Questions for Jeffrey P. Bezos [Amazon CEO]; New York Times, 12/6/09

Deborah Solomon, New York Times; Questions for Jeffrey P. Bezos [Amazon CEO]:

[Solomon:] "Barnes & Noble claims on its Web site that the Nook has several advantages over the Kindle — for one thing, a Nook book can be lent to friends. You can forward the text to another user.

[Bezos:] The current thing being talked about is extremely limited. You can lend to one friend. One time. You can’t pick two friends, not even serially, so once you’ve loaned one book to one friend, that’s it.

[Solomon:] You have to pick just one person? What are you saying? It’s like “Sophie’s Choice”?

[Bezos:] It is “Sophie’s Choice.” Very nicely done...

[Solomon:] Of all the books that Amazon sells, what percentage are digital books?

[Bezos:] For every 100 copies of a physical book we sell, where we have the Kindle edition, we will sell 48 copies of the Kindle edition. It won’t be too long before we’re selling more electronic books than we are physical books. It’s astonishing.

[Solomon:] How quickly are paper books migrating into their digital equivalents?

[Bezos:] When we launched Kindle two years ago, it was 90,000 titles, and today it’s more than 350,000. We’re adding thousands of titles every week. Our vision is every book ever printed in every language, all available within 60 seconds.

[Solomon:] But so much is missing. I see the so-called Kindle store doesn’t carry “The Catcher in the Rye” or “Franny and Zooey.” Is that because J. D. Salinger has declined to authorize digital editions of his books?

[Bezos:] You’d have to ask him...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/magazine/06fob-q4-t.html

Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Banned ‘Catcher’ Sequel; New York Times, 9/3/09

Dave Itzkoff via New York Times; Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Banned ‘Catcher’ Sequel:

If Fredrik Colting needs any blurbs for his book “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” he probably should not seek one from Judge Guido Calabresi. Judge Calabresi was one of three judges on a panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan that on Thursday heard arguments on whether Mr. Colting should be allowed to publish the book in the United States. In July, a federal district judge indefinitely enjoined the publication of “60 Years Later,” which Mr. Colting wrote under the pen name J. D. California, and has promoted as a sequel to the J. D. Salinger novel “The Catcher in the Rye.” On Thursday, The Associated Press reported, Judge Calabresi called Mr. Colting’s book a “rather dismal piece of work.” But two judges on the panel questioned if the federal district court had heard enough evidence before issuing its injunction. The court did not immediately rule on Thursday."

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/appeals-court-hears-arguments-on-banned-catcher-sequel/?scp=1&sq=colting&st=cse

The Sincerest Form of Lawsuit Bait; New York Times, 8/16/09

Charles McGrath via New York Times; The Sincerest Form of Lawsuit Bait:

"But Mr. Colting’s book has nevertheless become a literary cause célèbre, with a number of legal experts, including one from The New York Times, seeking to overturn the judge’s decision. The argument is that the Colting text is “transformative”: that instead of being a mere rip-off, it adds something original and substantive to Mr. Salinger’s version. This is the same principle Alice Randall appealed to in 2001 when she fought the estate of Margaret Mitchell over her right to publish “The Wind Done Gone,” her parody of “Gone With the Wind,” told from the point of view of Scarlett’s half-sister, a slave. The case was eventually settled when Ms. Randall’s publisher agreed to make a donation to Morehouse College, in Ms. Mitchell’s hometown, Atlanta.

Something similar happened with “Lo’s Diary,” by Pia Pera, which retells Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita” from Lo’s point of view and argues, incidentally, that Humbert did not kill Quilty. Dmitri Nabokov, the author’s son and a zealous protector of his father’s legacy, initially objected but then came around for a percentage of the royalties, which he donated to PEN, the writers’ group...

Luckily, “Jane Eyre” was in the public domain, as was “Hamlet” when John Updike wrote “Gertrude and Claudius,” a prequel that re-imagines the “Hamlet story” from the point of view of the guilty couple and explains at last why Gertrude and Claudius got together in the first place: he was master of some sweaty sexual techniques apparently unknown to his brother.

