Yankees Claiming Copyright To Block Memoir Involving 60 Year Old Letters From A Young George Steinbrenner

from the speech-and-free-speech dept

Fri, Oct 15th 2010 7:47am — Mike Masnick

One of the claims that people make when we talk about how copyright interferes with free speech is the claim that "copying isn't free speech." Whether or not that's actually true is a debate we'll save for another day, but an even bigger concern is how often copyright is used not to block copying, but new forms of speech that build off of those other works. A new example comes from the NY Yankees (a team I'm a fan of, I should note), whose famed owner George Steinbrenner, passed away this year. Apparently, back when he was a teenager, he had a friendly (bordering on romantic) relationship with a young girl in his town, Mary Jane Schriner, and he wrote her letters, which she's kept until this day. When Steinbrenner died, Schriner took the letters out of her dresser and shared them with her family, which led to a nice NY Times piece about her recollections of her time with the young Steinbrenner, along with an image of one of the letters:

It's actually kind of a sweet story.

Anyway, a writer contacted Schriner, and suggested perhaps putting together a memoir about her time with the young George Steinbrenner, which would use the letters, and weave them into a more complete narrative. The Schriner family, politely asked the Yankees their feelings on the matter, and apparently received a sternly worded letter, saying that publishing the letters:

"will cause untold embarrassment and damages to the Steinbrenner family and the Steinbrenner's business interests."

Further comments on the matter in the article, suggest that the Yankees made it clear that the family still owns the copyright on the letters (correct) and that this could be the method through which they would block any publication. It sounds as if the family has given up on the plans to do the book, which really is a shame, but it certainly seems like there would be a pretty strong fair use claim here as well. Beyond the questions about how reminiscence of a friendship from 60 years ago might "damage the family business interests," it's worth pointing out that copyright is not supposed to be used to block "damaging the family business interests." Being embarrassed by what's in a document is not something that takes away fair use rights.

The article quotes an NYU law professor, who correctly points out that the copyright on the document and physical ownership are different, but I'm not sure it's accurate to state, absolutely that "she cannot publish the letters." I think a strong case could be made for fair use in publishing a memoir that includes those letters. It's not as if the Steinbrenner family has some sort of commercial interest in the letters. Instead, however, we get yet another case where just the threat of a copyright claim -- even one that doesn't seem to have much legal basis -- is holding back speech.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, george steinbrenner, mary jane schriner, memoirs, yankees

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:07am

More abuses of copy protection law. Leveraging the fact that it lasts way too long is an abuse. Using it to interfere with free speech is an abuse. Using it in a way that doesn't promote the progress (of the science and the arts) is an abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2010 @ 9:32am
  
  Re:
  Also, a pre-settlement extortion scheme is an abuse of copy protection laws. Claiming excessive damages that don't really exist is an abuse of the law. Taking advantage of the low penalties and necessary level of proof for fraudulently claiming public domain works is another abuse of the system.
  
  What other abuses are there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:17am

"A new example comes from the NY Yankees (a team I'm a fan of, I should note)"

Ugh. And I used to like you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- imbrucy (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:37am
  
  Re:
  Same. I use to respect you so much Mike.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - s. keeling (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 2:04pm
    
    Re: "Used to respect you ..."
    Oh, shut up you fools. I'm a Mets fan, and I care not a whit that he likes the Yanquis.
    
    The Yankees don't have a David Wright. Hah!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 15 Oct 2010 @ 5:35pm
      
      Re: "Used to respect you ..."
      But do they have a David Beckham?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CommonSense (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  Same here...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy7600 (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  Ditto for me too.. sigh
  
  Go Sox! Wearing my Red Sox hat at work today. Rooting for the Rangers tonight :) (and phillies)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - imbrucy (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 9:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    I was with you till the "Go Sox". They are just as bad as the Yanks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Free Capitalist (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Pfffft. Phillies. The Freak Show is coming to PA. Get your tickets.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 1:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And now people who like Liverpool Football Club are going to be Liverpool Red Sox. Glad I'm not English ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 9:31am
  
  Re:
  GO PATRIOTS! (I dislike baseball)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 15 Oct 2010 @ 10:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Go nobody! I dislike micro-ultra-nationalist sports enthusiasm.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - s. keeling (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 2:07pm
      
      Re: "Used to respect you ..."
      Bravo! Finally.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ron Rezendes (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 10:35am
  
  Re:
  While I don't always agree with Mike (yes it happens), I often wondered what it was that kept me from really liking the guy and well, now I know! ;P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike42 (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:19am

gray area
While the letter of the law says that you own the copyright when you create a work, there's a pretty big question when you sell or give the original work to someone else. One of the big reasons to buy a master's artwork was the ability to reproduce it, and I don't recall copyright contracts being signed.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that when you are given a letter, especially one written for you, the ability to reproduce it would be implied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron, 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:33am

NY Yankees? Is that a new Hockey team?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:36am

"the Yankees made it clear that the family still owns the copyright on the letters (correct)"

Aren't the letters in the public domain? According to TFA, they were written in 1949, they obviously bear no copyright mark, and any copyrights were not in any way renewed in the 1970s.

