Author Of To Kill A Mockingbird Sues Agent For Swiping Her Copyright

from the actual-copyright-theft? dept

Tue, May 7th 2013 5:35am — Mike Masnick

I know that the big copyright guys now love to use the term "copyright theft" to describe mere infringement. But if the story presented by Harper Lee, the 87-year-old author of To Kill A Mockingbird, in a new lawsuit is accurate, it appears that she's one of the few actual victims of copyright theft. She's now sued her former literary agent Samuel Pinkus, claiming that he effectively tricked her into signing away her copyright on the work to Pinkus' company, Keystone Literary.

Lee, who has failing eyesight and hearing, was residing in an assisted-living facility in 2007 after suffering a stroke when she signed a document assigning her copyright to Pinkus’s company, according to the complaint. While the copyright was re- assigned to Lee last year after legal action and Pinkus was discharged as Lee’s agent, he was still receiving royalties from the novel as of this year, according to the complaint.

“Pinkus knew that Harper Lee was an elderly woman with physical infirmities that made it difficult for her to read and see,” Gloria Phares, Lee’s lawyer, said in the complaint. “Harper Lee had no idea she had assigned her copyright” to Pinkus’s company.

I've been trying to find the case in PACER and have so far failed (so if anyone has better luck, please let me know -- also shame on the news media for failing to post the actual filing). Though, in doing so, I discovered that Pinkus has been involved in a few other legal spats with authors, including with the heirs of John Steinbeck in a key case about termination rights and copyright.

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, harper lee, samuel pinkus, to kill a mockingbird

58 Comments

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

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

—DannyB

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 3:58am

One more reason copyright should be nontransferable. Obviously that's not in the best interests of the MAFIAA...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- yaga (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 5:25am
  
  Re:
  What does this have to do with the MAFIAA? This is just a scumbag that figured he could scam an old lady. That's bad enough without having to amp it up with a completely unfounded and unnecessary attack on anyone else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 5:40am
    
    What does this have to do with the MAFIAA?
    It's a parallel case. They do this all the time as "Work for hire" agreements with musicians.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - yaga (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 5:55am
      
      Re: What does this have to do with the MAFIAA?
      Work for hire is COMPLETELY different than this case.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - gorehound (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 8:18am
      
      Re: What does this have to do with the MAFIAA?
      MAFIAA does this kind of stuff to rip off others and it is like a long practice of theirs.
      The shady World of scumbag Lawyers, Accounting, and Big Copyright.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 8:27am
        
        Re: Re: What does this have to do with the MAFIAA?
        Here's a recent opinion from an appellate court with EMI defeating a claim that its accounting practices were bogus: http://www.scribd.com/doc/139799485/Ellington
        
        That won't get covered on Techdirt, though, because (gasp!) the challenger was getting exactly what had been bargained for and the claim of bogus accounting was bogus.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 8:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: What does this have to do with the MAFIAA?
        Wow, so it is OK to have a foreign subsidiary you own charge you so much for something that you don't have to pay the copyright holder. Glad to know that's all legal it gives me lots of faith in copyright, the DOJ and possible copyright reform.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: What does this have to do with the MAFIAA?
        The deal was that Ellington got 50% of net proceeds of foreign publication. Ellington got exactly that. The fact that EMI became the foreign publisher is irrelevant.
        
        Now, what are you basing your claim that EMI's foreign publishers overcharged on? Do you have any evidence of that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: What does this have to do with the MAFIAA?
        Dude, people are attacking the legal basis for penalizing transfer pricing too. A few legal rulings are not gonna change that feeling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 6:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Because, if the MAFIAA can't get their hands on copyright, they wouldn't push for strong copyrights, since they wouldn't be able to (ab)use them as much.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 7:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That, thanks.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - yaga (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And that still has nothing to do with the story.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bob, 7 May 2013 @ 6:04am
  
  Re:
  If you can't transfer it, you can't sell it. And that makes it worth much, much less. What's the point then?
  
