let me hear your voice tonight (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
alexseanchai) wrote2012-02-25 10:48 am
alexseanchai) wrote2012-02-25 10:48 am
Entry tags:
Fanfiction Law on LexisNexis, Part 2: Salinger v. Colting
Citation: Salinger v Colting, 641 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
Parties: J.D. Salinger, author of Catcher in the Rye, plaintiff. Fredrik Colting writing as John David California, author of 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye, and publishers, defendants.
Facts: Salinger wrote a book. Colting wrote a sequel to Salinger's book.
Prior Proceedings: This was the first time the case appeared in court.
Issue: Under federal law, does a sequel to a previous work constitute fair use of that previous work?
Holding: No. Not this sequel to this work, anyway.
Reasoning: The purpose of 60 Years Later is commercial (against fair use) and nontransformative (against fair use) and nonparodic (against fair use): Colting's character, referred to as Mr. C, did not add or change enough (or, apparently, anything) from Salinger's character Holden Caulfield, and Colting commented at some length on Salinger but did not comment on Catcher. The original work is fiction (against fair use). 60 Years Later took extensive material from Catcher (against fair use). 60 Years Later's publication, while unlikely to harm the market for Catcher (for fair use), would harm the market for authorized sequels to Catcher (against fair use), harming Salinger despite Salinger's apparent disinterest in producing or authorizing sequels to Catcher.
Disposition: No publication of 60 Years Later allowed.
And then the appeal.
Citation: Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010)
Parties: Colleen M. Salinger and Matthew R. Salinger, J.D. Salinger's children and Trustees of the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust, plaintiffs-appellees (Salinger himself died before the appeal). Fredrik Colting and publishers, defendants-appellants.
Facts and Prior Proceedings: see above.
Issue: Under eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 390, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 164 L. Ed. 2d 641 (2006), is the Second Circuit's historical test for whether to issue an injunction against a copyright violation valid?
Holding: The District Court screwed up in that eBay requires a four-factor test for a injunction against doing X and the District Court considered only one factor. But the copyright issues were properly decided by the District Court. Vacated and remanded for the District Court to consider what to do about the established copyright violation.
Comments: Colting made two mistakes. One, which distinguishes this case from any future case involving fanworks, is that Colting wants to make money off his work. And two, going by what the judges said about the content of 60 Years Later, the work is basically a retread of canon, just with Colting's Mr. C sixty years older and the setting sixty years later and the original author made into a character. Colting didn't add or change a damn thing except bits of plot.
I am, rather to my surprise, on the District Court's side in this. There's a fairly clear line between 'fanwork' and 'plagiarism', and Colting's on the wrong side.
Parties: J.D. Salinger, author of Catcher in the Rye, plaintiff. Fredrik Colting writing as John David California, author of 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye, and publishers, defendants.
Facts: Salinger wrote a book. Colting wrote a sequel to Salinger's book.
Prior Proceedings: This was the first time the case appeared in court.
Issue: Under federal law, does a sequel to a previous work constitute fair use of that previous work?
Holding: No. Not this sequel to this work, anyway.
Reasoning: The purpose of 60 Years Later is commercial (against fair use) and nontransformative (against fair use) and nonparodic (against fair use): Colting's character, referred to as Mr. C, did not add or change enough (or, apparently, anything) from Salinger's character Holden Caulfield, and Colting commented at some length on Salinger but did not comment on Catcher. The original work is fiction (against fair use). 60 Years Later took extensive material from Catcher (against fair use). 60 Years Later's publication, while unlikely to harm the market for Catcher (for fair use), would harm the market for authorized sequels to Catcher (against fair use), harming Salinger despite Salinger's apparent disinterest in producing or authorizing sequels to Catcher.
Disposition: No publication of 60 Years Later allowed.
And then the appeal.
Citation: Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010)
Parties: Colleen M. Salinger and Matthew R. Salinger, J.D. Salinger's children and Trustees of the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust, plaintiffs-appellees (Salinger himself died before the appeal). Fredrik Colting and publishers, defendants-appellants.
Facts and Prior Proceedings: see above.
Issue: Under eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 390, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 164 L. Ed. 2d 641 (2006), is the Second Circuit's historical test for whether to issue an injunction against a copyright violation valid?
Holding: The District Court screwed up in that eBay requires a four-factor test for a injunction against doing X and the District Court considered only one factor. But the copyright issues were properly decided by the District Court. Vacated and remanded for the District Court to consider what to do about the established copyright violation.
Comments: Colting made two mistakes. One, which distinguishes this case from any future case involving fanworks, is that Colting wants to make money off his work. And two, going by what the judges said about the content of 60 Years Later, the work is basically a retread of canon, just with Colting's Mr. C sixty years older and the setting sixty years later and the original author made into a character. Colting didn't add or change a damn thing except bits of plot.
I am, rather to my surprise, on the District Court's side in this. There's a fairly clear line between 'fanwork' and 'plagiarism', and Colting's on the wrong side.