Someone said that Rowling sold the copyright of the Potter books to Warner.

I just checked the text: she did nothing so foolish. If you look at the books, you will see that they are copyright in the name of J.K. Rowling.

What Rowling sold was the right to make a film or films to Warner. If anyone else tries to make a film, Warner goes after that person.

Copyright and subsidiary rights aren't one and the same.

Intellectual property is tricky, and with the advent of fan fiction and fansites, it's become even trickier. Fan fiction lives in a sort of nonprofit limbo as long as the copyright holders permit. In some cases, they permit it because it promotes the "brand." STAR TREK is one of them. In other cases, they don't. Chelsea Quinn Yarbro had a terrible time when some fans contacted her about work they'd done regarding her most famous character and published it against her requirement that they not do so. The judgment went against them. Marion Zimmer Bradley, who allowed other writers to publish in her Darkover universe, had to stop on advice of counsel. Larry Niven lost copyright on the kzinti because he didn't defend it.

It sounds as if Rowling decided that a fan website was additive, but a fan-compiled lexicon crossed the line: in short, the pie was hers to begin with and she wanted that piece.

Henry Jenkins on TEXTUAL POACHING covers things other than copyright, but if I remember correctly, he's good at explaining the line between original creator and fan writer in any "universe." A properly advised author is wise to go for as much control over her property as possible, because it can transmogrify like...well, I suspect most of us know.

I've been following this thread since its beginning. Some of the Obama partisans have been well-spoken, well-controlled, and well-mannered.

Others? Well, "drooling pod people" will do as a description.

Can you honestly say you haven't seen them?

Oh, BS, BS.

She's made more money than you'll ever even dream of, and you can't deal with it.

I think when you're comparing the Star Trek (tm) franchise to the Potterverse, you are comparing apples and oranges in a few important ways.

1. Trek is a franchise that dates back from the 1960s and consists of four shows, more than ten films, a "fan" film now up for the Hugo, an immense range of novels and books that are referred to (bogglingly) as "Star Trek Non-fiction," not to mention merchandising -- from high-end phasers to home-made tribbles.

2. Almost from inception, Trek relied on its franchise, especially during the second year -- not that season 3 of TOS was all that much to write home about all the time. ("Spock's Brain," anyone? It's not as bad as Janeway and Paris and the lizard creatures, but it's pretty bad.)

3. Almost from inception, Trek had a lot of zines, preserving the franchise from cancellation of TOS to the debut of TNG.

4. This fandom was letter-hack and zine-based because what there WAS online was highly limited.

5. Given the declining dollar revenues of the Trekfilms, Trek needed the support from the fanbase.

6. The best part of it -- Trek has always worked beautifully in collaboration within its professional enterprises (sorry) and with its fan community.

Rowlings, now...would be as if Trek had been solely the intellectual property of Gene Roddenberry, without resort to scripts for individual episodes; if Roddenberry had written ALL the books, etc.

Potter is copyright in Rowlings' name. Star Trek has had a number of copyrights, including Paramount and Viacom: authors writing Treknovels do not hold the copyrights to their work.

Now, it would be lovely if Rowlings agreed to work with this fan (who sounds highly skilled to me, but I'm not a Potterverse denizen), much as Pocket has worked with the Timeliners. But I don't think she's under any obligation to do so. If she had applied moral suasion to him: "I want this, I want it for charity, I know how much you've done, so I owe you, but it's going to be on MY terms," I'd consider that a generous concession.

Trek has had unauthorized material published, but I am guessing that the dollar value would not have been nearly so great.

It's her sandbox. As one Trekwriter I know once said "it's okay to play in other people's sandboxes. It's not okay to bring in your cat."

I'm sorry for the compiler of this Lexicon, but a fan that serious really ought to know how fannish publishing works.

In the "it's enough talk already, shut up, stop whining, etc." department: anything that is not deference is automatically assumed to be bashing.

I'd refine that to "automatically wished to be bashing" so then there can be more use of loaded nouns and adjectives.

Is this a matter of sexism? I've heard more men than women use it. But I think it's more a matter of power: those in power have an easier time of shutting up those who are not in power or who can be verbally coerced into abrogating their power.

I'm seeing an awful lot of that. Hell, I saw a lot of that in the Bush administration(s). Usually, it was accompanied by distinctions imposed upon a perceived outgroup: the terms "victim, equity, and gender feminism" all fall under that rubric. I think they're the result of one of Hoff Summers' subsidized polemics, but I'm not sure.

A republican national convention is like a coronation. Is that truly the political process you want to show this country and the world? (Okay, I've been reading Thucydides lately. It shows.)

At this point, I'd say that the whole dialogue has less to do about the candidates than their supporters and what sort of verbal/intellectual/ethical climate in which they will conduct their discourse.

Choose carefully.