'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.

Filed Under: arthur conan doyle, copyright, enola holmes, public domain, sherlock holmes

Estate Of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Alleges Copyright Infringement Over Sherlock's Emotional Awakening

from the i'm-gonna-cry dept

Let us do a little deductive reasoning, shall we? Copyright law has a term length. While that term length has been extended to the point of near-bastardization, that copyright exists on a term at all leads any investigator to conclude that the makers of that law intended for copyright protections on a given work to come to an end. If distinct characters and settings are offered copyright protections, as they are, then it reasons that those, too, were intended to have those protections end after a prescribed period of time. And if Sherlock Holmes is a literary character, an assertion that cannot be doubted, then it stands to reason that the law as written intended for the copyright protections covering his character were also to end after a period of time.

Therefore, all you Watson-esque readers witnessing my astounding logic, when the Estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle suggested back in 2013 in a lawsuit that the clock didn't start running as to when a character would enter the public domain until that character had ceased to be developed, the Estate's assertion clearly and undoubtedly runs afoul of the intention of those that crafted copyright law, since an author could simply forever-develop a character, and have him or her never enter the public domain! It's elementary!

But not to the Conan Doyle Estate, apparently, which has sued Netflix over its forthcoming movie about Sherlock's sister, entitled Enola Holmes. In the suit itself, the estate points out in the previous court ruling that, while most of the Sherlock stories and characters are in the public domain, the remaining ten are not. Which is true! But the estate also argues that the Sherlock character is different in those last ten stories because he... wait for it... is more emotional. And, therefore, since the Sherlock character in Enola Holmes is also emotional... copyright infringement!

"After the stories that are now in the public domain, and before the Copyrighted Stories, the Great War happened," states the complaint. "In World War I Conan Doyle lost his eldest son, Arthur Alleyne Kingsley. Four months later he lost his brother, Brigadier-general Innes Doyle. When Conan Doyle came back to Holmes in the Copyrighted Stories between 1923 and 1927, it was no longer enough that the Holmes character was the most brilliant rational and analytical mind. Holmes needed to be human. The character needed to develop human connection and empathy."

And so Sherlock "became warmer," continues the complaint, setting up the question of whether the development of feelings is something that can be protected by copyright and whether the alleged depiction of Sherlock in Enola Holmes is somehow derivative.

Imagine for a moment if this argument were allowed to win the day in court. Suddenly any author who managed to develop the characters in any series of novels would get never ending copyright on those characters. Luke Skywalker is suddenly a dick in Episode 8? New copyright term on his character. Harry Potter goes through puberty and gets romantic with his best friends little sister? Well, first, come on man, but also... new copyright term on his character!

That isn't how any of this is supposed to work, of course. Again, it's quite obvious that the framers limited copyright to a term for a reason, and that reason was that works and characters that are protected by copyright are supposed to eventually end up in the public domain. Playing these games as to when a character that is otherwise in that public domain got some characteristic to end run around the term and still get copyright protection doesn't change that.

If the court has any sense, this suit should find the garbage pail with the quickness.

Filed Under: arthur conan doyle, conan doyle estate, copyright, emotional growth, enola holmes, public domain, sherlock holmes
Companies: netflix

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...

Filed Under: arthur conan doyle, copyright, laurie king, leslie klinger, public domain, richard posner, sherlock holmes
Companies: conan doyle estate, perseus books

Conan Doyle Estate Is Horrified That The Public Domain Might Create 'Multiple Personalities' Of Sherlock Holmes

from the actually,-that's-the-point dept

For a few years now we've discussed a few times some of the confusion as to why Sherlock Holmes isn't considered in the public domain in the US, even though he probably should be. As we've explained, all of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books except for one are in the public domain. The Conan Doyle estate claims that having that single book under copyright means that the entire character is covered by copyright. Earlier this year, we pointed out that a noted Sherlock Holmes scholar (such things exist!) named Leslie Klinger had decided to file for declaratory judgment that Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, following a legal nastygram from the Estate, arguing that it needed a license fee for Klinger's latest book.

The Conan Doyle Estate has now filed its response to the motion for summary judgment, and it's an astounding study of ignorance concerning copyright law and the public domain. While it admits that there are only ten short stories (from that one remaining book) that are under copyright, it still argues that those ten stories lock up pretty much everything else. First, it argues that the characters of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson continued to grow as personalities in those last ten stories, and that the stories were non-linear (i.e., some took place earlier in their fictional lives), it more or less encompasses everything, even those public domain works.

The facts are that Sir Arthur continued creating the characters in the copyrighted Ten Stories, adding significant aspects of each character’s background, creating new history about the dynamics of their own relationship, changing Holmes’s outlook on the world, and giving him new skills. And Sir Arthur did this in a non-linear way. Each of the Ten Stories is set at various points earlier in the two men’s lives—and even late stories create new aspects of the men’s youthful character. In other words, at any given point in their fictional lives, the characters depend on copyrighted character development.

