Libraries, Authors, and Literary Estates: The Complex Case of Rosenbach v. Sendak (2016)

Purdue University Purdue University

Purdue e-Pubs Purdue e-Pubs

Charleston Library Conference

Libraries, Authors, and Literary Estates: The Complex Case of Libraries, Authors, and Literary Estates: The Complex Case of

Rosenbach v. Sendak (2016) Rosenbach v. Sendak (2016)

Patrick Roughen

North Carolina Central University

, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston

Part of the Archival Science Commons, Collection Development and Management Commons, Estates

and Trusts Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons

An indexed, print copy of the Proceedings is also available for purchase at:

http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/series/charleston.

You may also be interested in the new series, Charleston Insights in Library, Archival, and Information

Sciences. Find out more at: http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/series/charleston-insights-library-archival-

and-information-sciences.

Patrick Roughen, "Libraries, Authors, and Literary Estates: The Complex Case of Rosenbach v. Sendak

(2016)" (2018).

Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference.

http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317036

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please

contact [email protected] for additional information.

Charleston Conference Proceedings 2018 175

hps://doi.org/10.5703/1288284317036

Libraries,Authors,andLiteraryEstates:

TheComplexCaseofRosenbach v. Sendak(2016)

Patrick Roughen, Assistant Professor and Program Director for the MLS Program, School of Library and

Informaon Sciences, North Carolina Central University, proughen @nccu .edu

Abstract

This research examines a lawsuit led by the Rosenbach Museum and Library of Philadelphia in 2016 against the

Estate of Maurice Sendak (1928–2012) to determine the distribuon of some of Sendak’s collecon of rare books.

In the lawsuit, the Rosenbach claimed the executors of the Sendak estate had withheld a poron of the rare books

to which it was entled under Sendak’s will. This paper suggests possible ways in which instuons such as librar-

ies, archives, and museums might ancipate and address some of the ownership‐ related problems that arise during

the acquision and/or loss of collecons of an arst or author aer death.

Overview

Few children’s arsts could be said to have had

more cultural impact on children’s literature in the

20th century than Maurice Sendak (1928–2012). He

was, as Margalit Fox noted in her New York Times

obituary, “[w]idely considered the most important

children’s book arst of the 20th century” (2012).

Summarizing his contribuons, Fox commented

that it was Sendak “who wrenched the picture book

out of the safe, sanized world of the nursery and

plunged it into the dark, terrifying and haunngly

beauful recesses of the human psyche” (Fox, 2012).

Sendak’s legacy was unique in children’s literature,

and he was deeply concerned with protecng his

reputaon and his art for the future, a burden

that he seemed to have felt was largely his alone

(Roughen, 2015). This analysis focuses on Sendak’s

concerns about the future of his work in light of

the probate case, which came before the State of

Conneccut in the District of Northern Faireld

County and was decided on the 25th day of October,

2016. The nal decision of Judge Joseph A. Egan was

that what is now known as The Rosenbach of the

Free Library of Philadelphia (formerly and referred

to below as “The Rosenbach Museum and Library”

or the “Rosenbach”) would receive only a poron of

the items to which it had argued it was justly entled

under Sendak’s will, which was a signicant loss to

the instuon (Estate of: Maurice Sendak, 2016).

Commenng on the apparent dearth of wrings on

the administraon of the estates of children’s liter-

ature authors on his blog, prominent children’s litera-

ture scholar Philip Nel notes that someone ought to

edit a collecon of essays to be entled In the Event

of My Death: The Legal and Literary Aerlives of the

Great Children’s Writers (2015, para. 9). Nel men-

ons other examples of cases in which legal bales

arose posthumously, such as Dr. Seuss Enterprises v.

Penguin Books (1997), which involved a parody of

The Cat in the Hat (para. 9). Much has been writ-

ten by legal experts on the kind of issues that arise

during the probate process and the various scenarios

that commonly lead to ligaon, but relavely lile

has been published on this topic in the context of

libraries and related instuons. When problems

do develop, they can be associated with complex

legal issues. An example is the case involving the

estate of Laura Ingalls Wilder, author of Lile House

on the Prairie, in which the Wright County Library

System, a beneciary under her will, was forced to

grapple with the intricacies of federal copyright law

(Margolis, 2001; Simon, 2000). And so this research

considers praccal ways in which instuons such as

libraries, archives, and museums might prevent some

of the problems that arise during the acquision

and/or loss of important collecons of an arst or

author aer death.

