The verdict has just come through in the US District Court of Manhattan that has effected an injunction versus a Swedish author's "unauthorized" sequel to JD Salinger's beloved "Catcher in the Rye." The judge argues that the story, revolving around the adventures of an elderly man named "Mr. C." escaping from his retirement home, does not adequately fulfill the qualities of being a parody of the iconic protagonist Holden Caulfield.
Read more here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_on_re_us/us_books_salinger
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/books/02salinger.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Consider this in the light of the very well known case of Suntrust v. Houghton-Mifflin (3d Cir. 2001), which has a similar case pattern. In it, the court allowed a retelling of Margaret Mitchell's "Gone with the Wind" from a slave's perspective. Deeming "The Wind Done Gone" a parody novel, the Third Circuit reinforced the Fair Use Doctrine. Here's a summary: http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=3121
Given this, how can the District Court's ruling feel right?
It is very good that they fight against this problem. "Catcher in the Rye" is an amazing book and shouldn't be touched..
Post new comment