Sherlock lives in public domain, US court rules in case of the heckled brand

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Dngrsone

Can you imagine some scion of George Washington wanting to get some miniscule percentage out of the use of their ancestor's image? The US Government alone would have to pay out the nose.

That's not exactly the best example as George Washington has no direct living descendants. Martha was a widow with children when he married her, and they had no children together. It has happened in more recent times though that families of famous people have fought to protect their ancestor's image. Bela Lugosi's family did I think and I wouldn't be surprised if Boris Karloff's family has as well. I don't know about Alfred Hitchcock's stylized image but I wager it might be as well.

[fjtorres]

Personality rights do endure beyond death. As much as a century.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Off the top of my head, Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, and the Three Stooges are all under legal protection: trademarks, I believe. John Dillinger, too.

[fjtorres]

The estate just won't quit:

The Doyle estate summons a host of other literary characters in its submission to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appeals court's decision leaves Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, The Cat in the Hat, James Bond, and even Winnie the Pooh without copyright protection based on the earliest date they entered the public domain.

The estate is asking the Supreme Court to put the ruling on hold while it prepares an appeal.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ighted-n157511

Trying to draw in others (including Disney) won't work.
It is doubtful SCOTUS will even take up the case.

[Fbone]

Exactly, these other estates don't want to upset the apple cart and lose their protection.

[crich70]

I think it's all a plot by Prof. Moriarty.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by crich70

I think it's all a plot by Prof. Moriarty.

Yeah. He wants to trademark his name, then take over the world.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by crich70

I think it's all a plot by Prof. Moriarty.

Star Trek TNG has a couple of episodes involving the good professor that were quite good.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Star Trek TNG has a couple of episodes involving the good professor that were quite good.

And the estate made them pay for the name and references.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Star Trek TNG has a couple of episodes involving the good professor that were quite good.

I enjoyed those episodes. The actor who played the good Prof. also played the butler on The Nanny and had a part in The Hunt For red October.

[fjtorres]

Well, Supreme Court took no time in rejecting the request for a stay of the lower court ruling.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...c-domain.shtml

The appeal isn't buried but it does seem to be pining for the fjords.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Well, Supreme Court took no time in rejecting the request for a stay of the lower court ruling.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...c-domain.shtml

The appeal isn't buried but it does seem to be pining for the fjords.

Maybe it will meet up with our old friend Mr. Sigerson.

[BenG]

The Conan Doyle estate is now suing Bill Condon and the distributers of the upcoming "Mr. Holmes" movie (based on A Slight Trick of Mind by Mitch Cullin).
http://deadline.com/2015/05/mr-holme...on-1201431854/

"The copyrighted mature Holmes is quite unlike the more clinical and purely rational Holmes described in public domain stories.”

[RHWright]

Originally Posted by BenG

The Conan Doyle estate is now suing Bill Condon and the distributers of the upcoming "Mr. Holmes" movie (based on A Slight Trick of Mind by Mitch Cullin).
http://deadline.com/2015/05/mr-holme...on-1201431854/

This is why we so need copyright and trademark reform (pretty much all IP law, really).

Copyright should be, at most, for an author's life +19 years. I get that plus from the purely theoretical child that is conceived on the author's last day on earth and the support that child should have until they reach adulthood.

"Corporate" copyright (which I deplore, but seems unlikely to be abolished) should be for a period, from the point of creation, equal to the average global life expectancy -18 years. My logic being that most real people's creative productivity is as an adult. That would put current "corporate" ownership at 71-18=53 years.

Yes, this would likely lead to unequal lengths between individual and corporate copyrights. But you know what, individuals should have more rights and protections than corporations, IMO.

Want to make it "fair"? Fine. I'll support a flat 50 years across the board.

Then we won't have this jackanapery from estates of of people who died in 1930.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by RHWright

Then we won't have this jackanapery from estates of of people who died in 1930.

I'm sure that the retroactive extensions of copyright to life+70 was great incentive for Conan Doyle to produce more work. I know it was for V.C. Andrews, who's written about 10 times as much posthumously than she wrote before she died.

[murg]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I'm sure that the retroactive extensions of copyright to life+70 was great incentive for Conan Doyle to produce more work. I know it was for V.C. Andrews, who's written about 10 times as much posthumously than she wrote before she died.

L. Ron Hubbard is a charter member of this club.