Judge denies claims of wrongful editing

Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management, Sept 1, 1995 by Jenna Schnuer

Writer/editor relationships can turn on a clause. But when an unhappy author sued the Fordham University School of Law for sloppy editing, the judge made it clear his courtroom was no place to settle the argument.

Jerry Choe, a 1992 Fordham Law graduate, believed the editing job on a 65-page article he wrote for the Fordham International Law Journal added a variety of errors that changed the meaning of the published piece. In October '93, he sued the school on seven counts, including violation of the Lanham Act (which protects against the substantial distortion of one's work) and his "moral rights."

"The issue is whether the published comment departed so substantially from the original work that Choe may be said not to be its author," wrote Judge Michael Mukasey of U.S. District Court for southern New York. Choe's complaint did not leap that hurdle. Mukasey also found that there was no basis for the "moral rights" claim, which is a protection usually reserved for visual arts.

Choe's attorney, White Plains, New York-based Barton Eaton, argues that because the article was "abstruse," the editors should have accepted Choe as the expert and not tinkered with it. But Fordham's attorney, New York City-based David Rigney, says "the notion that authors can dictate [how their work appears], runs contrary to the notion of what an editor is for."