Settlement Details On The Banning Of Unauthorized Catcher in The Rye Sequel Even More Troubling
from the free-speech-isn't-free dept
Back in December, we were disappointed to find out that the author of an "unauthorized sequel" to Catcher in the Rye had settled the lawsuit brought by the estate of JD Salinger, such that the book was permanently banned in the US. It seemed like a serious blow to basic First Amendment freedoms, to have the US banning books that have significant unique expression. However, drew points us to some more details about the settlement which seem really troubling from a free speech standpoint. The book is banned in the US, but not elsewhere, though the author, Colting, has to change the title. But where it gets ridiculous is the following conditions:Under the terms of the deal, Colting is forbidden from dedicating the book to Salinger.Perhaps that last one is kind of understandable, but what's with banning him from dedicating the book to whomever he wants? How is that possibly a copyright issue?
It also prohibits him or any publisher of the book from referring to The Catcher in the Rye or Salinger.
They are also prevented from using the copyright claim or Salinger's so-called "ban" to promote the work.
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: book banning, catcher in the rye, free speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could imply knowledge and approval of the work. They don't want anything to do with the work period, in no way and no manner.
How hard is that to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even at that, mentioning JD in any way could be a connection, which in turn could cause some confusion, that would lead back to the main issue at hand. It's a list of things not to do in order to avoid having problems.
Remember, it says "under the terms of the deal". They could have agreed to have every other page in pink, and while it would be odd, it would be part of the agreement.
Honestly, it sounds like a list the plaintiff (or their lawyers) wrote up, and was agreed to because there was no intention to do any of that anyway. It's a non-issue except maybe for TD, who can't accept this ruling or agreement very well. TD sort of needs to learn to suck it up on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It has nothing to do with first amendment rights. That is a load of horse hockey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't "copyright forbids him from putting in a dedication", that is only because of an agreement to avoid further legal issues. The courts ruled, and found in favor of the plaintiff. Suck it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will never support censorship. Judging by your glee in defending this and telling everyone to just suck it up though, you are in full favor of censorship. If you are not, then I do not see how you can support copyright as it is since it brought all of this about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, just suck it up ... all we're doing is banning books.
For lack of better words, fuck you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now I want one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now I want one
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Years-Later-John-David-California/dp/9185869546
I'm thinking to buy a copy myself, I wonder if US libraries would be able to accept it as a donation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now I want one
Probably not anymore - See:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101213/09353512255/supreme-court-ruling-you-may-not-be-ab le-to-legally-sell-product-first-made-outside-us.shtml
and
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/15263910135.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now I want one
From Amazon UK link above: Irony FTW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not a copyright issue, it's a contract issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mechanical turk meets streisand?
I have also wondered if various fans could/would basically thumb their noses at the ridiculous contract. If fifty or a thousand fans (or artificial fans) blogged noisily about "the Sequel to Salinger's Catcher in the Rye," what could they possibly do about it? Unsolicited PayPal donations to the author, and underground e-book copies flow both ways across the embargo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banned in Canada, too.
And we're normally not as trigger-happy with that kind of thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Banned in Canada, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Years-Later-John-David-California/dp/9185869546/ref=sr_1_1?s=books &ie=UTF8&qid=1295454073&sr=1-1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is another example of people misunderstanding the way information works. Information is like culture. You can't kill it by silencing one person. You can't dictate to others what they choose to do with it once it is uttered (unless you're an oppressive totalitarian regime). We know the name of Herostratus despite the attempts to condemn him to obscurity.
The book will be posted online and anyone who's interested will find it and no one will deny that it has a connection to Catcher in the Rye. Just because Salinger or his estate had a problem with it doesn't mean the readers have to pretend that a connection doesn't exist.
