Salinger v. Colting
607 F.3d 68 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a copyright infringement case, a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction is not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm upon showing a likelihood of success on the merits. Instead, the plaintiff must satisfy the traditional four-factor test for equitable relief, which requires a demonstration of likely irreparable injury, the inadequacy of legal remedies, a balance of hardships tipping in their favor, and that the public interest would not be disserved.
Facts:
- In 1951, J.D. Salinger published the novel 'The Catcher in the Rye' ('Catcher'), featuring the protagonist Holden Caulfield.
- The novel became a major literary and cultural success, and Salinger, who became a recluse, registered his copyright in the work.
- Salinger never authorized any sequels, adaptations, or other derivative works based on 'Catcher' or its characters.
- Fredrik Colting, under a pen name, wrote a novel titled '60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye' ('60 Years Later').
- Colting's novel features a 76-year-old Holden Caulfield, referred to as 'Mr. C', as well as a fictionalized version of Salinger himself.
- The plot of '60 Years Later' parallels the narrative structure of 'Catcher', with Mr. C leaving an institution, wandering New York, and seeking out his sister.
- Colting did not seek or receive permission from Salinger to write or publish his novel.
- Colting's publishers marketed '60 Years Later' in the United Kingdom with a cover description calling it 'a marvelous sequel to one of our most beloved classics.'
Procedural Posture:
- J.D. Salinger sued Fredrik Colting and his publishers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for copyright infringement.
- Salinger filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from publishing or distributing '60 Years Later' in the United States.
- The District Court found that Salinger was likely to succeed on the merits and, following existing circuit precedent, presumed irreparable harm.
- The District Court granted Salinger's motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Colting and his publishers (Defendants-Appellants) appealed the District Court's order granting the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Supreme Court's decision in eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C., which established a four-factor test for permanent injunctions in patent cases, abrogate the Second Circuit's practice of presuming irreparable harm when granting a preliminary injunction in a copyright infringement case?
Opinions:
Majority - Calabresi, J.
Yes. The Supreme Court's decision in eBay v. MercExchange abrogates the Second Circuit's longstanding practice of presuming irreparable harm upon a showing of likely success on the merits in copyright cases, requiring courts instead to apply the traditional four-factor test for equitable relief. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court in eBay rejected 'categorical' or 'general' rules for granting injunctions in favor of traditional equitable principles. The logic of eBay was not limited to patent law or permanent injunctions, as the Supreme Court relied on precedent from other areas of law and emphasized that copyright and patent law provide similar statutory grounds for injunctive relief. Furthermore, the subsequent Supreme Court case, Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, explicitly applied this equitable balancing test to preliminary injunctions, requiring a showing that irreparable harm is 'likely,' not merely possible. Therefore, the Second Circuit's prior standard, which presumed irreparable harm, is inconsistent with this binding precedent and can no longer be applied. Courts must now conduct a full, fact-specific analysis of all four equitable factors before granting a preliminary injunction in a copyright case.
Analysis:
This decision significantly changed the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction in copyright cases within the influential Second Circuit, making it more difficult for copyright holders to halt allegedly infringing works at the outset of litigation. By eliminating the presumption of irreparable harm, the court aligned copyright injunction standards with those in patent law and general equity, requiring a more rigorous, evidence-based showing from the plaintiff. This ruling forces courts to engage in a more nuanced, case-by-case analysis, balancing the harms to both parties and considering the public interest, which may give greater weight to free expression defenses in the early stages of a case. Consequently, defendants, particularly those with colorable fair use claims, have a stronger chance of continuing their activities pending a final judgment on the merits.