  If the artist can't sell the outright copyright-- as they can't do with so-called "artistic rights"-- then the publishers/purchasers will craft exclusive licenses that do much the same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zakida Paul (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 6:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    "What's the point then?"
    
    Um, the real reason creators create anything? The love of the creative process? The joy they experience when their work is enjoyed by millions?
    
    That is the REAL value of creative work and that makes the great works priceless.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 7 May 2013 @ 6:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Contracts are limited to 7 years in California, so that would make a big difference.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 7:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    bob shows his true colors here asking what's the point of copyright if publishers cannot accrue massive stacks of them. Thanks for the honesty bob.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 7:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Because you can't write a contract for life + 70 years.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jameshogg (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 5:40am

Silly copyright apologists who think it is justified to lock out the original artist from his/her OWN WORKS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 5:49am
  
  Re:
  Copyright is not now and never was about protecting creators.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 8:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    It probably started that way until the rich (MAFIAA) and smart(lawyers) figured out how to take advantage of it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 9:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Prior to The Statute Of Anne"> the Stationers Company had control over what books were printed, as a proxy for Government control of books. This enabled them to control which printer printed which titles. When this control was removed from them, they came up with the idea of authors having copyright, which could be transferred to them enabling them to keep control of who printed which book.
      Copyright was spun as for the benefit of the author, when its real intent was regulation of the printing industry, that is to prevent printers competing by printing the same title.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 9:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mea culpa, I must remember to preview to check I have closed Tags.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dennis deems (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 9:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It didn't. It started as a way for government to keep printers in check by giving them a monopoly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 5:50am

if copyright were to be disbanded, there wouldn't be this sort of problem, would there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 7 May 2013 @ 6:03am

"one of the few actual victims" -- Right, if omit movie studios
and other copyright owners being ripped off every day on The Pirate Bay and "file hosts"!

Good one, Mike. The hyphenated "copyright-theft" insidiously but clearly conflates this fraudulent re-assignment of copyright with ALL copyrighted works, then slants it as if theft of the income from copyrighted works is exceeding rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 6:06am
  
  Re: "one of the few actual victims" -- Right, if omit movie studios
  ...In what way was royalties only going to the studio....oh, wait, you're right. Movie studios steal all the time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jameshogg (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 6:07am
  
  Re: "one of the few actual victims" -- Right, if omit movie studios
  I love how copyright believers "slant" the idea that copyright solves the free-rider problem and pretend that someone can't take from the artist without paying through means of borrowed/resold DVDs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 6:54am
    
    Re: Re: "one of the few actual victims" -- Right, if omit movie studios
    I often hear of borrowed/used games being referred to as theft these days, but that idiocy has died down a bit in recent days
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 7 May 2013 @ 6:15am
  
  Re: "one of the few actual victims" -- Right, if omit movie studios
  Keep trying. You may create a cogent argument someday.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 6:18am
    
    Re: Re: "one of the few actual victims" -- Right, if omit movie studios
    One the (very) occasional random day where he responds to what an article is actually saying, rather than a garbled fictional re-interpretation, he's been known to actually state a truth here and there. It's rare but I believe I've seen it at least once.
    
    Today is clearly not one of those days.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 6:23am
  
  Re: "one of the few actual victims" -- Right, if omit movie studios
  "The hyphenated "copyright-theft" insidiously but clearly conflates this fraudulent re-assignment of copyright with ALL copyrighted works, then slants it as if theft of the income from copyrighted works is exceeding rare."
  
  Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster (Superman)
  Jack Kirby (Most of Marvel Comics' characters pre-1970)
  
  Apparently the boy's corporate masters paid his bills again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 6:48am
  
  Re: "one of the few actual victims" -- Right, if omit movie studios
  Moron
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will "scifantasy" Frank (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 6:07am

Outpaced
I went looking for the PACER filing too, and even though there were occasional references to the case number (13-3000, Lee v. Pinkus), I couldn't find it. (Those same references also said the case was in both SDNY District and SDNY Bankruptcy, so I think there may be some issues to be sorted...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 6:16am

I'm sure memory issues also played a part in this, not just losing her vision and hearing. I have a nearly 92 year old grandfather, who's in great shape for a 92 year old, but he's definitely been showing signs of memory issues in recent years, even though he seems perfectly normal most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 6:25am
  
  Re:
  A sad case both of copyright theft AND fraud against the elderly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 6:28am

See, Mike.

Copyright provided an incentive to create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 6:32am
  
  Re:
  Create what? Are you suggesting that, sans copyright, To Kill A Mockingbird wouldn't have been written? Explain Shakespeare. None of his plays were copyrighted in his lifetime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josef Anvil (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 6:33am
  
  Re:
  See, Mike.
  
  Copyright provided an incentive to create...
  
  Residual income and lawsuits
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zakida Paul (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 6:49am
  
  Re:
  Citation needed
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 3:33pm
  
  Re:
  Here's a question. Copyright is supposed to be for the progress of the arts. It says an author can create, receive exclusive distribution for their work, so that they can sell and then go on to create more works.
  Where's Harper Lee's other books? I highly respect her, I studied Mockingbird in school and the movie adaptation is one of my favourite movies of all time, but it seems to me that Lee has failed to live up to the societal contract. She published her book in 1961 and then...stopped. She basically receives money for work she completed 52 years ago, and this is backed up by legal force, which to me is a farce.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 5:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The societal contract is that if she writes Mockingbird, she gets exclusive rights to it. She lived up to her side of the bargain. The contract isn't that if she writes Mockingbird, then she gets exclusive rights in it so that she will create more works. If she wrote another book, the rights in that book would have been the other side of the bargain--not the rights in Mockingbird.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 7 May 2013 @ 6:36am

This is terrible, for shame trying to take copyright from elderly woman. They should try talking a walk around in her shoes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 6:50am

this is more fraud than anything else. (incidentally, this kind of situation is exactly why contract law specifies that you must be able to understand a contract for it to be binding. That and the obvious problem of a contract in a foreign language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 7:33am

I've been trying to find the case in PACER and have so far failed (so if anyone has better luck, please let me know -- also shame on the news media for failing to post the actual filing).

Let me Google that for ya: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harper+pinkus+complaint+filetype%3Apdf

First result: http://media.publishersmarketplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/harperleecomplaint.pdf

It's in federal court because of diversity. It's not a federal question. The causes of action are all state law claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 8:05am
  
  Re:
  Let me Google that for ya: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=harper+pinkus+complaint+filetype%3Apdf
  
  I had Googled exactly that yesterday and Google hadn't been able to find it yet. Nor had PACER.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 8:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, I couldn't find it on PACER or Google when I looked last weekend. It must've just shown up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
non-anonymous coward (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 7:52am

Real Reason
I'm just glad to see that the long copyright term is so clearly encouraging this artist to create new works, thereby benefiting society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ophelia Millais (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: Real Reason
  This is exactly my problem with Harper Lee. I mean, it's a shame that someone has taken advantage of her, and I do hope she gets this matter resolved. But although she's someone who said that writing was her true calling, her literary output has been a bit underwhelming. In fact, she's exactly who comes to my mind whenever someone insists that long and strongly enforced copyright terms are necessary to encourage new creations by the most talented artists. What has she been encouraged to do? She wrote exactly one book, then kicked back and lived off the royalties for over 50 years.
  
