Once More, With Feeling: Sherlock Holmes Is In The Public Domain
from the elementary dept
Over the last few years, we've been covering the declaratory judgment lawsuit trying to establish that Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain. As explained, nearly all of the stories about Holmes were published prior to 1923, making them public domain in the US. However, there was one book with ten stories published after 1923, and those works are still covered by copyright, thanks to our nutty system of copyright extensions. Some Sherlock Holmes scholars/authors, Leslie Klinger and Laurie King, filed for declaratory judgment after the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Estate threatened the publisher of their upcoming book (after successfully pressuring a previous publisher) that Sherlock Holmes is still covered by copyright and a license must be obtained. Klinger argued that he wasn't using anything from those works that were published post-1923.While the Doyle Estate ignored the start of the case, after initially losing, it suddenly became interested arguing that the "character" of Holmes was not complete, and thus the new works somehow magically could extend backwards in time to keep the older versions out of copyright. Furthermore, it argued that in a world where Holmes is in the public domain, something horrible like others creating "multiple" versions of Holmes might happen (even though that's exactly what the public domain is supposed to enable). While there was some confusion, the judge didn't buy the Estate's argument, and found Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson to be in the public domain.
The Estate appealed, and got the unfortunate honor of having Judge Richard Posner handle the case, which he has done quite thoroughly, completely dismantling the Estate's arguments in affirming that Holmes and Watson belong to everyone, and not to the Estate. The key line:
We cannot find any basis in statute or case law for extending a copyright beyond its expiration. When a story falls into the public domain, story elements—including characters covered by the expired copyright—become fair game for follow-on authors...Posner notes that while the ten stories published after 1923 (it's not fair to call them "new") are derivative works of the original, and the only thing protectable in those are the "original elements added" in those later stories. Everything done before that is public domain.
Posner has little time for the Estate's wacky theory of how much "harm" would come from people actually making use of a Sherlock Holmes in the public domain, by accurately recognizing that it is the public domain that often inspires tremendous new creativity.
The estate offers the hypothetical example of a mural that is first sketched and only later completed by being carefully painted. If the sketch is allowed to enter the public domain, there to be improved by creative copiers, the mural artist will have a diminished incentive to perfect his mural. True; but other artists will have a greater incentive to improve it, or to create other works inspired by it, because they won’t have to pay a license fee to do so provided that the copyright on the original work has expired.Posner also destroys the rationale of the Doyle Estate in which they have a made up concept of "flat" and "round" characters, where "round" characters are continually added to through newer and newer works, and the characters are never fully complete because of all that adding. Posner notes that this whole thing has nothing to do with copyright law:
The estate defines “flat” characters oddly, as ones completely and finally described in the first works in which they appear. Flat characters thus don’t evolve. Round characters do; Holmes and Watson, the estate argues, were not fully rounded off until the last story written by Doyle. What this has to do with copyright law eludes us.Posner further points out that, for all the talk that the Estate is worried about the harm of "new" versions of Holmes it doesn't like, in truth it seems clear that the Estate just wants to get paid. Finally, Posner notes that this appears to be an attempt to create a perpetual copyright, which violates the "limited times" aspect of the Constitution:
With the net effect on creativity of extending the copy-right protection of literary characters to the extraordinary lengths urged by the estate so uncertain, and no legal grounds suggested for extending copyright protection beyond the limits fixed by Congress, the estate’s appeal borders on the quixotic. The spectre of perpetual, or at least nearly perpetual, copyright (perpetual copyright would vio-late the copyright clause of the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, which authorizes copyright protection only for “limited Times”) looms, once one realizes that the Doyle estate is seeking 135 years (1887–2022) of copyright protection for the character of Sherlock Holmes as depicted in the first Sherlock Holmes story.That seems like a rather useful line given the likelihood of a copyright term extension fight coming up in the next few years...
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, laurie king, leslie klinger, public domain, richard posner, sherlock holmes
Companies: conan doyle estate, perseus books
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Um, how could it diminish his incentive? The thing that will diminish his incentive is that HE WILL BE DEAD BECAUSE IT WON'T ENTER PUBLIC DOMAIN UNTIL AFTER HE'S DEAD.
The only way it would diminish the incentive to perfect the mural is if he's making a mural for his children's children, and is afraid that generations down his lineage (or hers), someone will make a better version of the mural from a sketch.