Of course, if that's true, it basically presents a way to make copyright on characters perpetual. You just need to have someone continue to release new works that have some minor change to the character, and they get to pretend you have a new starting point for the public domain ticker. That can't be what the law intended.

Astoundingly, the filing suggests that the public domain clock only begins at the point where the "creation of the characters was complete." That is, so long as you never "complete" the character creation, they can never go into the public domain.

If the creation of the characters was complete in works published in the United States before 1923, the characters are in the public domain. If, however, the characters as works of authorship were only completed in copyrighted stories published in 1923 or after, the characters are works of authorship protected by United States copyright law.

But, if that's true, then the whole concept of the idea/expression dichotomy is shot to hell. Copyright is only supposed to cover the specific expression, not the wider ideas, which would include the facets of the character that were added in those last ten stories. But, the Estate is trying to flip this all on its head by arguing that those minor character changes in the small number of covered works retroactively flows back to the character in the earlier stories.

And then it gets really wacky. The Estate seems to freak out that if the elements of Holmes and Watson were to be declared public domain, then you'd get (*gasp*!) a splintering of their characters -- a fate that seems so horrific to the Estate, which they assume must also horrify everyone else. To the Estate, there can be only one version of those characters:

Plaintiff’s position would create multiple personalities out of Sherlock Holmes: a “public domain” version of his character attempting to only use only public domain traits, next to the true character Sir Arthur created. But there are not sixty versions of Sherlock Holmes in the sixty stories; there is one complex Sherlock Holmes. To attempt to dismantle Holmes’s character is not only impossible as a practical matter, but would ignore the reality that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created a single complex character complete in sixty stories.

But, of course, it's not at all true that there is only one version of Holmes and Watson. There are infinite versions. There's the version that Conan Doyle intended. There are different versions that appear in each book. There are different versions that appear in various movies and television programs. There are different versions that live on in the minds of millions of readers and listeners and viewers who have experienced Sherlock Holmes's stories. In fact, the very nature of the public domain is to encourage that sort of thing by enabling everyone to build off of those cultural artifacts to create something new and different, using those original works as resources. To pretend that it's one singular cultural concept, only encapsulated in the whole of the published works, such that the public domain clock does not start ticking until the final work is published is entirely illogical.

The Estate also has a pretty serious problem, in that previous case law is against them on this. In particular, the Silverman v. CBS Inc. case, concerning the public domain status of "Amos 'n' Andy." In that case, the court ruled that the original radio scripts and the characters were in the public domain, even though some later television shows were not. The Estate tries to distinguish this case by arguing that Amos 'n' Andy didn't change over time and were "flat entertainment characters" who could be described as "without the depth and complexity of a living person." But that, too, makes little sense. Again, it's clear from that ruling that the characteristics of the parts that went into the public domain are, also, considered in the public domain. That those characters didn't change merely means that there were no remaining characteristics that remain under copyright protection even as the TV shows might. That still works in this particular case, where all of the characteristics outside of the final ten stories are also in the public domain. That there are character developments in those final ten stories, any copyright should only apply to the direct expression of those character developments.

The Estate also rejects the (fairly compelling) argument that a character is created in the initial work, and future works fleshing out that character are simply derivative works off of the initial copyright. That's a reading of the law that makes sense, but the Estate will have nothing to do with it, complaining that "it's not fair" to think of later works in a series as derivative. Honestly, that's about the extent of the Estate's argument here: that it's somehow insulting to suggest that later books in a series can be called "derivative" for the sake of copyright. But they seem to offer no legal theory to support this.

Of course, it's kind of ridiculous we're even having this fight. At the time those last ten stories were published (1927), the copyright law stated, clearly, that the maximum amount of time that the works could be under copyright was 56 years. Since the structure of copyright law is that it's supposed to act, in part, as an incentive to get someone to publish (for the purpose of promoting the progress of science and learning), clearly that incentive was enough. Any second beyond 56 years is taking the work away from the public domain, effectively going back on the deal with the public. The deal was "you get 56 years of exclusivity, and we get your book." Thus, it's insane and nonsensical that all Sherlock Holmes works haven't bee in the public domain since 1983. However, hopefully this case will show that nearly all of Holmes and Watson are, in fact, in the public domain.

Filed Under: arthur conan doyle, copyright, dr. watson, leslie klinger, public domain, sherlock holmes
Companies: conan doyle estate

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.

Filed Under: arthur conan doyle, copyright, leslie klinger, public domain, sherlock holmes
Companies: conan doyle estate, perseus books