Arthur Conan Doyle Estate Sued To Show That Sherlock Holmes Is Public Domain
from the go-get-'em dept
A little over three years ago, we had a discussion concerning whether or not Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain. By our understanding of the law, the character absolutely is in the public domain. There is one remaining book -- The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes -- which contains a few stories that are still covered by copyright, but the characters and most of the written works are in the public domain. However, the legal representatives of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Estate use the fact that one book is still held under copyright to argue that the character is still protected until (at least) 2023. Of course, as with things like Happy Birthday, even if it should be in the public domain, if there's some corporate entity insisting that it's covered by copyright, you'd have to go to court to prove otherwise. And most people don't want to bother.Thankfully, that just changed when it comes to Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes scholar, Leslie S. Klinger, was working on a book (with Laurie R. King) called In the Company of Sherlock Holmes, detailing "major mystery/sci-fi/fantasy authors inspired by the Holmes tales." However, the Conan Doyle Estate contacted their publisher, Pegasus Books, demanding a license fee, and saying if they weren't paid, they'd make sure that no major distributors would sell the book. Specifically, the estate directly threatened that:
If you proceed instead to bring out Study in Sherlock II unlicensed, do not expect to see it offered for sale by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and similar retailers. We work with those company's routinely to weed out unlicensed uses of Sherlock Holmes from their offerings, and will not hesitate to do so with your book as well.Like too many publishers, Pegasus freaked out and refused to publish the book at all, so Klinger has taken it upon himself to file for declaratory judgment. You can see the full filing posted here (and embedded it below).
The lawsuit points out that Sherlock Holmes characters have long been in the public domain, and even that remaining book of stories includes two that are clearly in the public domain, as they were published prior to 1923. But, most importantly "none of the Sherlock Holmes Story Elements first appeared in any of the stories that were collected in The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes." In other words, the entirety of copyright protected elements in the character were published outside of that one book, and are now in the public domain.
The lawsuit also notes that Klinger and King's publisher on an earlier book, A Study in Sherlock, did, in fact, pay a license to the estate, but they did not concede any of the legal arguments. When the estate threatened Klinger, he correctly explained that no license was needed, but he's still dealing with the fallout from his publisher getting cold feet. Thus, he's asking the court to state, definitively, that the character is in the public domain. Kudos to Klinger for taking this on. We need more people willing to stand up for the public domain. Also, jeers to Pegasus for not being the one to take this on and for freaking out over the bogus threat.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arthur conan doyle, copyright, leslie klinger, public domain, sherlock holmes
Companies: conan doyle estate, perseus books
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These "living dead" parasites want to suck as much unearned money as possible from modern day creators. Even if it involves killing off those who try to reject the parasite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprise Witness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surprise Witness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Surprise Witness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surprise Witness
He's also very disappointed in his heirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surprise Witness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Surprise Witness
And if you think about it, I agree with Chris Dodd. We should think of the poor shamans that are employed by Hollywood!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This lawsuit is actually wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This lawsuit is actually wrong
Which is why you don't see any Sherlock Holmes projects published/filmed in Mexico.
The key is where the project is created/officially-distributed.
If it's created and sold in a country where the source material is PD, then the project can't be sued (at least with any hope of success).
(Secondary sales in countries where the copyright for th source material still holds aren't the responsiblity of the project creator.)
Of course, a company can be sued as a form of harassment/blackmail, and some companies will pay a small fee to avoid long legal proceedings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This lawsuit is actually wrong
If you look at the document, it's clear that it's seeking a declaration regarding copyright within the United States only. (It could hardly do otherwise, since the court has no jurisdiction in Mexico or any other non-U.S. territory.)
If the term of copyright is different in Mexico, that's certainly interesting, but it doesn't affect this case.
Nas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(2) To the extent that authors want to create an official canon and prevent knock off sequels that confuse readers, trademark law is sufficient to do this.
(3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this book non-fiction? There's no infringement because the Holmes character is not actually being used as a character.
(4) Even if this non-fiction book would otherwise infringe, how is this not fair use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well this scenario won't happen, since all 7 books will become public domain at the same time, 70 years after JK Rowling dies (at least in the UK and US, as well as a good number of other countries). It's only the archaic old US copyright laws that created terms of 95 years from publication that are causing the weird scenario with Sherlock Holmes, and other works published 1923-1977.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Simply publish in Europe, Australia etc and ignore the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since the post refers to it as Study in Sherlock II once, and it's the same author, I assume it's more of the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Puss in Publishing
The people that work at these so called �4th Estate� turncoat operations should turn in their �pens� to Edward Bulwer-Lytton and retire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree it seems unlikely, Watson, but once you've ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright........forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright........forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright........forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright........forever
If the estate wins, then copyright holders can effectively keep characters under copyright forever by simply creating a new work ever few decades.
If Klinger wins, then any character in public domain works also becomes public domain, even when the character appears in other work that are not.
If this ends in settlement, nothing will change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An interesting discrepancy from Doyle's own interests.
(Reference: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/mystery/essays/doylevholmes.html)
Now, Stashower may have lied, or otherwise misrepresented Doyle's correspondence, but it seems clear that he was still willing to have others develop, or build on, the character(s).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gender confusion?
Something's inconsistent here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gender confusion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_(name)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gender confusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gender confusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasoning about copyright.
Copyright is a hodge podge of who knows what seemingly produced to satisfy the wishes of those with enough money or influence to get that they wanted pushed through at the time.
Copyright Questions:
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2010/12/copyright-questions.html
all the best,
drew
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Merlin tv series currently running on BBC and SyFy.
Plus numerous movies/tv series/novels/graphic novels about King Arthur, all of which feature Merlin.
Cinderella...(not including Disney-based material)
"The Ballet" (2010)
"Ice Show" (2008)
Once Upon a Time TV series (2011-present) incorporates Cinderalla with other fairy tales
"Into the Woods" (incorporates original Fairy Tale) (international tour)
Ella Enchanted (2004)
Shrek movie series. Cinderella is one of many fairy tale characters including Merlin!
Fables ongoing comic book series and spin-off mini-series
Ulysses:
Ulysses 31 anime updating character to 31st century.
and, of course, any adaptation/redo of Homer's Illad and/or Odyssey.
Numerous 1960s "peplum" films.
Both Hercules the Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warror Princess
Any questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not that it was really trolling, just a bit of sarcasm.
6/10 must try harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anyway, I didn't mean to get anyone's blood pressure up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secondary Boycott.
The most insidious of these comments is this threat/promise of as secondary boycott. Chilling to see business has descended so low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secondary Boycott.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is sort of fair, until you remember that while spouses might, descendants don't get to keep getting a policeman's pension, descendants of surgeons don't continue to get paid for their parents or grandparents surgery. Perhaps instead of trying to explain why authors shouldn't be able to have a heritable estate of their ip, we should start wondering why actual property is treated differently and whether it should stay that way or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]