Dear Author: Romance Novel Reviews, Industry News, and Commentary

What might be one of the most important copyright decisions since Sony v. Universal Studios is the case against Google for scanning books. I’m guessing that Google is operating under the belief that the scanning of the books and then offering portions of it in digital format for searchers is transformative enough to escape copyright infringement.

Google’s position has been enhanced recently by the public statements of the University of Michigan’s head librarian, Paul Courant. Mr. Courant recently posted a response to a query by Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor at the University of Virginia, regarding the legalities of Michigan’s participation with Google.

Vaidhyanathan calls it “audacious infringement of copyright.”

Courant responds:
“I must say that I am troubled that the author of a very sensible book about copyright is so enthusiastic about trashing Google that he is willing to give up on the uses, notably scholarly uses, that are permitted in the higher-numbered sections of the Copyright Act,” writes Courant. “As my institution’s copyright lawyer says: ‘FAIR USE, it’s the law.’ And my institution believes that when we have Google digitize our holdings we do so under the law and in order to make uses that are not only lawful, but …

Earlier this year, the copyright/plagiarism suit brought by Stuart Silverstein went to trial. Yesterday, the trial judge found in favor of Penguin (pdf link to ruling) and against the author holding that there simply wasn’t any creativity in the work that Silverstein compiled since ALL of the uncollected poems were included in his work, rather than some selection.

The same judge had originally found in favor of Silverstein in 2003 but when ordered by the reviewing court (the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals) to determine “whether Silverstein is entitled to any protection for his selection of uncollected poems, or whether he in fact simply published as many as he could find”, the trial court reversed his earlier finding.

I can’t help but wonder if this same opinion can be used as a shield against J.K. Rowling’s suit against the publishers of the impending book from the Harry Potter Lexicon website.

The great thing about being a children’s celebrity is that you can act like a jerk and the majority of your fans aren’t going to be the least bit aware. Rowlings non stop attempts to prevent anyone from doing anything that remotely resembles her work is becoming tiresome.

Last month, news of JK Rowling’s lawsuit against a organisers of a religious event in India based on a lifesize replica of Hogwarts Castle hit the news wire. This month, its a suit against RDR Books, a Michigan based publisher, who is set to publish a book based on information culled from the Harry Potter Lexicon. The Harry Potter Lexicon is a fansite established by former middle grade librarian, Steve Vander Ark. The site contains thousands of pages of information including plot summaries, news, essays, message boards, character and object listings, detailed quotations from interviews that provide backstory to the world of Harry Potter. The information is categorized and indexed making all of the factoids related to Potter easy to find.

These type of fan sites help to create and foster excitement about the series, particularly during the long waiting …

Sometimes I’ll blog about information that seems to be directed straight at writers and I wonder if some readers think to themselves, but this isn’t for us. It doesn’t affect us. Aren’t you guys a readers’ blog? We are, but sometimes industry changes have a great affect on we, the readers.

Simon & Schuster’s announcement of its contractual changes is an example of that. Last week, it was discovered that Simon & Schuster intended to include language in its contracts that would essentially eliminate any reversion of rights. What does reversion of rights mean? A little copyright lesson. Stay with me. It’s not that boring, I promise.

When an artist creates a work of art, this art has a copyright. The copyright is a form of protection that is granted by the U.S. Congress. Essentially, the writer of a book has the right to

reproduce the work (make a copy)
prepare derivative works (i.e., a series of books like the Black Dagger Brotherhood series or Eve Dallas series)
distribute copies to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, by rental, lease or lending; …

Starting July 17, 2007, Penguin will be in court to defend itself from allegations of copyright infringement by Stuart Silverstein. For anyone not familiar with how slowly the wheels of justice churn, Silverstein’s case is illlustrative. The story begins in 1994 when Silverstein shopped around a compilation of 122 Dorothy Parker poems, many of which had never been included in book form.

He brought the collection to Penguin and was offered $2,000 for an advance. Silverstein declined and eventually published the collection, NOT MUCH FUN: The Lost Poems of Dorothy Parker through Scribner. In 1999, Penguin released, Dorothy Parker: Complete Poems in 1999, which was essentially a “comma by comma” copy of Silverstein’s work. The Penguin editor admitted that she copied Silverstein’s book and cut and pasted the poems into Complete Poems.

(as an aside, I wonder if this was the same editor who allegedly asked Millenia Black to blackify her book?)

Silverstein filed suit and it has gone round and round (all the way to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal) and is now set for trial. The basis of the dispute is whether the compilation by Silverstein contains enough creativity to deserve …

Privately held Attributor Corp. of Redwood City, Calif., has begun testing a system to scan the billions of pages on the Web for clients’ audio, video, images and text — potentially making it easier for owners to request that Web sites take content down or provide payment for its use. Via WSJ.