Sendak,theRosenbach,

andtheSendakFoundaon

Understanding the long‐ term wishes of a library’s

patron, donors, and benefactors, whose work might

comprise an important poron of a library’s or

museum’s collecon, can help library management

ancipate legal dicules, parcularly if issues are

addressed early on. Although the Sendak case is

unusual in many regards, there is sucient evidence

available that this very important patron of the

176 Collecon Development

library had ambivalent feelings about instuons

that funcon as cultural arbiters, which may have

been predicve of the Rosenbach’s loss of the Sen-

dak collecon, and of the ensuing ligaon.

When a library, museum, or archive sues the estate

of one of its major benefactors to enforce the

terms of a will in which it is a beneciary, it is

reasonable to assume that the instuon has tried

other soluons and is at an impasse. Negoaons

may have fallen through, or some danger may have

appeared on the horizon, which could result in

harm or loss if immediate acon is not taken. Even

when relaons were strained, Sendak had not aban-

doned the Rosenbach enrely; in fact, when he died

on May 8, 2014, a provision in his will was triggered

that authorized the payment of $2 million to the

Rosenbach, which, along with his earlier gi of $1

million, made up a substanal part of the Rosen-

bach’s total endowment of $7.5 million; Sendak had

also made signicant bequests of works by William

Blake and Herman Melville worth millions of dollars

(Dobrin, 2014).

However, his estate planning to maintain his legacy

centered, not on the Rosenbach, but on an indepen-

dent foundaon, the Sendak Foundaon, a nonprot

that supports scholarships for arsts. Not long aer

Sendak’s death, the foundaon, which is virtually

the same enty as the estate, recalled the collec-

on of Sendak’s original artwork, with over 10,000

items, which had been on deposit at the Rosenbach.

This rich collecon also included dummy books,

correspondence, and manuscripts. Though Sendak

had menoned his interest in establishing a house

museum in his home in Ridgeeld, Conneccut, the

foundaon’s demand that the Rosenbach return the

deposited material was an unexpected blow to the

instuon (Dobrin, 2014).

Sendak may have rst become aached to the idea

of a house museum many years earlier when he

made visits to the Hill Top home of Beatrix Poer

in Cumbria in the English Lake District.

Though the

deposited collecon had always been contractually

subject to recall at any me, the Rosenbach was

deeply invested in Sendak. The library had produced

a multude of Sendak exhibits over the years and

had named its new wing “The Maurice Sendak

Building” aer him. So it is not surprising that at

some point the Rosenbach felt it should press to

carry through the other provisions of the will, which

bequeathed certain valuable items to it, leading it

eventually to sue the estate of Sendak to enforce

these bequests.

Sendak apparently felt that he did not always receive

an appropriate level of support from some librarians.

A sense of the complex nature of his feelings can be

seen in a speech he gave, the Mary Hill Arbuthnot

Lecture, in 2003:

And then, too, there were the Giant Lady Librar-

ians—those guardians of the gates who kept a

watchful eye on what we were producing. Their

scruny could lead to conicts of taste as they

tried to keep our lile world uncontaminated

and idealisc, but these conicts only sharpened

our sense of mission. (p. 18)

Sendak’s statement, of course, referred to a me

when librarians acted as gatekeepers of “good taste”

in children’s books, and when their recommenda-

ons could determine the success or failure of an

author. As Laura Miller observed in a June 15, 2008,

arcle in the New York Times, librarians and libraries

were possibly “the mighest force in the children’s

book world unl the cutbacks of the 1970s and a

boom in parental book‐ buying during the 1980s

knocked them from their throne” (p. 18). However, K.

T. Horning in her arcle entled, “The Naked Truth:

Librarians Stood by Maurice Sendak,” argues that

librarians championed his work (2012). Sendak was

well known for courng controversy, but he was also

a famous curmudgeon who could harbor a grudge;

this was especially true when he felt that his work

was unjustly censored, such as when In the Night

Kitchen (1970) was published, and porons of the

nude images of its central character, Mickey, were

subsequently painted over in some libraries.

Sendak’sRelaonshipwiththeRosenbach

Sendak’s relaonship with the Rosenbach began

early in his career when he heard about its unique

collecon through a Philadelphia librarian and sub-

sequently discovered works by many of his favorite

authors there, including James Joyce, Herman Mel-

ville, and William Blake. Sendak was inspired to make

the Rosenbach the chief depository for his artwork

(Dobrin, 2014). The Rosenbach provided him with

an unusual level of access, including the privilege

of reclining as he read his favorite authors on the

original fur‐ covered beds of the founders of the col-

lecon, brothers Philip and A. S. W. Rosenbach. The

Rosenbach smulated Sendak’s imaginaon, and its

Charleston Conference Proceedings 2018 177

resources inspired him and helped him develop as a

collector of rare books and memorabilia of his child-

hood, such as the numerous items associated with

Mickey Mouse, which he kept in his home. Sendak

allowed himself to be extensively interviewed and

recorded by representaves of the library, and the

Rosenbach had hoped Sendak had built up a level of

trust with it.

