'Enola Holmes' Producers Go In Hard On Conan Doyle Estate In Motion To Dismiss Its Bullshit Lawsuit
from the what's-up-holmes? dept
Over the summer, we wrote about a very strange lawsuit brought by the Estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle against Netflix and the makers of the forthcoming film Enola Holmes. What made much of this head-scratching is that the vast majority of ACD's Sherlock Holmes works are old enough to have entered the public domain. In the lawsuit, the Estate points out that there are ten Sherlock stories that are not in the public domain, however. And that because the Holmes character in those stories is both more emotional and -- checks notes -- likes dogs, that somehow that makes any depiction of the Holmes character having emotions and liking dogs as somehow copyright infringement. Also, there is a trademark claim for using "Holmes" in the film's title, which is dumb because it's a work of art and the public domain character's name being part of the film's title is of artistic merit.
So let's focus on the copyright claim, instead. Or, rather, let's let the filmmaker's motion to dismiss focus on it, so thoroughly did they excoriate the Estate. We'll start with two claims made by the Estate as to protectable elements of the Holmes character: that the later works showed his warming relationship with his sidekick Watson and -- checks notes again in disbelief -- sigh, that he likes dogs. Well, the filmmakers suggest that those are sort of irrelevant since the film doesn't depict Holmes interacting with either Watson or dogs.
Dr. Watson is not even a character in the Film. Accordingly, the Film does not develop Watson’s relationship with Sherlock Holmes and Watson does not remarry in the Film.
The Film does not show Sherlock interacting with dogs, and accordingly, does not demonstrate any “great interest” in dogs by Sherlock.
As such, the motion points out that the only relevant claim is on the emotional and demeanor traits the Estate claims are later protectable developments of the Holmes character. To succeed on this, the Estate would have to be able to demonstrate first that these are protectable elements for copyright and that those elements only appear in the later, not public domain Sherlock works. On the matter of whether emotions are somehow protectable, the motion points out that this goes against copyright's idea/expression dichotomy.
It is a “fundamental tenet” of copyright law that “protection extends only to the author’s original expression and not to the ideas embodied in that expression.” - Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus.).
See also 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (“In no case does copyright protection for an original work for authorship extend to any idea … [or] concept… regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in suchwork”). As the Tenth Circuit has explained, courts “ must separate unprotected ideas from expression” because copyright law only protects “the ‘particularized expression’ of [an] idea,”and not the idea itself - Blehm v. Jacobs. See also Golan v. Gonzalez (original expressionin the literary context “refers to the particular pattern of words … that comprise a work”).
And that should be enough by itself to get this lawsuit tossed in the trash heap where it belongs. In case that doesn't do the trick, the motion goes on to note that the very traits the Estate is wrongly claiming are protectable, namely a softer, kinder Sherlock Holmes, also happen to show up in earlier works now in the public domain. In all, the lawyers for the film provided six examples of Holmes exhibiting these traits in earlier, public domain works. To be honest, this whole thing might have been worth it if only so I could picture a bunch of lawyers pouring through old Sherlock Holmes stories and arguing over which ones showed the most emotional development.
But beyond that, this whole lawsuit is dumb and the court should dismiss it as requested.
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, enola holmes, public domain, sherlock holmes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A horrid thought occurs: If Disney won’t be the ones to extend copyright nowadays, might the Doyle estate give it the ol’ college try to keep those last copyrighted Holmes stories under copyright for another few decades so they can keep suing people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Until RDJ blew up his popularity, Holmes wasn't that big of a moneymaker. The Estate simply couldn't afford to keep a bullpen like Disney does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Until RDJ blew up his popularity, Holmes wasn't that big of a moneymaker"
Erm, no. While that was the first major Hollywood production based around the character in a few years, it's been a big moneymaker on TV for many decades, as well as other media such as novels, comic books, stage and radio. It's a perennial character, there's always someone making money from it.
Guy Ritchie's movie wasn't really even the only major version of the story in that year, as the Beneditch Cumberbatch version was in production before that movie came out, although it first screened in 2010. It might be right to say that these two properties indicated an increase in popularity of the character in the mainstream zeitgeist, but it's always been a moneymaker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Basil Rathbone weren't no slouch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope, but his character was certainly a good example of an adaptation of the Holmes stories that took liberties with the nature, events and even time of the originals' settings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...but his character was certainly a good example of an adaptation of the Holmes stories that took liberties with the nature, events and even time of the originals' settings."
That it did. Still, if anyone who grew up watching any of the Holmes adaptations had to put a face to Sherlock Holmes, Rathbone's somber mug would be what pops up. Similarly as to how David Suchet became the one true face of Poirot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Still, if anyone who grew up watching any of the Holmes adaptations had to put a face to Sherlock Holmes, Rathbone's somber mug would be what pops up"
That certainly depends on when and where you were experiencing Holmes. Many would think of Jeremy Brett's TV performance or John Gielgud's radio portrayal. While Rathbone was a standard setter, he's not alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Many would think of Jeremy Brett's TV performance or John Gielgud's radio portrayal. "
Probably because, well, Rathbone's Holmes was in black & white, mainly.
