<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lucas LLP &#187; infringement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lucasllp.com/tag/infringement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lucasllp.com</link>
	<description>attorneys &#38; counselors at law  :: consultants &#38; advisors</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 22:50:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Rowling prevails in Harry Potter Lexicon suit</title>
		<link>http://lucasllp.com/2008/09/rowling-prevails-in-harry-potter-lexicon-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://lucasllp.com/2008/09/rowling-prevails-in-harry-potter-lexicon-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:23:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Lucas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In the News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lucasllp.com//?p=53</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. have prevailed in their action again RDR Books, who were readying Steven Vander Ark&#8217;s Harry Potter Lexicon for publication. Although the author&#8217;s fan site had previously been singled out for praise by Rowling, news that a print edition has been prepared and was going to be published sparked the legal [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. have prevailed in their action again RDR Books, who were readying Steven Vander Ark&#8217;s <em>Harry Potter Lexicon</em> for publication. Although the author&#8217;s fan site had previously been singled out for praise by Rowling, news that a print edition has been prepared and was going to be published sparked the legal dispute between the parties, and a larger debate about when reference guides cross the threshold of copyright infringement.</p>
<p>The New York trial was closely watched by copyright scholars, publishers, and others in the publishing community involved with the creation and production of so-called companion books, works that reference, explain, and in large measure rely upon previously published works. Of concern was how Judge Patterson&#8217;s decision would affect the market for such works and whether it would signal a shift toward a narrower and more restrictive test for what constitutes an infringing work.</p>
<p>A copy of Judge Patterson&#8217;s opinion is <a href="http://www.nylawyer.com/adgifs/decisions/090908patterson.pdf" target="new">available online</a>; <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202424378270" target="new">Mark Hamblett&#8217;s summary</a> for the <em>New York Law Journal</em> is available via law.com.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://lucasllp.com/2008/09/rowling-prevails-in-harry-potter-lexicon-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

