http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/04/when-copyright-is-specious-salinger-and-the-catcher/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:16:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/04/when-copyright-is-specious-salinger-and-the-catcher/#comment-28004 Jackie French Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:16:23 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/06/04/when-copyright-is-specious-salinger-and-the-catcher/#comment-28004 Salinger created and therefore owns the character 'Holden Caulfield.' Salinger is not long dead, nor are his works out of copyright, as are the others quoted in the article. Is Binoy Kampmark seriously suggested that we throw away copyright, and that an author- or artist, musician etc- does NOT own their creations? Or is Salinger supposed to be an exception, because-unlike most authors- he shuns publicity, and has stated that the books he has continued to write- including possibly a Catcher in the Rye sequel- will only be published after his death, when he doesn't have to suffer the publicity ? ps Yes, I'm biased. I derive my income from books protected by copyright law, too. Salinger created and therefore owns the character ‘Holden Caulfield.’
Salinger is not long dead, nor are his works out of copyright, as are the others quoted in the article.
Is Binoy Kampmark seriously suggested that we throw away copyright, and that an author- or artist, musician etc- does NOT own their creations?
Or is Salinger supposed to be an exception, because-unlike most authors- he shuns publicity, and has stated that the books he has continued to write- including possibly a Catcher in the Rye sequel- will only be published after his death, when he doesn’t have to suffer the publicity ?
ps Yes, I’m biased. I derive my income from books protected by copyright law, too.

]]>