Conan Doyle Estate Asks Supreme Court To Put Sherlock Holmes Back Under Copyright
from the the-case-of-the-missing-public-domain dept
For a while now, we've been following the lawsuit concerning whether or not Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain. Back in June the 7th Circuit appeals court ruled that Holmes was in the public domain, followed up by a more thorough slamming of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Estate in a follow-up ruling concerning rewarding attorneys' fees. We saw some reporters claim that the case was now "over," but that was clearly not true. The Estate had made it clear it intended to appeal, having already asked the Supreme Court to block the appeals court ruling from taking effect (a request that was quickly denied). But that was clearly the preamble to a request to the Supreme Court to hear the case.That request has now come, with the Estate arguing that there are serious questions still in play. Specifically, the Doyle Estate raises three questions for a potential Supreme Court hearing. As a bit of background, the case was not directly started by the Estate, but rather author Leslie Klinger, who filed for declaratory judgment saying he wasn't infringing since the character was in the public domain. In the past, Klinger's publisher had felt pressured into taking out a license, and Klinger felt that this demand was unfair and unjust. The Estate tried to argue that even though all but one book of Holmes stories were published before 1923 (which puts them in the public domain), the fact that another book was published after 1923 with new facets to the character meant that the entirety of the character of Holmes (and Watson) were still covered by copyright. The argument was, more or less, that as long as the character is still "developing," and not complete, the copyright clock can be kept ticking. The courts completely rejected this argument and pointed out that the public domain is the public domain.
However, the Estate is making one last go of it, with a two-pronged attempt to get the Supreme Court to reconsider:
- Whether it was reasonable to rule on the case prior to Klinger finishing his book. This is a bit of misdirection. The Estate argues that the case shouldn't have been decided until Klinger finished his book since you can't determine if something isn't infringing if it hasn't been produced yet. This question was easily dismissed by the courts because (1) the Estate had been agitating for a license already, and that had created publishing issues for Klinger and (2) the courts made it clear that they were just saying that the early works were in the public domain -- and if Klinger's eventual book infringed on anything from that final (still copyrighted) Holmes book, the Estate could bring a specific case on that issue.
- The big question: whether or not a "dynamically developing character" can continue to extend the clock on copyright. Here, the Doyle Estate claims that there's a circuit split, in particular with a ruling from the 8th Circuit (which we covered here) concerning the Wizard of Oz (and people making t-shirts out of images from a movie poster that clearly was in the public domain). Admittedly, that was a terrible decision -- effectively allowing some reclamation of the public domain by copyright law. If the Supreme Court takes this case, hopefully it will be to just smack down that 8th Circuit decision and bring it into compliance with the 7th Circuit's point that things that were in the public domain stay in the public domain.
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: 7th circuit, 8th circuit, copyright, leslie klinger, public domain, sherlock holmes, supreme court, wizard of oz
Companies: conan doyle estate
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wonder what else I may have missed out on because of 70+ years of copyright keeping it off the shelves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: later stories
In other words, because Doyle used characters that were initially under copyright years before, the fact that he wrote those stories in 1923 doesn't extend their copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: later stories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Final Shelocks Holmes copyright ends when?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Final Shelocks Holmes copyright ends when?
The copyright ends when all copyrights end- never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Final Shelocks Holmes copyright ends when?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Final Shelocks Holmes copyright ends when?
Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle KGStJ, DL (22 May 1859 – 7 July 1930) was a British physician and writer who is most noted for his fictional stories about the ...
So, 1930 + 70 is 2000.
What are they saying about public domain again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Final Shelocks Holmes copyright ends when?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Final Shelocks Holmes copyright ends when?
The case focuses on when the duration of the copyright will run out on a character that has appeared in stories published over multiple decades (1887-1927).
The last two short story collections are as follows.
His Last Bow (published 1908-1917).
The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes (published 1921-1927).
Famously "The Final Problem" was published in 1893. That was one where Conan Doyle tried to kill off his character. Didn't work-- the "Hound of the Baskerville" was published in 1901 and "The Adventure of the Empty House" in 1903.