However, at some point in me, according to papers

led by the Sendak Foundaon, Sendak began to

queson whether the Rosenbach should be the

instuon to archive the bulk of his creave works.

According to Lynn Caponera, Sendak’s devoted care-

taker and assistant for many years, Sendak would

have wanted most of his manuscripts and drawings

at his house in Ridgeeld, as opposed to the Rosen-

bach, whose ability to care for his work and commit-

ment to it he had come to queson: “[h]e felt that

they weren’t taking him seriously as an arst—that

he just did kids’ books and was not seen in the con-

text of being a great arst” (Kennedy, 2014, para. 7).

Whether Sendak actually said this about the Rosen-

bach is apparently not documented, but Caponera’s

comments echo more general statements he made

throughout his life, without reference to a specic

instuon.

Sendak’sWill,2011

Sendak’s nal wishes, in his Last Will and Testa-

ment, were dated February 6, 2011. This 2011 will

is straighorward about his intenons regarding his

property at 200 Chestnut Lane, Ridgeeld, Con-

neccut, which was also the address of his principal

residence: “It is my wish that the Maurice Sendak

Foundaon Inc. operate said property as a museum

or similar facility, to be used by scholars, students,

arsts, illustrators and writers,” and to be accessi-

ble to the public (Dobrin, 2014, para. 16). The will

includes language that directs the estate and the

Rosenbach to connue to collaborate together.

The disagreement that was the basis of the lawsuit

primarily involved the interpretaon of a provision of

Sendak’s will giving the Rosenbach his “rare edion

books,” language that is more fully shown in context

in the following secon of the will:

D. I give and bequeath the following described

property which I may own at the me of my

death unto THE ROSENBACH MUSEUM AND

LIBRARY, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

for its general purposes:

1. (a) Such arcles of my Mickey Mouse

collecon, as my executors, in their sole

and absolute discreon, shall select.

(b) I direct that the remaining balance

of my Mickey Mouse Collecon

shall be disposed of pursuant to

the provisions of subparagraph “F”

hereof.

2. All of my rare edion books, including,

without limitaon, books wrien by

Herman Melville and Henry James

[emphasis added] (p. 1, ¶ D.1‐ 2, 2011).

As noted on Ian Jackson’s website, cing John

Carter’s ABC for Book Collectors, “The denion of

‘rare books’ is a favorite parlour game among bib-

liophiles—and this applies a forori to courtroom

casuists.” In this proceeding, the expert witnesses,

when asked to shed light on the meaning of these

words by the court, were John Windle, a respected

San Francisco rare book dealer, for the Sendak

Estate, and Daniel Traister, an equally respected

rare book librarian from the University of Penn-

sylvania, for the Rosenbach. Traister asserted that

“all the items on the disputed list were rare edion

books,” while Windle claimed that “some of the

items were not rare, some were not edions, some

were not books or, in some cases, a combinaon of

the above” (Dobrin, 2016, para. 15).

Traister and Windle tesed that neither of them

used the term “rare edion books,” but the pro-

bate court judge, Joseph A. Egan, concluded that

it was a term with special meaning to Sendak,

which required that the court “take into account

its own observaons” in light of the tesmony of

the experts (Estate of: Maurice Sendak, 2016, p.

3). Both the Rosenbach and the estate provided

an idencal list of disputed books, and the court

reviewed each book on the list to determine “if

each item is a book, if it is rare and if it is an edion

book” (Estate of: Maurice Sendak, 2016. p. 2). Judge

Egan did not spell out his reasoning in this case,

but the criteria reected Windle’s comment. The

judge nally awarded 252 out of the 340 items in

dispute to the Sendak Estate. Jerey T. Golenbock,

a lawyer for the Sendak Estate, commented, “We

are hopeful this could be the end [of the dispute],

and the foundaon can go ahead with its mission

of perpetuang the legacy of Maurice Sendak”

(Dobrin, 2016, para. 6).