Jeremy Brett's adaptation was in itself extremely good, but a lot has to be said about their whole production being of an extremely high caliber. Brett's Holmes walked through a victorian and edwardian london brought to very vivid reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I'm not saying one is superior necessarily, just that other people will think of a different ideal standard than you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True.
Except when it comes to Poirot, of course. 😋
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They don't have Disney lobbying money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But how will Arthur Conan Doyle continue generating stories about a creation he came to hate if we don't respect copyright?!
Oh, wait -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
details matter
This suit is not brought by the "Estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle", but rather by a corporate entity which has nothing to do with Doyle aside from allegedly owning some of the copyrights and calling itself the "Conan Doyle Estate".
Additionally, there are not ten stories at issue. Only six of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories are still protected by copyright.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case-Book_of_Sherlock_Holmes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright should stop modern nitwits from ruining classics.
I find the words "Sherlock Holmes" to be THE fundamental "original expression" that should be protected. In perpetuity. No harm to ME. -- YES, I do have the complete canon in box set of paperbacks, plus several commentary / reference works including the rare and rather good continuance stories by Doyle's nephew. They annoy me somewhat now because of the rigid English class system and Holmes is bit serfish of a subject, but -- er, digressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright should stop modern nitwits from ruining classics.
Letting every HACK use the name can only spoil enjoyment of fans. And there's zero justification for it other than that the writer IS a HACK. Just try ANY original character. Sheesh. Is everyone lacking in imagination these days that can't make up, say, a crime-fighter, er, Abner 'The Great' Stonkin, who instead of solving crimes, instead figures out a way to pin them on Rich people? -- Now that'd be interesting! Take it and run, Timmy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright should stop modern nitwits from ruining classi
"Letting every HACK use the name can only spoil enjoyment of fans"
Then, why has the character remained popular for over a century, despite having been used in thousands of stories that had nothing to do with Doyle's estate? Why are some of the best Holmes stories the one that bear little to no relationship to the original novels?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright should stop modern nitwits from ruining cl
No hack that doesn't pay some licensing, anyway. Right? Because then the retconning and rebooting are perfectly artistic and A OK. As long as some money changed hands.
It's so good that copyright law covers how people feel things about stuff, isn't it?
(Specious argument is specious.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright should stop modern nitwits from ruining classi
By that logic, people shouldn’t be able to use “Dracula” or “Alucard” as a name for a vampire without permission. It’s a name that is baked into our culture. That’s also how the public domain works, like it or not.
I should also note that while I consider Toy Story 4 to be a cashgrab and unnecessary to the overall plot, and I have some issues with Toy Story 3, neither ruin the original two movies. Furthermore, no instance of fanfiction or reimagining of old classics ruins the original story. People already have a dividing line in there minds between the George Lucas and Disney Star Wars universes, among many other series, and while generally I don’t like that sort of reimagining without input from the original creators for official, commercial releases, that a) doesn’t ruin the originals that I fell in love with (assuming that I did) and b) doesn’t apply when the original creator is dead.
And there are plenty of reasons to reuse an existing character. Ever heard of alternate universe fanfiction, “What if?” stories, or post-ending fanfiction (the latter specifically when there is no canonical follow-up to the original and likely never will be)? That’s not laziness; it’s highly creative. New works build off of old works all the time. There’re also cases where you move an old work (made before modern film techniques and/or video games existed) into new media. Changing the presentation can be a huge challenge in and of itself. You don’t need something to be 100% new and original in order to be creative.
At any rate, this is a case where the Sherlock Holmes character has been in the public domain for some time and the original creator is long dead. That’s how the public domain works; people get to build off of old works to make new ones. Maybe some of them are bad, but that doesn’t mean that all of them are or should be stopped.
If you do not like the new stuff, just ignore it. Don’t let them ruin your enjoyment of the old stuff. Besides, you yourself said that the classics annoy you in some areas; maybe someone will come up with a retelling that removes those annoyances. Either way, the originals are still there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright should stop modern nitwits from ruining cl
"And there are plenty of reasons to reuse an existing character"
Most fiction is based on archetypes. The fact that you named your vampire "LeStat" instead of "Dracula" wouldn't shield you from lawsuits in our resident idiot's ideal world, even if it's more creative than our resident dumbass's example.
Thankfully, the rest of us are richer for this not being the reality we live in, even if some distant descendant of Bram Stoker's family would dearly wish it to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright should stop modern nitwits from ruining classics.
"trash heap"? Don't you mean "trash maw" as your "Bill Jackson" sock-puppet used today?
And "lawyers pouring through"? I'll just let you try to find your error there, Timmy. (Hint: no "U" in poring meaning "study", not pouring water out of a boot.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright should stop modern nitwits from ruining classi
Did you mean to reply to someone there, or are you now attacking yourself for imagined words as well as other people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Public Domain shouldn't stop YOU from enjoying classics.
Copyright isn't supposed to last forever. Even if you want it to, such an idea is unconstitutional. (See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution) And still, you can't copyright a character's name alone. The character itself is another story, but the bulk of the original works are in the public domain now. That's how copyright is supposed to work. Copyright should last for a short period of time (it's far too long now, but that's another issue), and then it enters the public domain for more people to build upon it. To quote Sherlock Holmes, "It's elementary, my dear!"