Books that are still in copyright are a more complicated challenge for the would-be writer of prequels and sequels. This is partly because a lot of money is sometimes at stake. The Mitchell estate was so fussy about protecting “Gone With the Wind” because the franchise is a gold mine. Alexandra Ripley’s “Scarlett,” an authorized sequel, was a huge best seller in 1991, even though the critics sniffed at it. Living authors, moreover, are understandably attached to their characters and creations and may not want to think of them as demented, say, or having problems with bladder control. Where do you draw the line between critique or parody and outright exploitation?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/weekinreview/16mcgrath.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=jane%20austen&st=cse

Author Appeals Injunction Against Salinger Sequel; New York Times Arts Beat Blog, 7/24/09

Dave Itzkoff via New York Times Arts Beat Blog; Author Appeals Injunction Against Salinger Sequel:

"Judge Deborah A. Batts of United States District Court in Manhattan ruled that the book was not a protected parody or commentary, and that it infringed on Mr. Salinger’s copyrights.

In court papers filed Thursday with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, lawyers for Mr. Colting wrote that “60 Years Later” is “a complex and undeniably transformative comment on one of our nation’s most famous authors,” adding: “Had this commentary and criticism been published as an essay, a dissertation or an academic article, there is no doubt that it never would have been enjoined.”

The appeals filing can be read in its entirety below:

Salinger Case Defendants 2ndCir Brief 7-23-09
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/author-appeals-injunction-against-salinger-sequel/?scp=2&sq=salinger&st=cse

Special Report: Swedish Author’s Take On The Catcher In The Rye Copyright Case; Intellectual Property Watch, 7/10/09

Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen via Intellectual Property Watch; Special Report: Swedish Author’s Take On The Catcher In The Rye Copyright Case:

"Windupbird Publishing owned by Swedish author Fredrik Colting, alias John David California, promises that its books will “tickle your feet and yank your soul.” But American author J.D. Salinger is not amused and has indeed been wound up by Colting’s latest book, which he says is infringing on the copyright of his best-seller, “Catcher in the Rye.” A New York court recently sided with Salinger, but Intellectual Property Watch talked to Colting about why the battle is bound to go on.

Colting said he wants to appeal the New York ruling this week. “I believe we will win,” he said. The appeal will go to the Circuit Court of Appeal, in which there will be three judges, he said. The case is expected to come up in September."

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/07/10/special-report-swedish-authors-take-on-the-catcher-in-the-rye-copyright-court-case/

District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?; TechDirt, 7/2/09

Mike Masnick via TechDirt; District Court Bans 'Catcher In The Rye' Sequel; Since When Did The US Ban Books?:

"The rest of the discussion on the four factors fair use test is rather troubling...

Stunningly, the judge even points out that the stories have similar arcs (which isn't surprising), but to claim that because of a similar story arc there's infringement is incredibly troubling for pretty much any writer. After all, people write stories with similar arcs all the time.

Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, is her finding on the fourth prong, concerning the impact on the market for the copyrighted work, she actually finds that this weighs against fair use. Again, the logic simply does not add up. The judge admits that it probably would not negatively impact the actual demand for Catcher in the Rye, she actually ignores the fact that the opposite would likely occur. If anything, it will drive more people to go out and buy copies of the original to read (or, more likely in many cases to re-read) to go along with this new book. The judge's reasoning is that this book would harm the market for an actual sequel, but again, that's difficult to square with reality. If JD Salinger announced he was writing a sequel... that would make tremendous news, and it would be quite clear that people would rush to get the "real" sequel. Even if he were to license it (which appears to be the judge's main concern) to someone else to write (which seems insanely unlikely given Salinger's actions to date), people would quickly learn of the "authorized" vs. "unauthorized" versions. It's difficult to see how it would harm the market at all.

