Techdirt: For a few years now we've discussed a few times some of the confusion as to why Sherlock Holmes isn't considered in the public domain in the US, even though he probably should be. As we've explained, all of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books except for one are in the public domain. The Conan Doyle estate claims that having that single book under copyright means that the entire character is covered by copyright. Earlier this year, we pointed out that a noted Sherlock Holmes scholar (such things exist!) named Leslie Klinger had decided to file for declaratory judgment that Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, following a legal nastygram from the Estate, arguing that it needed a license fee for Klinger's latest book.
4 comments:
I have to side with the author on this, it is a very smart tactic to keep the copyright on the character in order to preserve the integrity of the character. The character is still developing and is the personal creation of Sir Arthur. Yes they are holding onto their own interpretation of a law to keep this character but it is with a proper intention. The Conan Doyle Estate has a valid concern about people taking the public domain of only some traits of such a complex character. Sherlock Holmes is a very complex character that if the characteristics of Holmes are split up it is no longer Holmes.
But there already ARE many different iterations of the Sherlock Holmes story and Homes et al. as characters! Copyright issues tend to make my brain hurt regardless, but this fight seems truly baseless and maligned. You can't "preserve the integrity of the character" by only copyrighting the final iterations of him or her! What if I only read the first couple of Sherlock Holmes books? I'd only have a partial view of his character and the Conan Doyle Estate's carefully constructed veneer would be shattered anyway. This smacks of an organization trying to milk every drop of revenue dry before the Sherlock Holmes story is undisputedly in the public domain.
This is one of those copyright suits that makes my brain cringe if I even start to think about thinking about it. It seems ridiculous that the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is arguing that the books beyond that initial book are not derivative works. Of course they are. Doyle didn't just come up with a whole new character of Holmes and Watson in each new book. They developed off of the original idea of the characters from the first book. Thus, the characters of Holmes and Watson would be in the public domain, but the situations from the more recent books would still be under copyright protection.
I really love Sherlock Holmes, both old adaptions and new. The concept of copyright and public domain can often be confusing, especially in such an old and commonly used piece of work. When the margin overlap, as they do with Sherlock Holmes and his stories, it can be difficult to find a definite solution to copyright issues. It's good to see the Conan Doyle Estate taking initiative in this field and making such an effort to create such strict and specific lines for the use of Sir Arthur's stories and characters.
Post a Comment