SodaHead Celebrates Green Week

Question Entertainment

Salinger Suing over Catcher in the Rye Sequel: Is this copyright infringement?

Roger June 02, 2009 01:20:17

J.D. Salinger, author of "Catcher in the Rye" is suing J.D. California, for writing a so called sequel to her book, called "60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye." Salinger says that California is infringing on his copyright, and is asking judges to block publication of "Coming through the Rye." However, it has been said that the sequel is only a parody, and it "does not comment upon or criticize the original." The sequel is supposed to be published in September of 09, by Swedish publisher Nicotext.
 Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.
No. California's 'Catcher in the Rye' sequel does not infringe on Copyright.
Someone else tried to write a sequel for "Catcher in the Rye"?
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Comment
  • +3 raves ctuagentdown June 04, 2009 11:14:22
    ctuagentdown

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    they should have went with pitcher in the wheat
    View thread
Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Comments
  • Xuvy June 08, 2009 11:06:26
    Xuvy

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    The sheer lack of imagination should keep people away in droves...why 'write' a book on someone else's shoulders?
  • INDO_420 June 06, 2009 11:12:29
    INDO_420

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    Does anybody have any original ideas anymore? Lets remake an old movie. Lets make a movie about an old TV show. Lets sample an old song and rap to it. Lets cover an old song and butcher it. Lets sign a million bands that all sound the same. Contemporary art in America is boring right now.
  • bluecountry June 06, 2009 04:32:34
    bluecountry

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    The copyright is for the one book not any orther wrote after that book....
  • gww INDY June 05, 2009 16:14:45
    gww INDY

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    There should have been some kind of communication and rights cooperation since they are using a form of J.D.'s work.
  • san June 05, 2009 03:47:01
    san

    Someone else tried to write a sequel for "Catcher in the Rye"?

    I have to see it to make a comment, but many people have done this already and have not been sued.
  • santa6642 June 05, 2009 01:18:28
    santa6642

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    Haven"t read them.
  • +1 raves
    Rick June 04, 2009 20:40:06
    Rick

    Someone else tried to write a sequel for "Catcher in the Rye"?

    As a declared parody, it is probably not an infringement. National Lampoon made a market in such drivel -- e.g. "Bored of the Rings". Lighten up! It'll likely attract new readers to the classic as a bonus ...
  • +1 raves
    DRLJR June 04, 2009 20:29:15
    DRLJR

    No. California's 'Catcher in the Rye' sequel does not infringe on Copyright.

    Please read Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8 of the US Constitution. Copyrights are for a limited time only. While Congress and many media companies try to create what are effective "perpetual copyrights" those are unconstitutional. The real copyright has long expired and anyone can write a sequel.
  • +1 raves
    Carol June 04, 2009 18:49:20
    Carol

    Someone else tried to write a sequel for "Catcher in the Rye"?

    I know nothing about this so I don't have anything to say.
  • +1 raves
    mojo-jojo June 04, 2009 17:38:29
    mojo-jojo

    Someone else tried to write a sequel for "Catcher in the Rye"?

    i had to do a summer reading on cather in the rye.
  • +1 raves
    Boo June 04, 2009 17:19:06
    Boo

    Someone else tried to write a sequel for "Catcher in the Rye"?

    I do not know what the copyright law says in this regard; however, it appears someone else is trying to capitalize on the popularity of Salinger's original work. If someone wanted to do a sequel, the honorable thing to do would be to consult with Salinger and obtain permission to do so.
  • +1 raves
    keeper June 04, 2009 15:41:57
    keeper

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    Should have gotten permission first...
  • +1 raves
    tyler June 04, 2009 15:05:59
    tyler

    No. California's 'Catcher in the Rye' sequel does not infringe on Copyright.

    im pretty sure as long as it does not comment or plagerize anything from the origional it does not interfere with the copyright
  • tyler tyler June 04, 2009 15:07:37
    tyler
    nevermind i didnt know wat i was talking about. i sat down and did the research and it is total copyright infringement
  • +1 raves
    Lanikai June 04, 2009 14:49:30
    Lanikai

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    Absolutely copyright infringement, I hope JD wins.
  • +1 raves
    Ice June 04, 2009 13:50:06 (edited)
    Ice

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    If it uses Salinger's characters, quotes, situations, or general content, it is copyright infringement. Period.
  • +1 raves
    slim8961 June 04, 2009 12:16:43
    slim8961

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    unable to write your own?
  • +3 raves
    ctuagentdown June 04, 2009 11:14:22
    ctuagentdown

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    they should have went with pitcher in the wheat
  • san ctuagen... June 05, 2009 03:48:15
    san
    What?LOL!!!!!
  • +1 raves
    steven June 04, 2009 07:15:32 (edited)
    steven

    No. California's 'Catcher in the Rye' sequel does not infringe on Copyright.

