Judge Halts Publication of ‘Catcher’ Sequel, For Now

[WSJ Law Blog]

In a post we did a couple weeks ago about the Salinger suit, we quoted a copyright lawyer who suggested that the work by the defendant, J.D. California (a.k.a. Fredrik Colting) might only withstand Salinger’s challenge if he could prove that his book was a parody of Salingers’ original, the “Catcher in the Rye.”

In order to prove itself “parodic,” the lawyer said that California’s book might have to provide commentary on the original work.

It was partly on that point that U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts balked today. Batts ultimately enjoined the publication of California’s book for 10 days so she could consider the broader merits. Click <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBf9ALIEy3wQYsMPHAEVM370POkgD98SK5LO0" target="_blank'>here for the AP article; <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/books/17salinger.html?scp=3&sq=salinger&st=cse" target="_blank">here for a post from the NYT’s City Room blog.

According to the AP, a lawyer for California argued that the book should be allowed to be published because it provided meaningful criticism of Salinger and the book’s main character, Holden Caulfield.

Batts, who said she has read both books, said the issue was not that she was having trouble determining whether the criticism in the book was effective. “Let me be clear,” she said. “I am having difficulty seeing that it exists” at all.

Davis Wright Tremaine’s Marcia Paul, Salinger’s lawyer, said the book copied her client’s book and was “pure commercialism,” meant to capitalize on the success of Salinger’s original.

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.

“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.”