopoly the constitution ask us to tolerate.
We need to stop the "this is mine" mentality and start think about sharing. Get rid of greed and we will all profit

Excuse the typoneze/

There is a pretty big difference between literary critique and repackaging and republishing someone else's work for profit. The issue at hand is how little orignal material is included in the Lexicon and how much profit Ark is expecting.

The problem here is that Mr. vander Ark would be selling his lexicon for money. This isn't the same as putting up a website that people can view for free.

If he wants to make money on a book, he should write his own, not recyle someone else's.

I don't think it's about sharing here. It's about someone trying to profit from someone else's work! Would you like for someone to arrive at the end of your workday and say, hey, I suggested you apply here, now give me x-percent of your paycheck? Let's keep this what it's about: protecting someone's work and preventing someone else to profit from it! :)
Why couldn't the guy asked her if she would be willing to cooperate on this project? Using her work to make money without her approval is definitley not the proper thing to do!
(He could have submitted a written proposal offering a percentage of the proceeds, ensuring she understands that all the work would be done by him categorizing material written by her!)

The Lexicon is, essentially, an encyclopedia. It organizes Rowling's work, makes it searchable, and offers definitions of terms, creatures, and spells, as well as giving timelines. As such, it's been a useful resource, and Rowling has, in fact, praised it and said she used it herself. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are perfectly legal, IMO. Mr. Vander Ark has said that he was doubtful about publishing a print version, but went ahead because fans asked him to.

There is no way the Lexicon, in print, would have harmed Rowling. It would have been better, I think, had she simply allowed it to proceed and then published her own encyclopedia, which would contain unique information. As far as the legality goes, the only issue that worries me is whether all the online contributers are getting credited and/or paid. If they are not, Mr. Vander Ark has a problem, because he's stealing their work. Otherwise, this is a tempest in a teapot, IMHO. Criticism and commentary are indeed fair use and all artists should expect such. If Ms. Rowling wins this case, it will have a wide-reaching chilling effect. I really think the case should have been settled and should never have come to trial.

The whole idea behind working is service to others. They reap the benefits of the work we as servants provide. So working is all about sharing with others the fruits of our labors. Copyright law comes from, a concept to provide an incentive to promote that and when that ios abused the it becomes a tool to distribut wealth in an unfair way to those who are greedy.

Again excuse the typos :)