Subject
New York Times article on Pera's 'Lolita' prequel (fwd)
Date
Body
From: Ryan Asmussen (rra@bu.edu)
NEW YORK TIMES, June 17, 1999
"Agreement Permits Publication of a Prequel to 'Lolita' in U.S. and Britain"
By Peter Applebome
In a case closely followed by publishers because of its implications for
copyright law, a retelling of Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita" from the
nymphet's point of view, whose publication was abruptly canceled last fall,
will go forward as a result of an unusual agreement worked out over the
last six months.
Farrar, Straus & Giroux announced in November that it had canceled plans to
publish "Lo's Diary" by the Italian short-story writer Pia Pera after the
Nabokov estate filed a lawsuit stating that the book represented a
copyright infringement.
Now a new publisher, Foxrock Inc., and Nabokov's son, Dmitri, have reached
an agreement that will allow the book to be published in October in the
United States, with additional commentary by Dmitri
Nabokov and Ms. Pera and a 5 percent payment of royalties to him. The book,
Ms. Pera's first novel, has been published in Italy and several other
European countries.
The settlement allows Ms. Pera to publish her book in the United States and
Britain. It allows Nabokov to protect his copyright interests in his
father's book, which has sold 50 million copies in at least 20 languages.
But because no legal ruling was involved, the deal leaves unsettled the
major issue raised in the dispute: How far can authors go in making use of
characters or scenes created by others?
"It's a Solomon-like agreement," said Martin Garbus, the lawyer who
represented Foxrock and its publisher, Barney Rosset. "In a way, she wins,
because the book comes out. He wins, to some extent, copyright protection,
protecting 'Lolita' from future ripoffs. It's a unique case that would have
been a case
of first impression at the United States Supreme Court, and part of me is
sorry we didn't litigate it because it involves important principles of law
that affect other writers as well."
Authors have long borrowed from earlier works in the way that the Greek
legend of Pygmalion became a George Bernard Shaw play and then the show "My
Fair Lady." Such borrowing is accomplished most easily when a copyright has
expired or never existed. "Lolita" was originally published in the United
States in 1955 and is under copyright here until the year 2050.
Courts have established that parodies and critical essays are protected
uses of existing texts. A book that is clearly a sequel or a prequel to an
existing book under copyright protection, on the other hand, would need
permission to go forward. Less clear is a case like this one, in which Ms.
Pera took Nabokov's work and reimagined it, telling the same story from the
girl's point of view. At issue is whether a book is considered
"derivative," essentially piggybacking on an existing text, or
"transformative," taking something existing and turning it into an
independent work with a new purpose, sensibility or mode of expression.
Under the agreement, each side will receive 5 percent of the royalties from
the English-language version of the book to be published by Foxrock, which
obtained the rights from Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Nabokov says he plans to donate his share of the royalties to the writer's
group PEN to help finance a literary prize.
Nabokov and Ms. Pera will both rite prefaces to the book. Under the terms
of the agreement, however, he may read her piece but she may not read his.
Garbus plans to write an essay on the legal and free-speech issues involved.
Rosset, the longtime publisher of Grove Press, said the settlement was
welcome because it protected both parties.
"The idea was to protect both authors' rights," he said. "We could have
continued the lawsuit, which would have cost a lot of money and a lot of
time and in the end everyone would lose. Instead we tried to figure out a
new approach."
Peter L. Skolnik, Nabokov's lawyer, said he was confident that he would
have prevailed if the legal issues had been tested in court but that the
agreement provided the copyright protection Nabokov was seeking.
"Nabokov was never interested in suppressing Pera's book," Skolnik said.
"Nor, for that matter, was he interested in the money. The issue was always
simply protecting the copyright. We believe that Pera's book is absolutely
based on Nabokov's in such a way that a license from Nabokov had to be
obtained. Our concern all along has been that if this is permitted without
obtaining permission it could be disastrous for all publishers. Every time
a successful book is published someone could say, 'Let's do it again and
tell it from another character's point of view."'
The issue is extremely complicated for publishers because their interests
can cut both ways. On the one hand, they and their authors want protection
for works they have already created. On the other, they benefit from as
much artistic freedom as possible and the widest latitude for creating new
works.
Garbus said the agreement in the case was instructive as a possible
solution to similar disputes in the future. But since it was an agreement
between two parties rather than a court decision, he said, it has no value
as a legal precedent in future disputes.
