I could argue with some of your raw assertions (what constitutes creativity, and what doesn't), but I won't, b/c that's rather besides the point.

I am interested in a very simple question: why do want "final control over your creation" (in the sense that, if you had your way, you could say NO to someone writing a sparknotes of it, and the state would step in and prevent that person from publishing the sparknotes)?

All I get back from you are either non-sequiturs (such as your opinion on what is or is not creative work, or the mechanics of fantasy writing, and so on) or reassertions of what you want, without explanation.

We're talking past each other so this is my last comment to you.

I'm ignoring your first two paragraphs because they don't even address what I'm asking you: "why do you want final control over your creation" (in the sense that, if you had your way, you could say NO to someone writing a sparknotes of it)?

Answers that would be sensible:

(a) "I place an extremely high value on notions of purity-of-vision, and believe that a creator should be given a wide 'breather' during which time they may elaborate upon their vision without outside interference; third-party works run the risk of polluting the original creator's vision and thus the creator should be protected from those works unless explicitly opting out of them"

(b) "I place an extremely high value on notions of purity-of-vision, and believe that only the original author of some work knows what that work was intended to accomplish and whether or not some related third-party work poses a risk to the work's ability to accomplish that"

(c) "I believe an overly laissez-faire outlook towards the production of third-party 'add-ons' around a particular work may have a deleterious effect upon the incentives of creatives to create; in addition to the economic incentives that third party works might compromise, there's also the risk of inducing psychological disincentives to publish one's creations"

...none of the above are explanations I'd necessarily agree with -- and all of the above would ideally be tempered by an appeal to some kind of utility metric ("I believe the benefit of granting such abilities would outweigh the costs such abilities would impose") -- but all of the above are sensible explanations for why you might want such control over the actions of others.

What I have gotten back from you in the way of "explanation" is materially the same statement repeated thrice (if at first you don't succeed, say it diff'rent!):

(1) I should have final control over my creation because it's mine.

Yeah, and I've been asking you why. LOL. I think everyone knows that's what you want.

(2) I have every right to it.

Which in context is an emphatic re-assertion of the preceeding claim ("THEY ARE!" to the previous sentence's "The beatles are the best band ever!"). It contains no elaboration or additional justification of your claim.

(3) I support the actions of people who want to maintain their creative control.

Strike the third! I think (1) and (2) already established (3); what did you think you were communicating in (3) that wasn't already contained in (1) and "YES, INDEED"-ed in (2)?

What other explanation is sensible?

I've given you examples of sensible explanations; you've given me no explanation, along with some ramblings as to how you rate the kinds of creativity you see as being involved in various tasks.

Rowling had sensible explanations in her complaint: you can find it here

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/harrypotter...

She asserts: various and sundry claims of copyright infringement, but she also gives explanations for why she wants to enforce her rights (cf paras 2+3):

- concern for confusion on the part of the reading public (they might think she was involved in the lexicon or endorsed the lexicon, when that wasn't the case) (solved; publisher changed title and cover design)

- concern that her own plans to write an encyclopedia might be hampered by the existence of the lexicon (found not to be an actionable item)

And, contrary to your aesthetics, even though her team won the "lexicon" case, the decision came down not as some kind of broad assertion of the principle that creators of fantasy worlds can exclude others from those worlds at whim; it came down to what amounts to "this would've been fair use if only the lexicon hadn't lifted quite so much in verbatim" (my interpretation, you can find the full judgment here: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Lexicon+Order.pdf ; it's a very good read).

You remind me of nothing else than Oscar Crease; good-day, sir!