This is a very troubling ruling that seems to go against the very basics of copyright law in many, many ways. Hopefully, the ruling does not stand for very long."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090702/0125045432.shtml

Holden Caulfield Stays Young: Salinger Wins Copyright Suit; Wall Street Journal Law Blog, 7/1/09

Ashby Jones via Wall Street Journal Law Blog; Holden Caulfield Stays Young: Salinger Wins Copyright Suit:

"U.S. District Court judge Deborah Batts followed up on her temporary restraining order from last month, and permanently banned publication of an unauthorized sequel to J.D. Salinger’s uber-famous novel, Catcher in the Rye. Click here for the NYT article; here for the opinion; here and here for previous LB coverage of the case.

Judge Batts ruled that the novel, penned by an American living in Sweden who used the pseudonym J.D. California, did not fit into the fair use exception in copyright law because the book did not constitute a critical parody that “transformed” the original."

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/01/holden-caulfield-stays-young-salinger-wins-copyright-suit/

Ruling for Salinger, Judge Bans ‘Rye’ Sequel; New York Times, 7/1/09

Sewell Chan via New York Times; Ruling for Salinger, Judge Bans ‘Rye’ Sequel:

"In a victory for the reclusive writer J. D. Salinger, a federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely banned publication in the United States of a new book by a Swedish author that contains a 76-year-old version of Holden Caulfield, the protagonist of “The Catcher in the Rye.”

The judge, Deborah A. Batts, of United States District Court in Manhattan, had granted a 10-day temporary restraining order last month against the author, Fredrik Colting, who wrote the new novel under the pen name J. D. California.

In a 37-page ruling filed on Wednesday, Judge Batts issued a preliminary injunction — indefinitely banning the publication, advertising or distribution of the book in this country — after considering the merits of the case. The book has been published in Britain.

“I am pretty blown away by the judge’s decision,” Mr. Colting said in an e-mail message after the ruling. “Call me an ignorant Swede, but the last thing I thought possible in the U.S. was that you banned books.” Mr. Colting and his lawyer, Edward H. Rosenthal, said they would appeal. The decision means that “members of the public are deprived of the chance to read the book and decide for themselves whether it adds to their understanding of Salinger and his work,” Mr. Rosenthal said...

In a copyright infringement lawsuit filed June 1, lawyers for Mr. Salinger contended that the new work was derivative of “Catcher” and Holden Caulfield, and infringed on Mr. Salinger’s copyright.

The work by Mr. Colting, 33, centers on a 76-year-old “Mr. C,” the creation of a writer named Mr. Salinger. Although the name Holden Caulfield does not appear in the book, Mr. C is clearly Holden, one of the best-known adolescent figures in American fiction, aged 60 years.

(The similarities between the characters were not much in dispute. As Judge Batts wrote in her ruling, “Both narratives are told from the first-person point of view of a sarcastic, often uncouth protagonist who relies heavily on slang, euphemisms and colloquialisms, makes constant digression and asides, refers to readers in the second person, constantly assures the reader that he is being honest and that he is giving them the truth.”)

Mr. Colting’s lawyers argued, among other things, that the new novel, titled “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” did not violate copyright laws because it amounted to a critical parody that had the effect of transforming the original work.

Judge Batts rejected that argument, writing:
To the extent Defendants contend that 60 Years and the character of Mr. C direct parodic comment or criticism at Catcher or Holden Caulfield, as opposed to Salinger himself, the Court finds such contentions to be post-hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivety of the original, rather than reasonably perceivable parody...

While the case could still go to trial, Judge Batts’s ruling means that Mr. Colting’s book cannot be published in the United States pending the resolution of the litigation, which could drag on for months or years."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/judge-rules-for-salinger-in-copyright-suit/?hp

Federal Judge Mulls Copyright Status for Salinger's Holden Caulfield; Law.com, 6/18/09

Mark Hamblett via Law.com; Federal Judge Mulls Copyright Status for Salinger's Holden Caulfield:

"Marcia B. Paul of Davis Wright Tremaine, representing Salinger, won the first part of the hearing by convincing [Judge Deborah] Batts, who said she had read both books, that there was a "substantial similarity" between the two works.

