J.D. Salinger's Son Threatens Legal Action Against Memorabilia Dealer, Gary Zimet, For Posting Letter

J.D. Salinger's literary trust recently threatened legal action against memorabilia dealer Gary Zimet for posting a letter on his memorabilia site, momentsintime.com, that was allegedly written by the famous author. The letter was addressed to a producer, and concerned selling film rights for Salinger's classic "The Catcher in the Rye."

In the letter, Salinger appeared hesitant to allow a film adaptation to be made. He noted, "What he thinks and does so naturally in his solitude in the novel, on the stage could at best be only pseudo-simulated." He continued:

And Holden Caulfield himself, in my undoubtedly super-biased opinion, is essentially unactable. A Sensitive, Intelligent, Talented Young Actor in a Reversible Coat wouldn't be nearly enough. It would take someone with X to bring it off, and no very young man even if he has X quite knows what to do with it.

The author's son, Matt Salinger, sent a letter to Zimet, seen by The Huffington Post, in which Salinger stated that "Any publication - even online - without express permission by my father and/or the Trust is a direct and clear infringement of my father’s, and now the Trust’s, intellectual property rights, under United States federal and/or state laws."

He demanded that Zimet "immediately cease and desist from all further display, publication, and distribution and/or advertising of any and all such letters, and remove and/or disable access to all the current item listed on the website http://www.momentsintime.com as well as any other site [he] may control or own."

In a phone interview with The Huffington Post, Zimet said, "The letter has been up [on the website] for probably a year and a half, and I just find it odd that only 10 days or so ago [Matt Salinger] asked that I take it down."

He also noted that he has never had any other problems concerning his memorabilia collections and copyright issues with posting them on the web.

Zimet said he had told the estate that he would "confer with his lawyer," but that he is "in no rush to take it down."

Comments

[Sarahjn25]

01:02 PM on 09/14/2011

Copywrights or not, Salinger makes the best point: "What he thinks and does so naturally in his solitude in the novel, on the stage could at best be only pseudo-simulated."

[pavementends42]

12:59 PM on 09/14/2011

Salinger spent much of his adult life fighting the publication of unfinished works, selling of movie rights to The Catcher in the Rye, specifically and repeatedly made legal threats against those who did not honor his wishes concerning his work. So, no, his son is not making a claim to fame or exploiting his father's legacy for personal gain. He is doing just what his father would've wanted. He loathed Hollywood and reporters and treated anyone associated with either as suspect.

[floater]

08:05 AM on 09/14/2011

Why? it could make everyone some money.

[GirlUsingBrain]

05:49 PM on 09/13/2011

I didn't know Salinger had a son.

[Chase Miller]

11:26 AM on 09/13/2011

This guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. You don't own IP rights in a letter.

[combot1]

08:29 AM on 09/13/2011

Try selling anything similar to this online - letters, early special reading copies, manuscripts from Salinger works and the same will happen to you. One of the most active lawyer brigades in the business. They threaten you with a big expensive lawsuit even if you "think" you own the material.
Seen this entire game before.

[pageleft]

06:45 AM on 09/13/2011

His son should leave the letter available to read if for no other reason than its impeccable punctuation.

[RGKahn]

05:17 PM on 09/12/2011

So he is a non-talented heir who is cashing in on his fathers name. Who knew?

[Megley]

07:43 AM on 09/13/2011

Matt is a working actor who is self-sufficient. Maybe he is just trying to honor his late father's wishes.

[Fletch17C]

02:11 PM on 09/14/2011

Matt Salinger has been a successful actor and film producer for decades. Being the son of the guy who created Holden Caulfield has probably had both good and bad effects on his life, especially since J.D. was so reclusive.

If Matt is the executor of his father's will (I don't know if he is), then he is personally obligated to ensure that the wishes of the deceased are honored.

[Milrepa]

12:20 PM on 09/12/2011

Cool. Further affirmation that JD (sr.) wasn't a sellout.

[icstars]

11:57 AM on 09/12/2011

There is a lot of conflation of copyright and ownership on this thread. Look at it this way: if an artist gives you a painting, you can do what you want with that physical piece of property because you own it (keep it, sell it, bury it in the backyard...). But, you cannot license posters to be made and sold--that is, you cannot publish it--because you do not own the copyright on the work. The same is true of a personal letter.

Copyright can of course be bought or otherwise transferred from one to another, but by default the author of a letter retains copyright.

If Salinger's son inherited the copyrights of his father (I don't know what the man's will said), then he does own the copyright on the letter.

[Chase Miller]

11:29 AM on 09/13/2011

No. Copyright is defined by statute, and personal letters aren't included. It's statutory law, not some wishy-washy "natural" law where everything you ever do, think, or say is somehow protected.

[Dan Schell]

08:47 AM on 09/14/2011

Unpublished personal correspondence is certainly covered by copyright and is thus intellectual property. Incidentally, it was another Salinger suit that set the case law in the matter. SALINGER v. RANDOM HOUSE, INC., 811 F.2d 90 (2nd Cir. 1987) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/811_F2d_90.htm

[jlsntx]

08:30 AM on 09/12/2011

Of course e any novel can be made into a movie, just gut the novel and have the screenwriter make their own adaptation of what the title means to them. Case in point: Starship Troopers.

[jlsntx]

08:26 AM on 09/12/2011

And now Mr. Salinger will be bringing a case against The Huffington Post. Amazing that the very article outlining the case against an individual for copyright infringement would be an infringement on the very rights the article is explaining.

[rightasrain]

06:47 AM on 09/12/2011

A public person cannot keep themselves in the shadows because that's not where they chose to be in the first place. Egos's are part of the equasion and, while specifics may be seen as private, eventually they are not.

[Fletch17C]

02:25 PM on 09/14/2011

J.D. Salinger ceased being a public person when he stopped publishing new work to the masses several decades ago. The fact that people are still fascinated by a book he published back in 1951 doesn't give anyone the right to intrude on his life or exploit his death.

[a man]

10:16 PM on 09/11/2011

J.D. Salinger's son can NOT claim ownership of those letters!! They weren't copyrighted material, they were personal letters between his father and other people!! What's next? Is he going to go to each and every radio and TV station his father was ever interviewed by and demand that all copies of those interviews be handed to him? Sorry, but those copies belong to the stations!! Just like those letters---once his father signed them, he signed them over to someone else. What that other person does with them is up to him/her.

[Dan Schell]

08:49 AM on 09/14/2011

Unpublished letters are copyrighted material. How do people think that they are not? They are creations just like everything else that is created.

>-­once his father signed them, he signed them over to someone else

Sorry. That's not even close to being true.

[billypollina]

08:15 PM on 09/11/2011

If the letter was mailed, the recipient of the letter is or was the owner, not Salinger. What the recipient did with that letter or who he gave or sold it to is the correct trail of ownership. Salinger's estate is way off on this.

[Dan Schell]

08:50 AM on 09/14/2011

Not true. Unpublished letters still belong to the creator of the letter. See: SALINGER v. RANDOM HOUSE, INC., 811 F.2d 90 (2nd Cir. 1987)

[Fletch17C]

02:19 PM on 09/14/2011

If I understand the law correctly (someone check me on this), words are copyrighted the split second they are written, whether or not they are registered with the Library of Congress. A registered copyright merely allows one to prove ownership in cases where there is a discrepancy.

Several years ago, Salinger's girlfriend auctioned off letters he had sent to her. Salinger sued to stop her citing copyright infringement. The ruling stated that the woman owned the papers and could sell them, but Salinger had copyright to the words, so the words on the papers could not be reproduced without his permission. I believe the person who purchased the letters actually returned them to Salinger.