Sherlock Holmes ruled to be (mostly) in the public domain

[Greg Anos]

Here's the latest copyright ruling on Sherlock Holmes and the US copyright.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101298769

Welcome to the looking glass world of American Copyright...

[frahse]

Usually in this land of "Mickey Mouse" Copyright laws, the rulings go the other way.

[Lynx-lynx]

Would you mind giving a brief outline of the result (for those of us reading on phone or tablet).

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Would you mind giving a brief outline of the result (for those of us reading on phone or tablet).

In most of the world, all the Sherlock Holmes stories are out of copyright, because Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died more than 70 years ago (in 1930, in fact, so they've been out of copyright since 2001).

Most of the Sherlock Holmes stories were published before 1923, making them public domain in the US as well. But the last collection of short stories, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes wasn't published until 1927, meaning that in the US it's still in copyright, and will be until 1st January 2023.

The copyright holders have asserted that because some of the Sherlock Holmes stories are still in copyright in the US, no-one can create any derivative work (e.g. a film or a new Sherlock Holmes story) with permission and a license fee.

The ruling that prompted this thread declares that the characters in the Sherlock Holmes stories are now public domain, and derivative works may be created without permission or licensing fees, provided that they do not make use of any details that appear only in the stories that are still in copyright in the US.

This is very good news indeed.

[Lynx-lynx]

Thank you (and I realise I left out 'please' in my initial post)

[tubemonkey]

Just as long as Mickey isn't harmed...

[tubemonkey]

Even though I favor renewable copyright forever, I agree with this ruling.

Mr. Allison [lawyer for the Conan Doyle estate] also reiterated the estate's claim that the "highly delineated" Holmes and Watson characters depend on elements introduced in the post-1923 stories, which remain protected.

"Those stories are set at a variety of points in Sherlock's fictional life, not just the end of his life," he said. "They develop the two men's characters in ways that almost any use of the characters depends on."

Dream on. You guys are grasping at straws.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Dream on. You guys are grasping at straws.

I think it is the lawyer for the Copyright owners who is doing that. They only have ten years left to extract whatever cash they can anyway.

[EDIT: I see I mis-understood your post, and you were not supporting the lawyers statement.]

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Just as long as Mickey isn't harmed...

and it sounds like a reasonable ruling to me as well.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think it is the lawyer for the Copyright owners who is doing that. They only have ten years left to extract whatever cash they can anyway.

That is what he is saying.

However, the ruling has a caveat that isn't being broadly reported: the estate holds certain trademarks they can still collect on. How much longer they can keep them is unclear to me but since they have been commissioning new "official" works, they likely will retain the trademarks for a while.

The big test of trademark protection of corporate ip assets is yet to come. SUPERMAN has been litigated repeatedly and is likely going to be tested yet again.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

That is what he is saying.

Thanks - I clearly misunderstood his post. Whoops.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

However, the ruling has a caveat that isn't being broadly reported: the estate holds certain trademarks they can still collect on.

I don't think the question of whether trademark trumps copyright has come to court. That is, whether it's legal to write a story about a character where the original stories involving the character are public domain, but the character's name is a trademark.
Since trademarks are very restricted in scope, I hope it wouldn't be possible to prevent publication by trademarking a name.

[kennyc]

I'm unsure what those 'trademarks' might be but surely not the name Sherlock or Holmes as that has been used by many others in many ways without (as far as I know) the estate suing over the use.

[crich70]

Ah Pdurrant I think you have a typo in the date. 1923 was 90 yrs ago.

meaning that in the US it's still in copyright, and will be until 1st January 1923.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by crich70

A Pdurrant I think you have a typo in the date. 1923 was 90 yrs ago.

Thanks. Now fixed.

[curtw]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Thanks - I clearly misunderstood his post. Whoops.

I don't think the question of whether trademark trumps copyright has come to court. That is, whether it's legal to write a story about a character where the original stories involving the character are public domain, but the character's name is a trademark.
Since trademarks are very restricted in scope, I hope it wouldn't be possible to prevent publication by trademarking a name.

In the US, I wouldn't be so sure about this. The estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs holds the trademark on Tarzan and John Carter (and probably several others--ERB was on top of intellectual property law in the 1920's). Their approval is required for new stories--including the recent Disney John Carter film, and the even more recent Baen collection Worlds of Edgar Rice Burroughs. It seems like the Doyle estate, if it holds a valid trademark on Sherlock Holmes, should have the same power. Again, in the US. I realize that the character was created in the UK, where other laws may apply...