Paul and the attorney for Colting and his publisher, Edward H. Rosenthal of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, disagreed over the degree of copyright protection that can be afforded the characters within a book.

Rosenthal said there is case law protecting ubiquitous animated figures such as Superman, but that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts have not extended the law's protection to purely literary or "words on a page" characters.

Paul responded, "That's not the law. A sufficiently delineated character should be protected."...

"It is hard to separate Holden Caulfield from the book," [Judge Deborah Batts] said. "It would seem that Holden Caulfield is copyrightable."

The judge then turned to the question of whether "60 Years Later" is nonetheless protected by the fair use doctrine.

Here, the burden shifted to Rosenthal, who noted that the point of copyright protection is to "promote the progress of science and the arts ..."

"But not stealing," Batts interjected...

The argument that "60 Years Later" was a work of literary criticism was not helped by the fact that Colting, known as "John Doe" in the pleadings, had called the book "a sequel" before he had time to consult with lawyers for his U.S. publisher, SCB Distributors...

Paul also said fair use protection presumes good faith and fair dealing."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202431554331

US publication of book delayed in Salinger dispute; Associated Press, 6/17/09

Larry Neumeister via Associated Press; US publication of book delayed in Salinger dispute:

"U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts temporarily blocked publication of the book, "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye," until she rules whether the book transforms Salinger's original creation enough that it qualifies to be published as a "fair use" of a copyrighted work.

A ruling was anticipated in the next 10 days. The book was scheduled for U.S. release on Sept. 15 but the court dispute was likely to delay that...

She said she read both novels and agreed with Salinger that the new book was substantially similar to his own, published in 1951. Although there was little legal precedent to find that a character in a book with no drawings or photographs of him could be copyrighted, Batts said she believed Caufield could be.

"It's a portrait by words," she said. "It is difficult in fact to separate Holden Caulfield from the book

The hearing featured spirited arguments over whether Salinger's most famous literary character, Holden Caufield, is himself entitled to copyright protection and whether stopping publication of what some publicity materials referred to as a sequel would amount to a book ban.

[Fredrik] Colting, who lives near Gothenburg, Sweden, said in a court document that he did not "slavishly copy" Salinger when he wrote "60 Years Later," his first novel, under the pseudonym J.D. California.

"I am not a pirate," he wrote. He said he wrote the book as a critical exploration of the relationship between Salinger and his famous fictional character.

He said he used his book to transform "the precocious and authentic Holden into a 76-year-old man fraught with indecision and insecurity." The character, identified as "Mr. C," escapes from a retirement home and experiences similar to those Caulfield went through decades earlier.

He said his dedication of the book to Salinger was ironic.

"While I greatly admire Salinger as a writer, he is not the God-Author the public has created," Colting wrote. He also said it was a mistake that early copies of the book released in Great Britain included words promoting it as a sequel to Salinger's book.

During arguments Wednesday, Salinger lawyer Marcia Beth Paul called Colting's book "pure commercialism." She said 94 percent of the book was told in Caufield's voice and only 6 percent in Salinger's voice.

"This is a book about Holden Caulfield," Paul said. "It's a sequel, plain and simple."

She said it was wrong of the defendants to claim that blocking publication of the book because it infringes copyrights would be the same as banning a book. Salinger's book has frequently turned up on book ban lists.

"Make no mistake about it," Rosenthal charged in response. "This is banning the book."
He added: "To enjoin the book before a full exploration of the book is a prior restraint that raises very serious First Amendment questions.""