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd have to agree here. The artist will have been dead for like 100 years before his mural will be in the public domain - that artist isn't going to have much incentive to finish anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you owe me $100
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's elementary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wonder what Martin Luther King would think of the greedy way his heirs are trying to monetize his speeches. Do you think he made any of them expecting to be paid for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now if only ALL his children were at least attempting to do THAT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A world where
That world already exists in the UK since Conan-Doyle died in 1930 and hence all his works have been in the public domain since 2000 - (in fact they originally went into the public domain in 1980 -only to be removed from is by the disgraceful hijacking of the Peter Pan - Great Ormond St. issue by the copyright lobby )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dang
Next thing you know there will be a show on the BBC about him as well as a show on CBS. Horrifying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dang
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Classic
Also, it's pretty classic that the Doyle family would be the ones who pulled this stunt. My understanding (from a special by the "Sherlock" creators) is that the Sherlock Holmes character has been reimagined and used more than any other (provably) fictional character in history, and that Arthur Conan Doyle gave his blessing to all sorts of plays and derivative works during his lifetime.
Great character to try as a test case a century later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only hope for the Doyle Estate now...
Posner also destroys the rationale of the Doyle Estate in which they have a made up concept of "flat" and "round" characters, where "round" characters are continually added to through newer and newer works, and the characters are never fully complete because of all that adding.
Really Doyle Estate? Rounded? That's Apple wheelhouse. Prepare to be sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It must have been a sad day at the office when they found out that Posner was appointed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The next copyright term limit fight will be epic
If Disney or some other pushes for and, more importantly, actually wins yet another absurd extension of copyright term length from corrupt politicians, I feel infringement will absolutely explode in retaliation.
The entertainment industry better tread very lightly. I have no sympathy for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The next copyright term limit fight will be epic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we can establish that the general idea/concept of a character can't be copyrighted (or if it is, when it expires), we should then apply that to every single other icon we can find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, the way that it's normally handled is that if a character is copyrightable at all, it is as part of the work which introduces the character. A character that consists of nothing but a name is really not protectable. But the more that the work describes them, the more they're fleshed out, the more protectable they become. But still, just as a part of the work which introduces them.
Features of a character added in a later work will be copyrightable as part of that work. So if Doyle's very last Holmes story mentioned how he had a superfluous third nipple, and that work was still protected, it would be an aspect of the Holmes character which was not available for use by the public even when the older remainder of the character was.
If it helps, try thinking of a movie: there are characters, images, music, a plot, etc. Extracting the music from the movie and reusing it for a different purpose would clearly be infringing, if the movie was copyrighted. Likewise, reusing some of the images (as was known to happen with special effects shots back in the day). Characters are really no different; they're a part of the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine if the Doyle estate had one. A neat little dirty trick they could pull would be to commission-- as a work-for-hire-- a writer to pen a new Holmes story. Then they would hold the copyright for another 90 years. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The estate isn't wacky, it's a high-functioning sociopath; do your research!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright or trademark?
This could also be a reason why even the early cartoon shorts of Mickey Mouse from the 1920s will almost certainly never enter the public domain. The issue is not whether there is commercial value from ancient black-and-white cartoons -- but the fact that keeping all early works under perpetual copyright (through repeated copyright extension legislation) serves to strengthen Disney's trademark of the Mickey Mouse character itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright or trademark?
Trademarks are inferior to copyrights and must reflect the facts on the ground. When a copyright enters the public domain, anyone can make and sell copies of the work, make new works based on the work, etc. This means that a mark pertaining to the work can no longer identify all such marked goods as sharing a common origin. Thus the trademark becomes generic.
It might still survive for unrelated products: Peter Pan is a public domain character in the US, but there are valid trademarks for PETER PAN peanut butter, and PETER PAN bus lines. But Disney is clearly not going to settle for those Mickey Mouse ice cream bars as the consolation prize, while everyone else in the world starts using the mouse freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small slip
I think that should have been written as "to keep the older versions out of the public domain", unless I haven't fully woken up this morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am going to create my own version of Sherlock Holmes...
The state cannot stop me...he is in the public domain, so I can create my own version of Sherlock Holmes and if the estate does not like it, tough shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]