I should check out my "complete" collection of these stories to see if it contains "Case Book".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Final Shelocks Holmes copyright ends when?
I don't think Conan Doyle was either a corporation, nor was his work a 'work for hire'. But I could be wrong about that, as I was not around at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Final Shelocks Holmes copyright ends when?
"Works created in or after 1978"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Final Shelocks Holmes copyright ends when?
Works published or registered before 1978 currently have a maximum copyright duration of 95 years from the date of publication, if copyright was renewed during the 28th year following publication[39] (such renewal was made automatic by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992; prior to this the copyright would expire after 28 years if not renewed). The date of death of the author is not a factor in the copyright term of such works.
All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain;[40] works created before 1978 but not published until recently may be protected until 2047.[41] For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. With rare exceptions (such as very old works first published after 2002), no additional copyrights will expire (thus entering the public domain) until at least 2019 due to changes in the applicable laws.
So it looks like most of the stories will be long out of copyright, with the later ones heading to 2025 - assuming they had the 28-year extension added (which is likely with Conan Doyle). His date of death only influences the most likely latest date of stories that he wrote, although it would be interesting to see what would happen if an unpublished one was 'found' and published now, or if someone took an incomplete story and 'finished' it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree, there's no telling what wacky reasoning they could come up with to decide it's OK to put public domain things back under copyright. They're like other courts sometimes in making a decision based on how they think things should be and then finding a legal path to that decision, rather than following what the law says to a decision. It might be better if they didn't take the case so only the 8th circuit has this bad precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When your business model sucks, you should not be able to avail yourself of the courts, laws, etc. to keep it going.
Doyle is not writing any new material, will not write any new material, and these entire case highlights the problem with treating it like real property that is supposed to pay in perpetuity someone at the expense of a shared culture that was one of the foundations of the concept of copyright.
For a limited time should mean less than a human lifespan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should have the same rights of redress as someone with a good business model. The laws just shouldn't be written to preserve bad business models (or any particular business models).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Positive outcomes?
This would mean that outside of Sherlock and Mickey Mouse, copyright would actually promote the arts and sciences like it was actually intended to.
And, of course, eventually in this climate, individual constructed personas would be revisited and sane minds would realise that keeping things under copyright purely to allow a rightsholder to continue to profit from an otherwise public domain work is silly, and that part would be reformed as well.
Our real issue is the fact that corporations are immortal, and can hold copyright. If someone can figure out how to deal with that, everything else would fall into place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Positive outcomes?
I would suggest taking out the immortal corporations with sunlight or a stake through the heart, but history shows they have an endless supply of sunshine that they blow up everyone else's ass, and they have no heart to stake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Positive outcomes?
This would mean that outside of Sherlock and Mickey Mouse, copyright would actually promote the arts and sciences like it was actually intended to.
No, it would mean that all the media corporations would make sequels to public domain works and then claim copyright on the originals. Would it work? Probably not since they weren't the original authors, but I don't want them to have an incentive to try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the latter, then this case is null, and anyone can make any stories they damned well please despite the fact that the original author made another book with it's own copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But only those elements added in the later stories.
For example, Dr Watson married and lost his wife in the first group of stories.
He remarried in the second batch.
So you can do a story involving Watson's first wife, or his seeing someone after he became a widower, but you can't mention his second wife (by name or not)...yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minor typo?
Did you mean awarding maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A return to rational, constitutional copyright would be something like 16 years only IF registered, with one 16 year extension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually..
So let's say, if the fact he played the violin, or Dr. Watson being married, or the landlady's name appeared only in those stories, you could not use that. (I know, they are earlier)
The estate is trying to say, because new details about Holmes emerged in the new stories, that covers the whole character and prevents others from using him.
Interesting, the more so with for example, Disney. What happens when some of Mickey's early cartoons become public domain (should that ever even happen)? Can people then make new cartoons, but only with the really primitive-looking Steamboat Willie Mickey? How does this interact with Disney's other secret weapon, trademark (which I understand, is not the case with Sherlock)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's not screw up copyright law even worse than it is now just out of spite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]