The Mystery Of The Copyright On Sherlock Holmes' Emotions Goes Unsolved Due To Settlement

from the unsolved-mysteries dept

Since this past summer we have been writing about a bonkers lawsuit brought against the makers of a Netflix movie, Enola Holmes, by the Conan Doyle Estate. The stories of Sherlock Holmes are, of course, largely in the public domain now, although roughly 10 tales still haven't reached the expiration date of their copyright protection. The film does not tell any of those protected stories. Instead, it tells an original story, focused on Holmes' sister, Enola. To make its copyright claim, the Estate instead suggests that Enola Holmes shows a Sherlock who has feelings and empathy, among other details, and therefore runs afoul of the character copyright as Sherlock didn't show such features until those still-protected stories were written. Also, something about Sherlock developing a liking towards dogs. Yes, seriously.

Well, Netflix moved to have the case dismissed, going in quite hard on the details of the Estate's claims. For starters, in Enola Holmes, um, no dogs. Added to that, the motion provides ample evidence of Sherlock having feelings and empathy prior to the protected works and that such ideas are not protectable anyway. The rest of us, meanwhile, waited patiently to see if the mystery of whether or not you could break copyright in this way could actually succeed in court.

Sadly, we'll never know, as reportedly Netflix and the Estate have reached a settlement.

Is a more emotional Sherlock Holmes protected by copyright? Although that's dubious, the mystery remains technically unsolved as Netflix, Legendary Pictures, and others associated with Enola Holmes have come to a settlement with the Conan Doyle Estate. On Friday, the parties stipulated to dismissal of a lawsuit in New Mexico federal court.

In response [to the suit], the producers blasted the suit as an "attempt to create a perpetual copyright," arguing in a motion to dismiss that generic concepts like warmth and kindness don't fall under protection.

The Conan Doyle Estate never took the chance to respond. Undoubtedly, its negotiating leverage would be stronger having defeated a dismissal motion, but the heirs to the author surely have their reasons for taking whatever they could in settlement.

As per usual, the details of the settlement were not released publicly. And while I'm sure readers here are sick and tired of hearing me complain about such opaque settlements, it is immensely frustrating when we get questions about protectable copyright elements where it would be nice to have some clear court rulings to not get any. Given what the Estate was up against based on the merits of its attempt to create perpetual copyright, it's hard to imagine it made out particularly well in the settlement, but for now all we can do is guess.

Filed Under: copyright, derivative works, enola holmes, sherlock holmes
Companies: conan doyle estate, netflix

'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