Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not copyrightable [pdf]

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by Retric on Monday April 27, 2020 @08:21PM (#23001907)

Her first book was also written without her receiving any money to do so.

As to revenue Patrons, Trademark, etc also work. Shakespeare for example had zero copyright protection and still wrote quite a bit.

PS: If anything the massive sums she received from the HP series discouraged her to write more.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by SeanLuke on Monday April 27, 2020 @08:59PM (#23002132)

> Her first book was also written without her receiving any money to do so.

But she owned the copyright to it, and could trade that copyright for a contract on the book. That is, she had a viable monetization mechanism if her work was good.

So once again: absent this, provide a plausible way Rowling could have made money on her first book.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by unishark on Monday April 27, 2020 @11:54PM (#23003187)

>So once again: absent this, provide a plausible way Rowling could have made money on her first book.

The way she made money was extremely implausible.

This is like arguing we need the NBA because it provides a job for LeBron James.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by Retric on Monday April 27, 2020 @09:06PM (#23002188)

If we are talking a world without copyright but all other forms of IP, patrions or merchandise.

[ Parent | on HN ]