09-2878-cv
United States Court of Appeals
for the
Second Circuit
J.D. SALINGER, individually and as Trustee of the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
– v. – FREDRIK COLTING, writing under the name John David California,WINDUPBIRD PUBLISHING LTD., NICOTEXT A.B. and ABP, INC.,doing business as SCB Distributors, Inc.,
Defendants-Appellants.
_______________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
F
RANKFURT
K
URNIT
K
LEIN
&
S
ELZ
P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants
488 Madison Avenue, 10
th
Floor New York, New York 10022(212) 980-0120
FKKS: 382588.v3 18927.200
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The undersigned counsel for Defendants-Appellants Windupbird Publishing,Ltd., Nicotext A.B. and ABP Inc. d/b/a SCB Distributors Inc. (all private non-governmental parties) certify that the following are corporate parents, affiliatesand/or subsidiaries of said parties, which are publicly held: None of the Defendants-Appellants is a publicly held entity.FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, P.C.By:_________________________________ Edward H. Rosenthal (ER-8022)Maura J. Wogan (MW-9589)Jessie F. Beeber (JB-3129)Cameron A. Myler (CM-7942)Marisa Sarig (MS-3786)
*
488 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor New York, New York 10022(212) 980-0120
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants
*
Admission to the Second Circuit is pending.
FKKS: 382588.v3 18927.200
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................iiiPRELIMINARY STATEMENT...............................................................................1
JURISDICTION.........................................................................................................2
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW......................................3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................6
A.
Plaintiff-Appellee Salinger and His Book.............................................7
B.
Defendant-Appellant Colting and His Book.........................................9
C.
60YL
Takes Minimal Material from
CITR
and Only to Serve itsCritical Purpose...................................................................................17
D.
Academic Experts Conclude that
60YL
is Transformative and aSerious Commentary on
CITR
and Holden Caulfield.........................18
E.
Defendants Are Damaged by the Injunction.......................................20
STANDARD OF REVIEW.....................................................................................22
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...............................................................................23
ARGUMENT...........................................................................................................25
POINT ITHE DISTRICT COURT’S INJUNCTION BARRING THEPUBLICATION OF THIS TRANSFORMATIVE WORK IS ANIMPERMISSIBLE PRIOR RESTRAINT.....................................................25
A.
This is Not a Case of “Simple Piracy” Where an InjunctionMight be Appropriate..........................................................................27
B.
The Irreparable Harm to Defendants and the Public Outweighsany Presumed Harm to Plaintiff..........................................................28
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
