Amicus Briefs Filed in the J. D. Salinger Case

[rattlesnakeroot]

First a definition for "Amicus Brief" from WiseGeek:

The tradition of accepting amicus briefs comes from a larger concept, the amicus curiae, or “friend of the court.” A friend of the court may be interested in a case for various reasons, although he or she is not directly involved. For example, a court might be preparing to try a case related to

Comments

Copyright, get your copyright here!

[teaqueenie]

Well, the title and the character are a direct rip-off from Salinger. As I understand it, copyright basically is an ownership issue. Salinger owns Holden and his book. He doesn't have to let anyone else use it. The Stanford Law link acknowledges that this suit involves difficult copyright issues - code for "it's time to overturn out-dated copyright laws." I'm not sure the argument that Salinger has no plans to write his own sequel will stand.

I will be interested to see how this plays out. I'm thinking it might be an easy win for Salinger.

Re: Copyright, get your copyright here!

[rattlesnakeroot]

I'm not so sure because I think the judge made a fatal error in stating that the character of Holden is actually "owned" by the author. I admit I haven't read the entire court ruling, but from what I understand the sequal book also included Salinger himself as a character interacting with an adult Holden, so it sort of poked fun at Salinger's reclusive nature and over-possessiveness. But that sort of thing might fall under fair use because it is making a critical judgment on the original work and parodying the author's personality. Salinger doesn't control that although he thinks he does.

As far as the title goes - a title can be easily changed, as we know from recent HP books.

[bluestockingbb]

This will be an interesting one to watch.

[rattlesnakeroot]

Yes it will - I was surprised that even the Associated Press signed on for this one, since they are so strict about their own copyrights. But I'm not surprised about the Right to Write Project and the Library Associations because libraries are full of books that pay homage to famous characters, and the judge in the lower court seemed to be ruling that characters in books are sacred and can't be referenced by other writers.

[kamion]

Another legal case I understand almost nothing about, in spite of your thorough documentation.
The name of Holden Caulfield or "the Catcher in the Rye" are just very vague echo's from across the big pond. Wonder if the book would appeal to me, cause it seems to be set in a rather specific time and place. At highschool I sort of lost my taste for reading books that were written about 50 years before, mainly due to the boring taste of the teachers I think. I rather read something written in the Middle Ages then something written by literary greatgrandfathers. sooo boring.

[rattlesnakeroot]

Oh - it's not a boring book, believe me! It's written from the personal point of view of a teenage boy who has run away from boarding school and is trying to figure out his life.

[kamion]

It is also a rather thin book ( 214 pages at Bol.com )
I went to that site to see if it was available - if it wasn't raining I just walked to the bookstore - and found the same title going with a lot of different authors.
weird.
maybe I just order it and judge for meself
I am an expert on boring stories -just posted one of meself at LJ.

[aredwitch]

It is the book Chapman was holding when he killed John Lennon. He called himself the Catcher in the Rye of his generation. The story premise sounds interesting and amusing possibly but the close similarity of the titles sounds like the author is hitching his wagon to Salinger's star. Falzone admits it is a difficult case and it sounds like it. I think most authors wouldn't mind a character from their novels appearing in another novel but not as the main character. Like say a character was having a nightmare in which Donald Duck was beating over his head with a rubber mallet or he/she is walking down the street and thinks they just met the real life Harry Potter who turned them into a frog. Sequels are a tricky area. I think a really good writer will get his own ideas.

You've got it!!!!

[teaqueenie]

Whatever it is! I recently read a Jane Austen knock-off where the main characer becomes a character in an Austen novel..sorry can't remember the title. However, the author borrows but substantially changes the premise.

In this case, the author seems to want to rely heavily on the original while making Salinger a participant. I'm thinking a little tweaking will go a long way towards making this legitimate. However, as it stands, it does seem to be riding Salinger's coattails.

[lunas_ceiling]

I remember from the Lexicon case, Tim Wu saying there were heavy protections around characters. I would have to go back and see if I can dig that quote up, it was probably his piece in Salon. I am guessing that is why Falzone thinks it is a difficult case. I agree sequels are a bad area to try and claim fair use. I could see something along the lines of a character being mentioned and there are probably ways to incorporate a character through parody but it would really need to be transformative.

[kamion]

just started reading "the Catcher in the Rye."
pretty fast and straightforward, I like it.