Various groups seek to lift injunction in Salinger sequel case of ‘Catcher in the Rye’
I’m no fan of JD Salinger. I’m talking about the man, not his writing. You can read my reasoning in this earlier post What do authors owe their readers. Mr. Salinger is not helping his case in an ongoing legal battle where he wants to prevent publication of a ’sequel’ to his infamous novel Catcher in the Rye.
You might recall that on July 1, an injunction was ordered by a judge that prevented the publication of the sequel by Swedish author Fredrik Colting called 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye. Since that ruling, groups ranging from free speech advocates, librarians, the Associated Press and others have been filing briefs with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to get the injunction lifted. The appeals court will start hearing arguments on September 3.
An article from Publishers Weekly, Groups urge Injunction to be Vacated in Salinger Case, details the arguments the various groups are making on behalf of the Swedish author. It’s interesting to note that some of these groups are not saying that Mr. Colting did anything wrong by writing and then trying to publish his sequel to Catcher in the Rye. What they do say, however, is that an all-out ban on publication is overly harsh.
Here’s what the brief said that was filed on behalf of several media organizations:
“In the interest of free speech we don’t ban ruinous, libelous communication, we assess monetary damages,” the brief notes. “It belies logic to conclude that authorial dignity deserves greater protection.”
The major library associations filed a brief that said, in part:
“Prior restraints are strongly disfavored precisely because they have the potential to cause grave damage to free speech rights,” the library brief asserts. Indeed, Colting’s book may be an infringement, the brief concedes, but “the question of whether to ban publication pending that determination demands a more careful balancing of the important interests at stake.”
It is also important to note that the article states that Salinger did not register his novel’s main character, Holden Caulfield, for copyright protection. I’m not a lawyer, but I think that fictional characters still fall under the same copyright protection as the written work they appear in. That said, Salinger probably has every right to challenge Mr. Colting and his 60 Years Later follow-up. However, an outright banning the book from publication leads us down a slippery path and sets a dangerous precedent.
This will be an interesting case to follow and see how it plays out. Honestly, if I were Mr. Salinger, I’d be flattered that someone would even want to write a sequel to one of novels. I’d at least want to read the manuscript before it were to be published.
What are your thoughts on this case? Should the courts allow the sequel to be published, with the author only paying monetary damages for copyright infringement? Or should it be banned from publication? If you are a lawyer or have good knowledge of copyright law, I’d be very interested in hearing from you (of course, comments from all are still welcome). Share your thoughts in the comment section below.
Related posts
- RIP: J.D. Salinger dies at 91
- The curious case of last night’s Oscars
- Warning: Book Groups can turn nasty!
- “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” has always been a great story!
- New Kindle 2 feature stirs legal questions
Read More: Author News, Literary News, Publishing News
