1. through the fair use doctrine, would allow a fan to publish such a lexicon, would she have written and distributed her first Harry Potter novel nonetheless? As a counterfactual, we do not have empirical evidence on the issue. Nevertheless, I can see no reason for doubting that J.K. Rowling would still have published the Harry Potter novels. Finding the defendant's use to be unfair, as the district court did, denied the public access to an additional creative work, the Lexicon itself, and for no reason. 2 10 More generally, once a work is expected to recoup its costs from any given level or term of copyright, providing further copyright protection to that work can only frustrate copyright's constitutional objective. Once a work is expected to recoup its costs, further protection for that work becomes unnecessary to ensure that the work will be authored and distributed. Further protection at that attention should be directed toward the extent to which prohibiting a particular use will lead to more and better works of authorship by asking: (1) whether the unauthorized use would otherwise reduce the revenue associated with the copyrighted work; and (2) if so, how, if at all, that reduction would likely affect the pro-duction of copyrighted works;Yet;The relevant counterfactual asks: If we had toldJ.K. Rowling that once her work became widely popular, and she became rich almost beyond imagining
2. One ID to rule them all
3. WL 357611, at 'I (Cal. App. Dep't. Super. Ct;Paramount Pictures Corp,1990