"I would prefer to see the law resolved," he said. "I think at some point
the law has to be clarified, so there's some guidance the next time someone
writes something like this."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ryan Asmussen
Administrative Assistant to the Chairman
Biomedical Engineering Department
Boston University
44 Cummington Street
Boston, MA 02215
phone: (617) 353-8068
fax: (617) 353-6766
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEW YORK TIMES, June 17, 1999
"Agreement Permits Publication of a Prequel to 'Lolita' in U.S. and Britain"
By Peter Applebome
In a case closely followed by publishers because of its implications for
copyright law, a retelling of Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita" from the
nymphet's point of view, whose publication was abruptly canceled last fall,
will go forward as a result of an unusual agreement worked out over the
last six months.
Farrar, Straus & Giroux announced in November that it had canceled plans to
publish "Lo's Diary" by the Italian short-story writer Pia Pera after the
Nabokov estate filed a lawsuit stating that the book represented a
copyright infringement.
Now a new publisher, Foxrock Inc., and Nabokov's son, Dmitri, have reached
an agreement that will allow the book to be published in October in the
United States, with additional commentary by Dmitri
Nabokov and Ms. Pera and a 5 percent payment of royalties to him. The book,
Ms. Pera's first novel, has been published in Italy and several other
European countries.
The settlement allows Ms. Pera to publish her book in the United States and
Britain. It allows Nabokov to protect his copyright interests in his
father's book, which has sold 50 million copies in at least 20 languages.
But because no legal ruling was involved, the deal leaves unsettled the
major issue raised in the dispute: How far can authors go in making use of
characters or scenes created by others?
"It's a Solomon-like agreement," said Martin Garbus, the lawyer who
represented Foxrock and its publisher, Barney Rosset. "In a way, she wins,
because the book comes out. He wins, to some extent, copyright protection,
protecting 'Lolita' from future ripoffs. It's a unique case that would have
been a case
of first impression at the United States Supreme Court, and part of me is
sorry we didn't litigate it because it involves important principles of law
that affect other writers as well."
Authors have long borrowed from earlier works in the way that the Greek
legend of Pygmalion became a George Bernard Shaw play and then the show "My
Fair Lady." Such borrowing is accomplished most easily when a copyright has
expired or never existed. "Lolita" was originally published in the United
States in 1955 and is under copyright here until the year 2050.
Courts have established that parodies and critical essays are protected
uses of existing texts. A book that is clearly a sequel or a prequel to an
existing book under copyright protection, on the other hand, would need
permission to go forward. Less clear is a case like this one, in which Ms.
Pera took Nabokov's work and reimagined it, telling the same story from the
girl's point of view. At issue is whether a book is considered
"derivative," essentially piggybacking on an existing text, or
"transformative," taking something existing and turning it into an
independent work with a new purpose, sensibility or mode of expression.
Under the agreement, each side will receive 5 percent of the royalties from
the English-language version of the book to be published by Foxrock, which
obtained the rights from Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Nabokov says he plans to donate his share of the royalties to the writer's
group PEN to help finance a literary prize.
Nabokov and Ms. Pera will both rite prefaces to the book. Under the terms
of the agreement, however, he may read her piece but she may not read his.
Garbus plans to write an essay on the legal and free-speech issues involved.
Rosset, the longtime publisher of Grove Press, said the settlement was
welcome because it protected both parties.
"The idea was to protect both authors' rights," he said. "We could have
continued the lawsuit, which would have cost a lot of money and a lot of
time and in the end everyone would lose. Instead we tried to figure out a
new approach."
Peter L. Skolnik, Nabokov's lawyer, said he was confident that he would
have prevailed if the legal issues had been tested in court but that the
agreement provided the copyright protection Nabokov was seeking.
"Nabokov was never interested in suppressing Pera's book," Skolnik said.
"Nor, for that matter, was he interested in the money. The issue was always
simply protecting the copyright. We believe that Pera's book is absolutely
based on Nabokov's in such a way that a license from Nabokov had to be
obtained. Our concern all along has been that if this is permitted without
obtaining permission it could be disastrous for all publishers. Every time
a successful book is published someone could say, 'Let's do it again and
tell it from another character's point of view."'
The issue is extremely complicated for publishers because their interests
can cut both ways. On the one hand, they and their authors want protection
for works they have already created. On the other, they benefit from as
much artistic freedom as possible and the widest latitude for creating new
works.
Garbus said the agreement in the case was instructive as a possible
solution to similar disputes in the future. But since it was an agreement
between two parties rather than a court decision, he said, it has no value
as a legal precedent in future disputes.
"I would prefer to see the law resolved," he said. "I think at some point
the law has to be clarified, so there's some guidance the next time someone
writes something like this."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ryan Asmussen
Administrative Assistant to the Chairman
Biomedical Engineering Department
Boston University
44 Cummington Street
Boston, MA 02215
phone: (617) 353-8068
fax: (617) 353-6766
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~