Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Salinger Amicus Brief (Filed)

Salinger Amicus Brief (Filed)

Ratings:

4.5

(2)
|Views: 798 |Likes:
The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), The Organization for Transformative Works, and the Right to Write Fund have filed an amicus curiae brief asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to reverse the Federal District Court judge’s ruling in Salinger v. Colting.

In July, the District Court ruled in favor of author J.D. Salinger, who claimed that Fredrik Colting, the author of “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” infringed his copyright on “Catcher in the Rye.” The District Court’s preliminary injunction prohibits the publication and distribution of the book, which the groups believe implicates free speech rights of authors, publishers and the public protected by the First Amendment.

In their “friend of the court” filing, the groups also assert that the judge applied too narrow an interpretation of the “fair use” doctrine, which permits new, transformative works into the marketplace.
The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), The Organization for Transformative Works, and the Right to Write Fund have filed an amicus curiae brief asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to reverse the Federal District Court judge’s ruling in Salinger v. Colting.

In July, the District Court ruled in favor of author J.D. Salinger, who claimed that Fredrik Colting, the author of “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye,” infringed his copyright on “Catcher in the Rye.” The District Court’s preliminary injunction prohibits the publication and distribution of the book, which the groups believe implicates free speech rights of authors, publishers and the public protected by the First Amendment.

In their “friend of the court” filing, the groups also assert that the judge applied too narrow an interpretation of the “fair use” doctrine, which permits new, transformative works into the marketplace.

More info:

Published by: ALA Washington Office on Aug 06, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/19/2011

pdf

text

original

 
09 – 2878 – cv
IN THEUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR 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., doingbusiness as SCB Distributors, Inc.
 Defendants-Appellants.
On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York 
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION,ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES, ASSOCIATION OFCOLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES, THE ORGANIZATION FORTRANSFORMATIVE WORKS AND THE RIGHT TO WRITE FUND INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND URGING REVERSAL
Anthony T. FalzoneJulie A. AhrensSarah H. PearsonCenter for Internet and SocietyStanford Law School559 Nathan Abbott WayStanford, CA 94305(650) 736-9050Rebecca TushnetGeorgetown UniversityLaw Center600 New Jersey Ave., NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 662-9935Jennifer M. UrbanSamuelson Law, Technology& Public Policy Clinic585 Simon HallUniversity of California,Berkeley, School of LawBerkeley, CA 94720(510) 642-7338
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
 
STATEMENT OF INTEREST ................................................................... 1II.
 
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1III.
 
ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................3A.
 
The District Court Failed To Apply The ControllingPreliminary Injunction Standard
 
......................................................41. The Court Failed To Consider The Balance Of Equities, Or The Public Interest ............................................. 4a. The Public Interest Cuts Strongly AgainstA Preliminary Injunction ............................................. 5b. The Balance Of Equities Cuts StronglyAgainst A Preliminary Injunction ............................... 92. The Court Erred In Presuming IrreparableHarm .................................................................................... 10B. The District Court Erred By Applying An UndulyRestrictive Fair Use Standard .......................................................... 141. The District Court Defined TransformativenessToo Narrowly ........................................................................ 15a. Transformativeness Is More Than Parody .................16b. Transformativeness Need Not Be ApparentTo All .......................................................................... 17c. Transformativeness Can Build on FeaturesPresent in the Original ................................................20d. Transformativeness Can Target the Author ............... 23
 
ii
2. The District Court’s Errors in Factor One InfectedIts Analysis of the Remaining Factors ..................................253. The District Court Erred in Considering MoralRights as Economic Incentives .............................................26IV.
 
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 28

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
benbyrd liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->