Copyright Brief: Sunderman v. The Seajay Society, Inc. Ronna K. Robinson LIBM /21/11 Things that Happen After We are Gone

SUNDEMAN v. THE SEAJAY SOCIETY, INC., 142 F.3d 194 (4 th Cir. 1998) -Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Baskin (Aug. 8, Dec. 14, Best known work- The Yearling, which won a Pulitzer Prize for fiction in Moved to an orange grove near Hawthorne, Florida named Cross Creek in John Sundeman is the Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Baskin who brought the legal action on the behalf of Mrs. Baskins estate ( Rawlings) Rawlings _Kinnan_Rawlings.jpg

Sundeman v. The Seajay Society, Inc. Background Information -This case was brought on behalf of Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Baskin. -There were manuscripts and papers from Marjorie Baskin that Ms. Julia Scribner Bigham had in her possession at the time of her death. Mr. Norton Baskin never asked for the papers to be given back. Nor did he confirm whether or not the documents were part of the Rawlings estate. - After Ms. Bigham died her daughter contacted Mr. Glen Horowitz, a dealer of rare books and literary and historical manuscripts, to help the family sell the material. (Sundeman, 1998)

Sundeman v. The Seajay Society, Inc. Background Information Continued -Horowitz contacted an officer of The Seajay Society, Inc. (A nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing public awareness of, and interest in, unduly neglected aspects of South Carolina and southern culture.) -Seajay obtained the documents by partial purchase and partial gift from the Bigham estate. -Seajay gave a copy of Blood of My Blood, which has never been published, to Anne Blythe to use in “preparing a critical review of Blood of My Blood.” -Blythe gave an oral presentation of “her critical analysis of Blood of My Blood to a symposium of the Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Society at the University of Florida.” (Sundeman, 1998)

Sundeman v. The Seajay Society, Inc. -In 1990, Mr. Baskin was allowed “to bring this suit on behalf of the estate” to recover the documents from Seajay. -The four factors to guide a court when deciding whether a particular use is fair (Section 107 of the Copyright Act): 1) the purpose and character of the use 2) the nature of the copyrighted work 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work -The copyright issue in this case is whether quotations or excerpts can be used in scholarly presentations under the fair use statute. (Sundeman, 1998)

Court Decisions Purpose: The use was scholarly and transformative, providing criticism and comment on the original manuscript, thus favoring fair use. Nature: The unpublished nature of the work weighed against fair use, though this factor was not determinative. Amount: The amount used was consistent with the purpose of scholarly criticism and commentary, and there was no evidence of taking “the heart of the work,” thus weighing in favor of fair use. (--Columbia Copyright Advisory Office, 2011)

Court Decisions Continued Market Effect: The court found no evidence that the presentation displaced any market for publishing the original work, and a presentation at a scholarly conference may in fact have increased demand for the full work. This factor therefore favored fair use. Conclusion: The court ruled that the researcher was acting within fair use. (--Columbia Copyright Advisory Office, 2011)

Was the court decision fair? This decision helps people (students also) who want to comment on or use materials for scholarly purposes. “Reasonable, limited, scholarly uses of materials are most likely to be fair use.” (--Columbia Copyright Advisory, 2011) I agree with the court ruling that Dr. Blythe’s use of the unpublished manuscript meets the criteria of “fair use.” This is comforting to me because it seems that everything has a copyright and if you use it there could be problems. Therefore, I will look at the fair use guidelines to make decisions on fair use and copyright laws remembering that: fair use is an “equitable rule of reason,” for which “no generally applicable definition is possible.” (Sundeman, 1998)

References — Columbia Copyright Advisory Office. (n.d.). Columbia Copyright Advisory Office. Retrieved from Key Court Case Summaries on Fair Use. (n.d.). Index of /. Retrieved from Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from SUNDEMAN v. SEAJAY SOCIETY, INC. - Argued January 30, (n.d.). Leagle Home. Retrieved from