  Under the copyright law in effect at the time she wrote it, it would be slated to enter the public domain in 2016, I think, so Pinkus wouldn't have as much incentive to swindle the little old lady in her twilight years. Had it entered the public domain sooner, the swindle wouldn't have happened at all, and she may well have had an incentive to contribute more great works to society.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 10:58am
    
    Re: Re: Real Reason
    In fact, she's exactly who comes to my mind whenever someone insists that long and strongly enforced copyright terms are necessary to encourage new creations by the most talented artists. What has she been encouraged to do? She wrote exactly one book, then kicked back and lived off the royalties for over 50 years.
    
    The copyright she received for Mockingbird was to encourage her to write Mockingbird--so it worked exactly as it was supposed to. Obviously, that copyright has been a very valuable reward, and it incentivized her quite well given the fact that she wrote the book. That she is not incentivized to write another book is not a failing of copyright law. She clearly can be and has been incentivized by copyright law. She just hasn't been motivated to write another book for her own personal reasons. You could just as well argue that the copyright law isn't strong enough since it didn't incentivize her to write another book.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 11:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Real Reason
      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Real Reason
        Hey, I don't think Lee's failure to write another book shows that copyright is too strong or too weak. I don't think one point of data shows anything. I'm merely pointing out the other poster's error in assuming it shows that copyright is too strong. So I think the fallacy is hers, not mine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ophelia Millais (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 2:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Real Reason
      Rather than begging the question, I'd say this was a straw man. We did not argue that she shouldn't have had any copyright at all, but your reply is written as if we did.
      
      Regardless, you suggest she only wrote the book because she knew she could get (at the time) 56 years'-worth of royalties. I believe that it would still have been written even if she could've only gotten, say, 10 years'-worth. Since writing was her true calling, maybe even less than that. And I believe that the prospect of the gravy train coming to an end so "soon" would've helped motivate her to bestow more great works upon the public.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 3:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Real Reason
        Fair enough. I still think that the argument that she didn't write again because she didn't think the rewards were sufficient is equally plausible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ophelia Millais (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 2:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Real Reason
        My understanding is that she wrote Mockingbird after friends & family encouraged and subsidized the couple of years she spent on it, and she didn't write again mainly just because she hated the limelight. Maybe that's related to fear of criticism/failure, who knows.
        
        We can speculate as to what degree copyright and the promise of a lifetime-plus of royalties played in her life and career choices, but to be fair, she doesn't owe the public anything, nor has she made the kind of arguments we're railing against here, and her current dispute has nothing to do with it. I hope I didn't imply those things.
        
        Like I said, I just think of her when I hear defenders of copyright, in litigation and legislation, insist that creativity depends on long, strongly enforced terms.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 8 May 2013 @ 2:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Real Reason
        "I still think that the argument that she didn't write again because she didn't think the rewards were sufficient is equally plausible."
        
        I disagree. I can see many personal reasons why Lee didn't wish to write a new book, some of which are well documented. I can see the argument that the fact that she got to live most of the rest of her life with guaranteed royalties for a highly successful debut could have *discouraged* the writing of a further novel.
        
        I can't, however, fathom a person going "well, I'd *love* to write a book, but I'll only get 56 years of royalties so what's the point?". Especially since that term was significantly extended during the time frame being addressed.
        
        I'd love to hear a reasonable argument to say why 56 years is too short but life+X years past death is just enough for a person to say "yeah, let's write this book", but I don't see it being plausible even if money is the only motivator.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 7 May 2013 @ 12:06pm

Hey, Maximalists!
This is an actual case of copyright theft. Now do you see the difference between it and infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2013 @ 3:03pm
  
  Re: Hey, Maximalists!
  I see a difference, but I think both are theft. Theft is a broad term that encompasses interferences with a person's rights in a given thing. The interference with fraudulently getting someone to sign over their copyright is greater than the interference with infringement of that copyright, but both are interferences nonetheless.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sheogorath (profile), 9 May 2013 @ 2:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Hey, Maximalists!
    Actually, theft is taking something without the owner's knowledgeable consent, thus denying them use of it, whereas infringement involves making an illegal copy, leaving the original in place for the owner to do what they want with it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]