Agreement reached in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' copyright suit
Author Nelle Harper Lee and literary agent Samuel Pinkus have reached an “agreement in principle” to settle a copyright lawsuit the famed author of “To Kill a Mockingbird” brought against him in May, a lawyer for Pinkus said Friday.
“The parties reached a mutually satisfactory resolution, and everybody would like at this point to put it behind them,” said attorney Vincent Carissimi of the Pepper Hamilton firm.
Carissimi said the settlement was reached in the past week, and papers dismissing the case would be filed in federal court next week. He declined to provide any details of the settlement.
Pinkus' wife, Leigh Ann Winick, and journalist and author Gerald Posner, whose Miami residence is listed as the address of one of Pinkus' literary companies, were dropped from the lawsuit, Carissimi said. The paperwork was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York.
Lee, who won the Pulitzer prize in 1961 for “To Kill a Mockingbird,” alleged in her lawsuit that Pinkus “duped” her into signing over the copyright to the novel in 2007.
“To Kill a Mockingbird” sells about 750,000 copies each year in the United States and Canada. That doesn't include sales of the book in Great Britain and the dozens of languages the novel has been translated into. Lee has earned millions of dollars in royalties.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- FCC clears technology use to block robocalls
- Administration finalizes, defends broader regulations under Clean Water Act
- Dems tell DHS to end family detention
- Phone threats put scare into international flights
- Cleveland settles policing issues with Justice Department
- More rain worsens flooding in Texas
- Energy drilling boom reversed by plunge in prices
- Coal’s worst fears affirmed in analysis of Obama climate plan
- Rescuers find stranded woman in California desert, too late for husband
- BP credited with gulf tourism boom
- Ex-coal boss Blankenship wants July trial delayed to January