178 Collecon Development

SomePossibleSoluons

and Lessons Learned

What lessons can we learn from this case? Since

the court did not memorialize its analysis of the

will, the court’s interpretaon of the problemac

language is unpublished, but it is clear that the term

“rare edion books” in the will should have been

more precise. But Sendak resisted including a more

denite term, according to his aorney, because he

thought the term was clear to him. He also did not

want to provide a long list of the items idened as

“rare edion books.” Precise language is the stan-

dard soluon that most lawyers would advise. Other

potenal approaches might be to include language

that specied as rare the books that were found on

appraisal to be worth more than a certain amount or

that were printed before a certain date or that were

in a parcular condion or special bindings; but it

would have been beer to say that a legatee could

select a specic number of books before the remain-

der went to another legatee or were disposed of in

a certain way. As Patrick Sco, former director, Rare

Books & Special Collecon, University of South Car-

olina Libraries, observed, “There’s no point in having

an inoperable subjecve category for a will, even if

all pares are proceeding in good faith” (personal

communicaon, Dec. 4, 2018).

More dicult to ancipate were the eects on

Sendak’s will of his longstanding anxiees about

librarians as the cultural and moral arbiters of chil-

dren’s literature. These probably swayed him against

leaving his collecons with the Rosenbach, just as

his vision of a museum at his house inuenced him

toward a dierent plan. The disputed wording in

the remaining provision, about “rare edion books,”

seems like an aempt to fence o his earlier com-

mitment to the library. Other libraries with large

collecons on deposit may be able to avert this kind

of disappointment through careful stewardship and

relaonship maintenance, especially during periods

when a library’s leadership changes, but no eort

can ulmately prevent a donor’s changed ambions.

A third queson for libraries with deposited or

loaned materials relates to the library’s documenta-

on on the original deposit. In the corporate world,

audits may be done to determine ownership (tle,

rights) associated with a company’s intellectual

property. This is not, however, the norm for librar-

ies. Developing some kind of outreach to culvate

patrons who have made deposits of important

collecons requires coordinaon. Although libraries

do not usually have master lists of all deposits, and

they do not process or catalog individual items or

collecons on deposit, they may have inhouse les

with records of items owned by specic donors,

and archives may make an unpublished nding list.

Some libraries sll accept collecons on deposit as a

gesture of goodwill, or in the hope of future dona-

on. It can somemes be in the interest of an author

to deposit self- generated material so that it may

later be a tax‐ deducble donaon for their heirs or

assigns. But any deposit risks leaving materials in a

kind of legal limbo, and such deposits are generally

unwise without “an ironclad agreement as to length

of deposit me, the library’s obligaons for inventory

control, condions of use while deposited, current

and future ownership, including future ownership of

intellectual rights, insurance, etc.” (P. Sco, personal

communicaon, Dec. 4, 2018).

Conclusion

Arthur Conan Doyle once said that “[i]t is easy to be

wise aer the event” (Speake, 2015, p. 349). None-

theless there are mes when libraries, archives, and

museums must resolve issues through the court sys-

tem, involving even their most generous supporters.

However, in the Rosenback‐ Sendak case, since the

Probate Court made the terms of the selement con-

denal, much of what happened in this case must

be reconstructed from the available evidence. Sendak

did not make such reconstrucon of the meaning of

the disputed language of the will any easier since in

a provision of his will he directed his executors “to

destroy, immediately following my death, all of my

personal leers, journals, and diaries” (2011, p. 1 ¶

3). It may be that we will never learn the full story in

this case. Nonetheless, what we do know provides

some instrucon regarding the cauon that libraries

should take when accepng items on deposit, the

importance of knowing one’s patrons, as well as rela-

vely simple approaches to address long‐ term issues

of ownership of collecons on deposit.

Notes

1. See, for example, Jonze, S. (2012, May 9). RIP Maurice Sendak: 2009 interview by Spike Jonze. Retrieved

December 15, 2018, from hps:// www .dazeddigital .com /artsandculture /arcle /13407 /1 /rip ‐ maurice

‐ sendak ‐ 2009 ‐ interview ‐ by ‐ spike ‐ jonze

Charleston Conference Proceedings 2018 179

2. Sendak was a great admirer of Beatrix Poer. A photo exists of Sendak emulang her pose in an old black

and white photo of her standing in the doorway of Hill Top. See Nickel, S. (2016, April 5). Maurice Sendak

and Beatrix Poer [Blog Post]. Retrieved from hps:// whatwason .com /2016 /04 /05 /what ‐ was ‐ on ‐ my ‐ 14/

In his will Sendak bequeathed both Beatrix Poer’s and William Heelis’s walking scks to the Beatrix Poer

Society in England (2011, p. 2 ¶ 2).

