Author of 'Catcher in the Rye' Sequel to Appeal Ruling

The author and publishers of a planned sequel to J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" will appeal a federal injunction barring any dissemination of the work in the United States.

Attorney Edward H. Rosenthal of Frankfurt Kurnit, attorney for defendants Fredrik Colting, Windup Publishing and SCB Distributors Inc., announced his clients' decision to file an expedited appeal the same day U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts granted Salinger's request to bar publication of "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye."

"We are very disappointed that the judge chose to ban Mr. Colting's book," Rosenthal said in a statement.

"'60 Years Later' is an important critical work about 'The Catcher in the Rye.' Because of the court's decision banning the book, members of the public are deprived of the chance to read the book and decide for themselves whether it adds to their understanding of Salinger and his work," Rosenthal added.

Colting, who wrote "60 Years Later" under the pseudonym J.D. California, defended his work as a parody of "The Catcher in the Rye."

Salinger, however, who is famously protective of his privacy and intellectual property, characterized the unauthorized sequel as a "rip-off, pure and simple." He filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to bar its distribution in the United States.

Salinger's iconic novel recounts the story of Holden Caulfield, whom Salinger describes in his complaint as a "precocious 16-year-old struggling to find his way in the world and an angst-filled cynic."

"60 Years Later" meets up with Holden, referred to as "Mr. C.," 60 years later in a rest home.

The sequel is on sale in the United Kingdom and is scheduled to go on sale here Sept. 15.

In granting Salinger's request for injunctive relief, Judge Batts agreed that "60 Years Later" was not protected under the fair-use doctrine.

The doctrine allows the use of copyrighted works for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.

Courts balance four factors to determine if a particular use is fair:

• The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes;
• The nature of the copyrighted work;
• The amount and substantiality of the portion of the work used; and
• The effect of the use upon the potential market for the work.

Parodies are a form of criticism or comment that may be protected under the doctrine.

The limits of protected parody, Judge Batts explained, extend to criticism or comment that may have a transformative purpose.

"60 Years Later" is not a parody because it simply rehashes the themes that ran through "Catcher," she said. The mere fact that the characters aged was not sufficient to transform the sequel into a parody, she said.

Instead, she found that Colting borrowed extensively, both substantively and stylistically, from Salinger's original work.

The judge concluded that Salinger likely would succeed on the merits of his infringement claim and is therefore entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm.

She enjoined the defendants from manufacturing, publishing, distributing, selling or advertising "60 Years Later" in the United States.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.