Asshat in the Rye

Now for something completely Different:

I love that term 'Asshat' And I love when someone can use it to make a point.

JD Salinger filed copyright suit against some hack who wrote a sequel to Catcher in the Rye, wherein Holden is an old crazy coot wondering what happened to his life. Probably no one ever read it... but that aint the point.

Read all about it, and what a First Amendment Lawyer thinks about it {Hint: Fuck You, Old Man Salinger} and WHY!

Satyricon: Asshat in the Rye

I like this part, which aint really got nothin to do with nothin', except maybe to the idea that Salinger de facto abandoned the copyright by not exercising it.

{Yeah... and Joseph Heller should'a done that, too. And if you dont know what book Heller wrote, then you're a ... gasp.. moron.}

Anyway... this has to do with a Seinfeld case, Harry Potter.. and Sonia Sotomayor.

So there!

 

Cheap laugh. Even cheaper sequel. Much, miuch cheaper quote from a Constitutional Lawyer (What the hell is that anyway? I can claim, along with millions other, to be one too. Just ask my German professor.)

From a legal perspective,...does the infringement even really need pointing out??

 

Unfortunately, Salinger is not on solid legal ground here. Precedence is not on his side, and since (I'm assuming) he didn't trademark (different from copyright) his character, he's probably going to lose. What a shameless ploy by "J.D. California."

 

Time will tell. I don't think Salinger is on as questionable grounds as you, as satire is one thing, sequels are another. And I don;t quite see where you are going with your distinction between trademark and copyright, although there is a definite distinction in the legal (or even dictionary) world.

Raise your hand if you know you don't have to "register" a copyright?

 

And now I finally read the article, at least the coherent parts.

Wow, they let anyone write anything these days. I am more convinced now than ever, Salinger wins this one.

 

Sadly, that doesnt surprise me.
-and-
Sadly, I cant lay claim to the phrase.

But it has to do with 'Intellectual Property rights' and how when you create a fictional character, anything to do with the character, or referring to the character is yours forever.

I'm torn on that concept. Somehow I think if some governmental body found a way to tax the proceeds of that character, it could appropriate it for a small sum and sell to the highest bidder.

 

Not exactly:

"The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Since the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.Copyright protection for works published prior to January 1, 1978 was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date."

And I remember my law professor saying we had Disney to thank for this. The copyright on their characters was soon to set before this was passed.

 

"Franny and Zooey" was not bad at all. And neither were many of his short stories in "Nine Stories". He certainly captured my imagination in my late teens/early twenties, taking me to meet families and surroundings that were unfamiliar to my Southern upbringing, but appreciated nonetheless.

Of course, I went to boarding school, and many of the themes in "Catcher in the Rye", while New York in orginiation, resonated with me, my association to the New York of the South (Atlanta), and my internal angst and maturity.

Still one my most favorite books ever, "Catcher in the Rye". And Salinger was a very nice segue into Vonnegut.

But, I agree "Asshat in the Rye" is damn funny, and appeals to the immaturity in all of us. Probably even Salinger a little, and certainly Holden Caulfield.

 

Wikipedia is the Westlaw and Lexis of the layman masses:

Although Mitchell refused to write a sequel to Gone With The Wind, Mitchell's estate authorised Alexandra Ripley to write the novel Scarlett in 1991.

Author Pat Conroy was approached to write a follow-up, but the project was ultimately abandoned.

In 2000, the copyright holders attempted to suppress publication of Alice Randall’s The Wind Done Gone, a book that retold the story from the point of view of the slaves. A federal appeals court denied the plaintiffs an injunction against publication in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin (2001), on the basis that the book was parody protected by the First Amendment. The parties subsequently settled out of court to allow the book to be published. After its release, the book became a New York Times bestseller.

In 2002, the copyright holders blocked distribution of an unauthorised sequel published in the U.S, The Winds of Tara by Katherine Pinotti, alleging copyright infringement. The story follows Scarlett as she returns to Tara where a family issue threatens Tara and the family's reputation. In it Scarlett shows just how far she will go to protect her family and her home. The book was immediately removed from bookstores by publisher Xlibris. The book sold in excess of 2,000 copies within 2 weeks before being removed. More recently, in 2008, Australian publisher Fontaine Press re-published "The Winds of Tara" exclusively for their domestic market, avoiding U.S. copyright restrictions.

A second sequel was released in November 2007. The story covers the same time period as Gone with the Wind and is told from Rhett Butler’s perspective – although it begins years before and ends after. Written by Donald McCaig, this novel is titled Rhett Butler's People (2007).