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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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