by Mike Masnick
Wed, Aug 5th 2009 3:14pm
Last month we wrote about how a district court banned the publication of a so-called "sequel" (written by another author) to JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye. I had a lot of trouble with this ruling, which seemed to be a complete assault on the basics of free speech and a total misreading of copyright law. The book itself is not a copy, but something entirely new. Whether or not it's any good (and some of the reviews say it's not), it is a new creative work -- the exact type of thing that copyright was supposed to encourage. It's good to see a lot of other folks are quite concerned about this ruling as well, and the Fair Use Project at Stanford has teamed up with some other universities to file an amicus brief on behalf of the American Library Association and some other library associations, who are reasonably concerned about the free speech implications of banning the publication of a book such as this one.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Appeals Court Doesn't Think Putting Historical Figures In Video Games Is Free Speech
- Inglewood Told To Pay $118k Of Taxpayer Money For Abusing Copyright Law To Silence A Critic
- Mother Jones Wins Ridiculous SLAPP Suit Filed By Billionaire... Who Still Claims Victory
- Appeals Court: No You Can't Copyright Yoga
- No, Making Fun Of Donald Trump's Stupid Red Hat Isn't Trademark Infringement