I think we're arguing that it's fair use, yeah. On the one hand, I can see where the fact that it seems to be largely about J.D. Salinger's relationship with his most famous character makes it more transformative than the average what-happened-next sequel. On the other hand, there are a lot of things I don't like about US copyright law, but protecting a (then-)living author's right to publish or authorize - or not - sequels to their works is not necessarily where I myself would start chipping away at it. But I guess you've got to jump into it somewhere to become part of the conversation and to do what you can to start influencing the established law. And I might only be partially sympathetic to the author here, but I think it's a win to get a court to establish a higher standard when it comes to getting an injunction against a work that may or may not be a fair use under the law.

I forgot to quote it, but there was also this bit:

Finally, the Court observed that 60 Years Later’s commercial nature further cuts against Defendants on the “purpose and character of the use” factor.

Which makes it clear that the courts DO consider whether something is being sold commercially when it comes to whether or not it's a fair use.