Besides, just because a work is no longer copyrighted doesn't mean you can't enjoy it anymore. If public domain works = boring stuff, the public domain's existence would be pointless. Besides, no one enjoys a book, song, or movie because of copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anything, being in the public domain only helped the original Night of the Living Dead. That movie inspired all zombie stories that came after it — from The Walking Dead to Zombieland, from World War Z to Shaun of the Dead — many of which likely wouldn’t have been made if the Romero Zombie (so to speak) had remained under copyright.
People who think the public domain is the “death of culture” or whatever couldn’t be more wrong. The public domain is where culture thrives — both in distribution and inspiration. To destroy or malign the public domain is to attack the place where culture lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ironically, the best example to prove this point home is Disney, seeing as their most popular works are remixes of Public Domain stories (Yes, even Frozen, which is adapted from Hans Christian Andersen's The Ice Queen).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We don't even have to look at direct adaptations. If copyright were held for eternity, as some people apparently believe, the anything that remotely resembled the hero's journey, traditional folklore or Homer's Odyssey could immediately be sued for plagiarism. Which is at least 80% of Hollywood's output...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and the other 20% is probably covered by Shakespeare's estate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funnily enough,Shakespeare's works are themselves riddled with plagiarism. Think Pyramus and Thisbe, used in A Midsummer's Night Dream and the basis of Romeo and Juliet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but that's kind of the point... no matter how far back you go there's someone who has done something you could be sued for if copyright was as infinite as some seem to want. The public domain is vital to a functioning culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Ironically, the best example to prove this point home is Disney, seeing as their most popular works are remixes of Public Domain stories..."
The same way most fantasy/sfi-fi works are adaptations of long-standing pre-existing mythos. Star Wars is nothing more than a refurbished retelling of the Arthur saga, for instance. Hell, there was a time you couldn't read or watch a fantasy epic anywhere where the central theme wasn't a wise old wizard handing a young farmboy a magic sword so he could go confront his fallen-to-evil father.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't someone think of the billable hours and parasites?
Well, lemme say that I am just so glad that copyright not only exists but has a duration lasting decades after the death of the creator, as I can't possibly imagine how the brilliant creativity displayed by the estate of a long dead author could have possibly existed without the protection of The Almighty Copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Won't someone think of the billable hours and parasites?
Who cares about billable hours? If copyrights expire, how are corrupt politicians going to raise funds to get re-elected. How will they feed their families. Oh the humanity! Think of the children!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Won't someone think of the billable hours and parasites?
"Who cares about billable hours?"
The lawyers convincing the Doyle estate that this is a good use of their time and money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And within five years, every aspect of Sherlock Holmes will be PD. Why not just drag this out until 1 January 2023, and then have the judge declare the whole case invalid because the character is wholly public domain by the time he hears the case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd assume that it's the filing date and not the hearing date that determines validity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Any judge would roll his eyes at the idea of punishing someone for being a few years too early on something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mary Russell novels
Interesting the estate hasn't gone after another reasonably successful 'holmesian' author, Laurie R. King ( https://openlibrary.org/authors/OL20985A/Laurie_R._King ). These novels take up with Holmes after he retires to beekeeping. Lots of emotion here - Holmes falls in love with his young protégé (not Watson) and eventually marries her. Not too many dogs, though. Any why wait for Netflix, both authors (the other being Nancy Springer who wrote the 'Enola' novels) published well before 2014 - before copyright ended for the majority of the books? I deduce there is a financial consideration involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Listing
best Lush escort requires them to be of an open nature, happy to explore desires and be willing to satisfy them. This coupled with sophistication and seductive natural beauty makes them the best female companions. Our girls have been selected for their exceptional caliber and appeal but they know when discretion is required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Listing
best Lush escort requires them to be of an open nature, happy to explore desires and be willing to satisfy them. This coupled with sophistication and seductive natural beauty makes them the best female companions. Our girls have been selected for their exceptional caliber and appeal but they know when discretion is required.
http://lush-escort.freeescortsite.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woke
The lawsuit should be against letting Shitflix produce and screen another woke feminist piece of rubbish...
. That simple!! I mean seriously, taking a well established popular Male role and turning into feminist propaganda is just another example of the selfish narcissistic c#nt filled agenda they are pushing on everyone. Well fck netflix and f#ck all you feminist cnts! When you ve finaaly taken away everything that men have, you will still be bitter angry annoying oxygen wadting C#NTS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Woke
Wow, how weak and fragile do you have to be to be filled with this much hate on a year old article that nobody's commented on in over 12 months?
"taking a well established popular Male role and turning into feminist propaganda"
Enola Holmes is not the same character as Sherlock, who exists as a perfectly male character within the story being told.
What is it about hateful misogynists and their inability to deal with facts? If you don't understand that your own masculinity is not dependent on whether or not Netflix produce an adaptation of a 10 year old novel as one of the hundreds of projects they product in a year, at least try not to be so filled with rage that old news sends you into a rant that only has people laughing at how weak you are compared to the women you hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]