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBf9ALIEy3wQYsMPHAEVM370POkgD98SMA901

Salinger faces curse of creating a classic; Toronto Star, 6/14/09

Toronto Star; Salinger faces curse of creating a classic:

"The book, not yet published but listed for sale on Amazon.co.uk, follows Mr. C., a curmudgeonly 76-year-old who wanders away from his retirement home to revisit some of the Manhattan sites and people originally encountered by Caulfield in Salinger's seminal work. Although Colting and his company say they intended no infringement of Salinger's artistic rights – the novel is dedicated to him – the book has been described as a sequel, which is precisely where the ailing author's complaint draws its strength. Unlike a parody, which is considered fair use of an original work, a sequel is held to be within the original creator's domain. It may well be due to this distinction, and the issue of whether a character like Holden is copyrightable, that Salinger will win out."

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/650210

J.D. Salinger's 'The Catcher in the Rye': Restraining order issued in copyright case; Entertainment Weekly, 6/17/09

Sean Smith via Entertainment Weekly; J.D. Salinger's 'The Catcher in the Rye': Restraining order issued in copyright case:

"According to Publishers Weekly, [Judge Deborah] Batts' ruling is the first time that the Second Circuit court has explicitly stated that a single character from a single work is protected by copyright."

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/06/salingers-catcher-in-the-rye-restraining-order-issued-in-copyright-case.html

Temporary Restraining Order Issued in Salinger Case; Publishers Weekly, 6/17/09

Andrew Albanese via Publishers Weekly; Temporary Restraining Order Issued in Salinger Case:

"In a precedent-setting ruling today, federal judge Deborah Batts ruled that J.D. Salinger’s most famous character, Holden Caulfield, is protected by copyright. She did not rule, however, on whether Swedish author Fredrik Colting’s use of Salinger’s iconic character in his book 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye was allowable under fair use, and issued a temporary restraining order blocking its publication...

Whatever Batts's ultimate ruling on the fair use aspect of the case, a final decision in the case will most likely come from the appellate court, since Batts's decision will be appealed by either losing side...

Salinger has a right, attorney Marcia Paul told the court, "to keep The Catcher in the Rye or Holden Caulfield frozen in time for the life of his copyright.""

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6666016.html?rssid=192

Holden Caulfield, a Ripe 76, Heads to Court Again; New York Times, 6/17/09

A.G. Sulzberger via New York Times; Holden Caulfield, a Ripe 76, Heads to Court Again:

"The case is one of several in recent years exploring how much license the public has to draw on a classic work. In 2001 the estate of Margaret Mitchell, author of “Gone With the Wind,” sued unsuccessfully to prevent the release of “The Wind Done Gone,” which told the same story from the perspective of a slave. Last year J. K. Rowling, the author of the best-selling Harry Potter books, won a lawsuit over a guidebook to the series called The Harry Potter Lexicon.

“This case is really interesting because it really is where copyright runs into First Amendment rights, and it shows the jagged line between them,” said Jennifer Jenkins, director of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School, who also was part of the legal team that defended the publisher in “The Wind Done Gone” lawsuit.

In examining questions of fair use of copyrighted work, courts have looked at whether a new work transforms the original in a significant way, Ms. Jenkins said, citing a Supreme Court ruling that a legitimate work must add “something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/books/17salinger.html?ref=arts

Salinger sues over "Catcher in the Rye" sequel; Reuters, 6/1/09

Edith Honan via Reuters; Salinger sues over "Catcher in the Rye" sequel:

"J.D. Salinger on Monday sued the writer and publisher of a book billed as a sequel to his classic novel "The Catcher in the Rye," saying the work infringes on his copyright.

Salinger is asking a judge to block publication of "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye" written by an author identified as J.D. California.

According to online bookstore Amazon.com, the book will be published in September by Swedish publisher Nicotext.

"The sequel is not a parody and it does not comment upon or criticize the original. It is a rip-off pure and simple," said the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan...

Salinger holds a copyright to the 1951 novel, considered one of the great works of American literature, and its main character, Holden Caulfield.

The lawsuit describes Salinger as "fiercely protective of his intellectual property" and says he "would not approve of defendants' use of his intellectual property.""

http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSTRE5507H720090601