Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Sherlock Holmes Case: Holmes Is Now (Mostly) Public Domain
from the the-case-of-the-missing-public-domain dept
This isn't a huge surprise, but the Supreme Court has declined to hear the case concerning whether or not Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain. As many news sites are reporting, this more or less means that the character of Sherlock Holmes is considered public domain. It's not quite that simple, of course. Technically, all but the last book of Sherlock Holmes works (covering a few stories) is in the public domain according to the 7th Circuit appeals court. That means the character attributes that are new in those last works are not in the public domain. Also, conceivably, a similar challenge in another circuit could lead to a different conclusion, which might lead the Supreme Court to eventually weigh in another time. But, for now, it's mostly safe to assume that the basic character is in the public domain.So, now, who's going to create some awesome new Sherlock Holmes stories?
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: copyright, leslie klinger, public domain, sherlock holmes, supreme court
Companies: conan doyle estate
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
On paper vs In practice
On paper perhaps, but in practice, what's to stop the estate from going after someone who they claim is infringing on something from the last book with one of their creations? Keep in mind going to court, innocent or not, is prohibitively expensive, so even if someone was sure they would win, they might still be pressured to pay up or fold.
If Sherlock Holmes really is in the public domain, the estates' entire purpose, and, more importantly, revenue stream, is gone, kaput. As a result, they have absolutely no reason to ever stop fighting this, and every reason to keep doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On paper vs In practice
International copyright law...well, that is anything but elementary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On paper vs In practice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On paper vs In practice
It wouldn't be a big concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On paper vs In practice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On paper vs In practice
Nothing, except they have to prove the infringing elements are particular to the last book ONLY.
For example, anyone can write about Watson's first wife, or Watson meeting and courting someone after becoming a widower.
HOWEVER, they can't mention his second wife, nor use her name as the woman he would be courting.
Got it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On paper vs In practice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On paper vs In practice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rule 39 FTW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rule 39 FTW!
how does that apply?
Perhaps you meant rule 34 and 35.
Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions.
Rule 35: If porn of it (whatever "it" is) cannot be found, then porn of it will be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rule 39 FTW!
o.O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rule 39 FTW!
*that disturbing serene smile that lets your mind fill in the awkward silence with visions that terrify*
and it was all of that and more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rule 39 FTW!
"We must find the hound of the Baskervilles, Watson. I have a curious desire to rub my naked body all over its luscious fur."
Cue cliché music: Bow-chicka-wow-wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rule 39 FTW!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule%2039
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rule 39 FTW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rule 39 FTW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rule 39 FTW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rule 39 FTW!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeamMeUpScotty
You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rule 39 FTW!
If its change you want, you have to make Sherlock and Watson get it on victorian-style....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe someone with the money to fight against a well-oiled legal machine. Perhaps Disney could easily pull it off. The sad part is that Disney has often taken public domain stories and essentially made them its own property, thereby discouraging anyone else (who is not equally deep pocketed) from sharing in the same *technically* public domain work that Disney now (and forever more) considers its own trademark. That's why anyone of lesser means who wants to even get close to a 200-year-old long-since-out-of-copyright Brothers Grimm story had better tread very lightly.
http://www.slotstemple.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/miss-white-300x150.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Sherlock Holmes stories...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Sherlock Holmes stories...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a reason why Disney's latest fairy tales are named "Tangled" instead of "Rapunzel" and "Frozen" instead of "The Snow Queen". The wannabes can't put out their own versions and call them "Tangled" or "Frozen" because then it's obvious they are copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBC did: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018ttws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please let the BBC apply for worldwide copyright. Quick! Think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is Copyright so much longer than Patents?
I believe that copyright was originally 34 years, including one extension. Perhaps we should extend patents so that they both last the same time period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is Copyright so much longer than Patents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is Copyright so much longer than Patents?
Unfortunately, the courts aren't very good at distinguishing ideas from expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is Copyright so much longer than Patents?
Not quite.
patent restricts use of the technique/equipment/formula specifically-patented.
How many different can openers are there?
They all open cans, but they do it differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, I'm not going to blow my own horn and say that they are 'awesome', but I've written two Sherlock Holmes oneshots that you can read here, and I've been careful to state that they're based on the books as opposed to any of the movies or TV series.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Precisely!
[from *Laverne and Shirley* ]
Annoyed boyfriend: "If I give you a quarter, will you go away?"
Iggy: "why would I go away from someone who's giving me money?"
The 7th court only covers some of the area around Chicago. It's a precedent there, only an optional guideline or related case in the rest of the USA. So the trick for the Doyles is to figure out which circuit court would be most sympathetic and file in that jurisdiction, hope to get a contrary ruling and leave it up to the Supreme Court to decide which circuit is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Sherlock Holmes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No shit Sherlock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, now, who's going to create some awesome new Sherlock Holmes stories? Well, I'm not going to blow my own horn and say that they are 'awesome', but I've written two Sherlock Holmes oneshots that you can read here, and I've been careful to state that they're based on the books as opposed to any of the movies or TV series. http://slotsspot.com/news/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frankly, I don't want a Hollywood version of Sherlock Holmes. To many terrists and way to many bullets with https://kaszinomaxi.com/blackjack/ and whores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]