Hmm. I'm not sure this is as clear-cut a case as most of the LJers who've commented on the original community post seem to think. Perhaps Walker has quoted at excessive length - I'd have to look inside a copy of the book concerned. But I've seen an awful lot of climbing on some very high horses, once again displaying the ability of online communities to collectively go off on one rather than taking a more reasonable approach. So I have seen Walker accused of lazy writing (only true if these quotations made up the bulk of the book, which is clearly not the case), the material dismissed as 'filler' (no, it's there to give a rounded view of how fans in general have reacted to particular episodes, rather than it just being Walker's opinion, something for which he's been praised in the past), it suggested that he should have asked for permission before quoting from published sources (sorry, I don't think the non-fiction business works like that), that it's immoral for him to be profiting from other people's words in this way (as if these books are actually going to make him enough to live off), that he could have sent everyone quoted a free copy (have these people any idea how non-fiction publishing works?), and that Walker is arrogant because of the way he's responded to the complaints (i.e. he hasn't grovelled to the world of LJ saying how wrong he was and he's now seen the light).
The only serious charge, as far as I can see, that can be laid against Walker is that what he quoted violates fair use. And that's a tricky question that varies from case to case (it's certainly not just 300 words of quotation per volume in toto), and it may well be that Walker hasn't broken that. The assertions that what Walker has done is intrinsically immoral and violates copyright law are going too far, and you can't hand-wave away fair use whilst trying to insist on the protections afforded by copyright, unless you want the BBC to exercise its copyright to stop you talking about Torchwood in the first place.
I don't think the Mail on Sunday case is entirely comparable, as those blog posts were quoted in their entirety. I think that makes a difference.
But I'm not an expert on this, and it would be interesting to see what surliminal or major_clanger have to say.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmmag
no subject
Date: Monday, September 8th, 2008 05:29 pm (UTC)The only serious charge, as far as I can see, that can be laid against Walker is that what he quoted violates fair use. And that's a tricky question that varies from case to case (it's certainly not just 300 words of quotation per volume in toto), and it may well be that Walker hasn't broken that. The assertions that what Walker has done is intrinsically immoral and violates copyright law are going too far, and you can't hand-wave away fair use whilst trying to insist on the protections afforded by copyright, unless you want the BBC to exercise its copyright to stop you talking about Torchwood in the first place.
I don't think the Mail on Sunday case is entirely comparable, as those blog posts were quoted in their entirety. I think that makes a difference.
But I'm not an expert on this, and it would be interesting to see what