3. The author thanks Dr. Patrick Sco, Disnguished Professor of English, Emeritus, at the University of South

Carolina, and the former director of the University’s Irvin Department of Rare Books & Special Collecons,

for his invaluable insights and assistance regarding the preparaon of this arcle, especially with respect

to the secon on Some Possible Soluons and Lessons Learned.

References

Dobrin, P. (2014, September 13). Bulk of Sendak collecon leaving Rosenbach. TCA Regional News. Retrieved

from hp:// nclive .org .ezproxy .nccu .edu /cgi ‐ bin /nclsm ?url = hp:// search .proquest .com .ezproxy .nccu .edu

/docview /1561686997 ?accound = 12713

Dobrin, P. (2016, November 2). A conclusion to Rosenbach v. Sendak estate lawsuit—or just a pause? Philadelphia

Inquirer. Retrieved from hp:// www2 .philly .com /philly /blogs /the ‐ arts /A ‐ conclusion ‐ to ‐ Rosenbach ‐ vs

‐ Sendak ‐ Estate ‐ lawsuit ‐ ‐ ‐ or ‐ just ‐ a ‐ pause .html

Fox, M. (2012, May 9). Maurice Sendak, an author of splendid nightmares, dies at 83. St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN),

p. A2. Available from NewsBank: hps:// infoweb .newsbank .com /apps /news /document ‐ view ?p = AWNB &

docref = news /13EADB23F6F80198

Fraser, C. (2017). Prairie res: The life and mes of Laura Ingalls Wilder. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Horning, K. T. (2012, August). The naked truth: Librarians stood by Maurice Sendak, no stranger to contro-

versy. School Library Journal, 58(8), 32.

In the Estate of: Maurice B. Sendak (unpublished opinion), File No.: 12‐ 0827, State of Conn. Court of Probate, Dis-

trict of Northern Faireld County, District 45 (October 25, 2016).

Kennedy, R. (2014, December 1). Sendak’s estate: Debang where the things go. The New York Times. Retrieved

August 19, 2018, from hps:// www .nymes .com /2014 /12 /02 /books /maurice ‐ sendaks ‐ estate ‐ debang

‐ where ‐ the ‐ things ‐ go .html

Margolis, R. (2001). Selement on “Lile House” books. School Library Journal, 47(6), 22. Retrieved from hp://

nclive .org .ezproxy .nccu .edu /cgi ‐ bin /nclsm ?url = hp:// search .proquest .com .ezproxy .nccu .edu /docview

/211712879 ?accound = 12713

Miller, L. (2008, June 15). Where the wild things came from. New York Times Book Review, 18- BR.18. Retrieved

from hp:// nclive .org .ezproxy .nccu .edu /cgi ‐ bin /nclsm ?url = hp:// search .proquest .com .ezproxy .nccu .edu

/docview /217317353 ?accound = 12713

Nel, P. (June 10, 2015). Maurice Sendak’s will. Nine Kinds of Pie: Philip Nel’s Blog [Blog post]. Retrieved from hp://

www .philnel .com /2015 /06 /10 /sendakwill/ [hps:// perma .cc /BZQ4 ‐ KYNS]

Roughen, P. (2015, Spring). Interview with Maurice Sendak. Red Feather: An Internaonal Journal of Children in

Popular Culture, 6(1).

Sendak, M. (2003). Descent into limbo. Children and Libraries: The Journal of the Association for Library Service to

Children, 1(2), 17–23. Retrieved from hp:// nclive .org .ezproxy .nccu .edu /cgi ‐ bin /nclsm ?url = hp:// search

.proquest .com .ezproxy .nccu .edu /docview /57547834 ?accound = 12713

180 Collecon Development

Sendak, M. (2011) [Last will and testament of Maurice Sendak]. Records of the Probate Court of the District of

Northern Faireld County (File No.: 12‐ 0827), Bethel, Conneccut.

Simon, S. (2000, February 5). Lile library on the prairie in a legal tussle; lawsuit centres on the will of children’s

book author Laura Ingalls Wilder. Toronto Star. Retrieved from hp:// nclive .org .ezproxy .nccu .edu /cgi ‐ bin

/nclsm ?url = hp:// search .proquest .com .ezproxy .nccu .edu /docview /438088444 ?accound = 12713

Speake, J. (2015). Oxford diconary of proverbs. Oxford, England; New York: Oxford University Press.