Of course that applies for published works, and I don't really know about unpublished works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:40am
  
  Re:
  And is a sent letter considered 'published?'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 9:52am
  
  Re:
  Aren't the letters in the public domain? According to TFA, they were written in 1949, they obviously bear no copyright mark, and any copyrights were not in any way renewed in the 1970s.
  
  Of course that applies for published works, and I don't really know about unpublished works.
  
  Yes, I'm assuming that these would be considered unpublished works, which would would be life of the author plus 70 years. Considering he just died... we've got 70 years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Christopher (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 1:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Ah, but he sent it IN THE MAIL! Which makes it a published work and the copyright is over. Actually, I didn't even KNOW that there could be a copyright on letters that I sent to someone!
    Seems like an abuse of the law to do that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Danny, 18 Oct 2010 @ 1:44pm
  
  Re:
  I was wondering about that too. How can the Yankees have copyright over letters between two people and have nothing to do with baseball?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:38am

Automatic copyright started when?
I thought that the copyright on creation was part of the 1975 copyright law changes.

If I'm right (and please correct me if not), then it's highly unlikely that Steinbrenner registered for a copyright on letters he wrote, and they should be in the public domain.

No one else has said this, so I must be wrong somehow, please let me know where.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:48am

Scholarship Loses
Since the copyright has lasted so long, the proposed memoir cannot be published. Therefore it will not be written. Ms Schriner will die long before the letters enter the public domain. Her recollections will die with her. She is in the galling situation of not being able to use her own property (the letters) as she sees fit. Copyright has trumped her property rights, for the whole of her life. She literally cannot live long enough to gain unfettered control over her own property.

The proposed memoir would be a work of scholarship about Steinbrenner. Works of scholarship are being continually blocked by crucial documents not being in the public domain. Then primary sources like Ms Schriner die off, thereby preventing the scholarly work from ever existing. This damages US culture. Promoting the progress -- not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confused or London, 15 Oct 2010 @ 9:03am

But.... HUH???
See, this is where you loose me completely with IP law. Under what circumstances does it make any sense to have a law that says you still have any ownership of something you've *given away*??

What's next? Does this mean next time I buy a sandwich that Pret a Manger is going to tell me where I'm allowed to eat it? The time frame I have to eat it in before ownership reverts to them?

Does this mean I can track down my old friend from school when I was 5 and claim a portion of the £100,000 he gets for selling the toy car I gave him that turns out to be rare and valuable in today's market?

SOMEONE explain the sense behind it please? There must have been SOME logic somewhere surely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 9:10am

I am guessing the only reason Bret Favre has not chased after deadspin to take down the pictures of 'baby brett' is that he would legitimize the pictures... since given the logic of this type of thing Brett owns the copyright since he took the pictures even though he sent them to someone else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nunya_bidness, 15 Oct 2010 @ 9:21am

Cradle Robber
Now a days if a 19 year old was dating a 16 year old he would probably be put in jail or sued or some other stupid shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2010 @ 10:11am

Selling the letters on E-Bay
Now that she is trying to sell the letter collection on E-Bay (as is her legal right to sell her property), I hope some anonymous (untraceable) buyer comes up with the money, buys them and then leaks them to the internet. If for nothing other than just to show their complete and utter disdain for the draconian measures (i.e. unimaginable lengthy copyright extensions) that have incrementally destroyed the rights of people everywhere, all in the name of corporate interests.

Current copyright laws clearly show a perfect example of how the U.S. Government is now nothing more than a paid enforcer and a shill for the corporations, and no longer a servant of the public at large.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
s. keeling (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 2:00pm

Re: Yankees claiming copyright ...
This is so wrong. Those letters are her property, intended for her by GS. How can anyone exert control over her right to her property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2010 @ 12:45pm

This is an office ammo topic
A non-sports fan, this gives me another reason to abuse and make fun of the rabid Yankee fans in my office
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 16 Oct 2010 @ 10:44pm

Steinbrunner letters
WAIT! I am an attorney; when did they change the law? The last time I was involved, IP was transferable, and whether sold, given away, or otherwise hypothecated, it belonged to the new owner.
It appears to me that Steinbrenner GAVE the letters to the lady; if so, she owns them and has the copyright to them. I realize if he had given her a COPY of a letter, meaning to keep ownership of the original, that would be a "whole 'nuther thing", but as I understand it, he gave the ORIGINALS to her, intending for her to keep them as the new owner.
If he had SOLD them to her, do you think that would be different? I don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Confused of London, 18 Oct 2010 @ 1:05am
  
  Re: Steinbrunner letters
  "WAIT! I am an attorney; when did they change the law? The last time I was involved, IP was transferable, and whether sold, given away, or otherwise hypothecated, it belonged to the new owner. "
  
  See, now that makes a LOT more sense to me. How is it that the judgement seems more often to come down on the side of the money than common sense?
  
  /naivety
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Schriner, 10 Nov 2010 @ 12:18pm

Steinbrenner letters
I am Mary Jane's son and have had direct dealings with Lonn Trost of the NY Yankees on this matter.

Whether or not they could win the lawsuit is not the point. They would have spent whatever is neccessary to scare away the publisher, literary agent and co-author.

Had they sent her a friendly letter, thanking her for her original story in the Times on July 15th, she would have respected their decision and been happy that she could show what a nice person George was back in the day. Instead they bascially threatened her. What a lack of class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]