    It is customary to speak to an author when you intend to write a sequel; however, there is no infringement here. Copyright law allows parody, period.
  • +1 raves
    borebox June 04, 2009 07:12:47
    borebox

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    copyright infringement
  • steven borebox June 04, 2009 07:18:01
    steven
    Not according to copyright law, which allows parody.
  • Lanikai steven June 04, 2009 14:53:19
    Lanikai
    I don't think it is a parody. The author may be calling it that, but since it uses location, characters and original ideas, it is just a bad rip off of someone else's ideas. Rappers and rockers have sued and won for much less infringement on original ideas.
  • +1 raves
    DRLJR Lanikai June 04, 2009 20:46:46
    DRLJR
    The Rappers and Rockers undoubtedly have current valid copyrights. People need to read Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8 of the US Constitution. A book that is 58 years old is out of copyright. The specific paragraph states "To Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Writings and Discoveries;".
    By the same regulations all of the music from the 1960's is also out of copyright. Especially for dead artists. There is no such thing as a perpetual copyright or patent. That is why generics drugs exists. The patents expire just like copyrights.
  • steven DRLJR June 04, 2009 21:36:04
    steven
    Amen and thank you.
  • steven Lanikai June 04, 2009 21:34:53
    steven
    Rappers and rockers have sued and won because they proved that digital sampling of their original work was used, intact and whole. Had the new artist just hired musicians to PLAY the same thing, it would have been a different outcome. The courts will decide here whether it is parody or not--not that they are proper judges of literature by any means. It should be arbitrated by a panel of unbiased readers and authors, in my opinion.
  • +1 raves
    luvguins June 04, 2009 04:36:40
    luvguins

    No. California's 'Catcher in the Rye' sequel does not infringe on Copyright.

    I don't think parodies infringe.
  • steven luvguins June 04, 2009 07:16:43
    steven
    No, they don't and are perfectly legal.
  • +1 raves
    HeliAce June 04, 2009 04:29:13
    HeliAce

    Someone else tried to write a sequel for "Catcher in the Rye"?

    Whats 'Catcher in the Rye'? If people are making parodies of your books though doesn't that mean you're popular?
  • +1 raves
    Tricia914 June 04, 2009 03:46:10
    Tricia914

    Someone else tried to write a sequel for "Catcher in the Rye"?

    It depends on if the story has similar parts characters and plots.
  • +1 raves
    BruceNM June 04, 2009 03:25:21
    BruceNM

    No. California's 'Catcher in the Rye' sequel does not infringe on Copyright.

    If the book is really a parody, let it be published Renewed interest in the origional Catcher might be a good thing.
  • +1 raves
    kittybaby June 04, 2009 03:06:42
    kittybaby

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    Doesn't seem right to me.
  • +1 raves
    steven kittybaby June 04, 2009 07:18:52
    steven
    Parody is legal under copyright law. Should we ban commentaries next?
  • -1 raves
    Ice steven June 04, 2009 13:48:30
    Ice
    YES...especially if they come from Fox noise or limpdick rush.
  • steven Ice June 04, 2009 21:37:18
    steven
    Well, you can always "Tune in and SEE BS."
  • +1 raves
    kittybaby steven June 04, 2009 22:05:01
    kittybaby
    OK, you make a valid point and no, we should not ban commentaries.
  • steven kittybaby June 04, 2009 22:07:56
    steven
    Thank you. I just think we need to be careful over censorship and choose our battles wisely.
  • +1 raves
    Jimmy James June 04, 2009 02:46:51
    Jimmy James

    No. California's 'Catcher in the Rye' sequel does not infringe on Copyright.

    Since it is only a parody.
  • +1 raves
    Melinda June 04, 2009 02:38:14
    Melinda

    Yes, writing '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' is copyright infringement.

    It it has mention of the first book or even says that it is the sequel without having the original author's permission.... (unless they are dead, I don't know how they'd fix that) it is copyright infringement. You shouldn't "continue" something without permission of the original owner when it comes to things like books.
  • steven Melinda June 04, 2009 07:21:20
    steven
    Regardless of title, the book is not a continuation, but a parody. The fact that the original author doesn't want to allow this is nothing more than whining over an imaginary threat to his "baby". PARODY is legal under copyright law. For example, Weird Al never paid a dime to parody Beat It by Michael Jackson. He didn't have to, so long as no digital samples were used.
1 2 Next » Last »
or
Cancel