Salinger is one of my favorite authors, but he gave up the right to complain about this when he stopped publishing. There was demand for more of his writing, even if it had nothing to do with The Catcher in the Rye. Because of the hole created by his silence, that demand had to be filled by someone else. And I doubt I'll enjoy this "sequel" as much as I do Salinger's writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not being banned for its original expressive speech, it's being banned for its infringing speech. Infringing speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
While the copying it contains is not literal, it is non-literal copying. The test for non-literal copying is whether or not it's substantially similar to the original. The district court held that it was substantially similar, and the court of appeal unanimously agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Another reason not to use my real name when writing stories. If something doesn't have to be directly copied just "substantially similar"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then the ten or twelve basic plots for fiction all go right out the window? Ambiguous words like that are the reason laws can be abused....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We're talking about copying the expression, not the idea. The "basic plots" are safe, as they have always been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the sequel side, if it's telling a brand new story using evolved and updated versions of the original characters and settings, is that not arguably a new expression of the same idea, rather than a copying of the expression?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oops that infringes..I'll start again.
In the beginning I...
damn... once more into the breach
It was the worst of times and probably the best of times....
ah bugger it
I give up.. never gunna write my novel now ;(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The idea is that otherwise you could escape liability for infringement by simply making immaterial changes to the original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that oughtta work out well....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that oughtta work out well....
How else could such a determination be made if not on a case-by-case basis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know that it could, which is what makes all of this difficult. The only other solution appears to be taking the law out of the equation entirely by making non-literal copying a non-offense. Obviously there's problems there too, but in my opinion it's the lesser of the two evils....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course there's no quantifiable number. That's just not how these things work. There are certain tests that are applied. The district court explains that in the opinion. The finding of substantial similarity here was simple since Colting argued that his novel was a parody. By doing so, he ADMITTED it was substantially similar. It also didn't help his case that he referred to his book as a "sequel" right on the book's cover.
You can read the district court's opinion here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17040458/Salinger-v-Colting-Opinion
And the Second Circuit's opinion here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17040458/Salinger-v-Colting-Opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legally it was the correct outcome (morally probably not), this was an unauthorized sequel. But the law is vary ambiguous, and that is where my worry sits. If something that is only built upon something else is considered copyright infringement, then something that just looks like it's built upon something else can be as well. How many new anythings do you see that are completely unique.
I personally think fan fictions should be legal, and that's really all this is, a fan fiction.
(Is anyone else having problems posting with Firefox today?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, right, so parody is no longer allowed now? Guess there are a number of authors who are going to be in DEEP trouble now that parody is illegal and no longer a part of the exceptions to copyright law. Thanks for clearing that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't be ridiculous. You should read the opinion I linked to. The court went into great detail about how this wasn't actually parody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, if it trivially changed the infringing speech - changed the character's names, for example - it could be sold in the U.S.?
That's sort of a curious solution, I think.
I'm still not sure why this shouldn't be inconsistent with the "Wind Done Gone" case, where the judge ruled that an outright injunction (as opposed to an award of damages) was prior restraint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A dirty trick if you ask me
To say "Salinger's so-called 'ban'..." sounds to me like the Salinger estate really doesn't think its a ban when that is just what it is. And prevention from using the copyright claim is just a PR move.
The words 'ban' and 'copyright' are pretty hot words when talking about content and media. The Salinger estate can't help but know that if those two things were to come up it would draw more attention (and probably sales) to the book, which is what they don't want. If anything I'd make sure there is something in their telling them they must explicitly say that this new book is not officially tied to the original CitR. That is I would make sure of that if my concern were about making sure buyers know the difference. If my concern were to try to block sales....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A dirty trick if you ask me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sales Boots
He also doesn't need to dedicate it to JD because again, the statement that he is not permitted to does that for him.
As for the ban in the US? Really? Who thinks in today's global Internet business world that will hurt him? The only people missing out are the US booksellers. Everyone in the US who wanted to read the book, will be able to buy it. Even people who aren't interested in the book but just want it because it's banned will be able to buy it.
This settlement is all WIN for the author and really just embarrassing for the Salinger estate. They did the author a huge favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sales Boots
Until an international treaty requires websites to not sell to anyone with a US IP address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sales Boots
They will both then be classified as criminals and need to be flogged with the nearest huge tome of course.
We will probably need a RIAA Clone for Books then *eye roll*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sales Boots
The point is that this stuff shouldn't be acceptable just because people can find a way around it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I'm glad dead authors can keep on making a living while telling me what I can't read. Another win for the moral virtues of monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fine with me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]