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

[Critteranne]

Did anything happen about the company that was fighting the Doyle estate over ownership of Holmes? I haven't read much about it since this article.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Critteranne

Did anything happen about the company that was fighting the Doyle estate over ownership of Holmes? I haven't read much about it since this article.

The only copyright of any remaining significance is the US copyright. The copyright in the rest of the English speaking world has expired.

The Conan Doyle family reclaimed the US copyright of the last stories under US copyright law in 1981 (rights could be reclaimed after the original 56 years of US copyright and extension, so that the extra copyright length granted in the 1977 act could benefit the author or their family).

US courts have held several times that the termination of rights was done correctly.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Because these works are property, and I don't believe in placing time limits on property ownership. It's that simple. I don't care if it's the family farm, Mickey Mouse, your home, or the latest Dan Brown novel. I make no distinction between tangible and intangible property.

Really intellectual "property" is NOT a property, more of a squatter rights. I understand that we can put a lot of back and forth on copyright, but other intellectual "properties" like trademark and patents are pretty obvious are not real/deserved property. What kind of property of tangible or deserved nature is "apple" (I am not talking just computer company, but the recording label that aforementioned computer company payed ) it's simple squatting on something. Or rounded corners patent.
I would actually put it more inline with stealing something then property. They just stole my ability to use "Apple" in my company name, without producing anything just coming and grabbing the name.
Google the problem Python organization having right now with somebody claiming copyright on Python name, because they registered domain in UK with the same name.
And no, whatever courts say I don't think that because you were the first to implement something with rounded corners it's your property and nobody can invent or implement it.

More to the point, why Sherlock Homes is property of estate, but his pipe and hat are not "property" of related inventors or authors previously mentioning them somewhere else?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by dmikov

Really intellectual "property" is NOT a property, more of a squatter rights. I understand that we can put a lot of back and forth on copyright, but other intellectual "properties" like trademark and patents are pretty obvious are not real/deserved property. What kind of property of tangible or deserved nature is "apple" (I am not talking just computer company, but the recording label that aforementioned computer company payed ) it's simple squatting on something. Or rounded corners patent.
I would actually put it more inline with stealing something then property. They just stole my ability to use "Apple" in my company name, without producing anything just coming and grabbing the name.
Google the problem Python organization having right now with somebody claiming copyright on Python name, because they registered domain in UK with the same name.
And no, whatever courts say I don't think that because you were the first to implement something with rounded corners it's your property and nobody can invent or implement it.

More to the point, why Sherlock Homes is property of estate, but his pipe and hat are not "property" of related inventors or authors previously mentioning them somewhere else?

Patents are out of control and given out much too freely. We're in dire need of patent reform that restricts what can and can't be patented. I also don't believe names should be allowed to be copyrighted. Need reform here also.

[ottdmk]

I'm happy to see this.

The majority of the Holmes canon has been in the public domain for ages. The Doyle estate, like ERB Inc., has been using the threat of lawsuits to maintain revenue from any use of the characters, despite the law being plain that derived works are allowed.

I still remember the fuss when Star Trek:TNG used Moriarty. Stupid.

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The only copyright of any remaining significance is the US copyright. The copyright in the rest of the English speaking world has expired.

That's good. I thought the case involving the former wife of the producer of the Sherlock Holmes TV show in the 1950s (phew!) sounded nutty.

This page on Sherlockian.net clearly now has to be updated , but it shows that the copyrights (and trademarks) sure do get convoluted. Who knew that the "official" Sherlock Holmes website was actually run by a memorabilia company?


Just so everyone is updated, here is a link to Klinger's Free Sherlock website with the lastest on the case.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Because these works are property, and I don't believe in placing time limits on property ownership. It's that simple. I don't care if it's the family farm, Mickey Mouse, your home, or the latest Dan Brown novel. I make no distinction between tangible and intangible property.

Except it's not "property" in the sense you mean, and never has been at law. Here's Lord Kames from a 1773 case (and he also explains why perpetual copyright is a bad idea as a bonus):

this claim, far from being founded on property, is inconsistent with it. The privilege an author has by statute, is known to all the world. But I purchase a book not entered in Stationer's hall; does it not become my property? I see a curious machine, the fire engine, for example. I carry it away in my memory, and construct another by it. Is not that machine, the work of my own hand, my property? I buy a curious picture, is there any thing to bar me from giving copies without end? It is a rule in all laws, that the commerce of moveables ought to be free; and yet, according to the pursuer's doctrine, the property of moveables may be subjected to endless limitations and restrictions that hitherto have not been thought of, and would render the commerce of moveables extremely hazardous. At any rate, the author of avery wise or witty saying, uttered even in conversation, has a monopoly of it; and no man is at liberty to repeat it.

Lastly, I shall consider a perpetual monopoly in a commercial view. The act of Queen Anne is contrived with great judgement, not only for the benefit of authors, but for the benefit of learning in general. It excites men of genius to exert their talents for composition; and it multiplies books both of instruction and amusement. And when, upon expiration of the monopoly, the commerce of these books is laid open to all, their cheapness, from a concurrence of many editors, is singularly beneficial to the public. Attend, on the other hand, to the consequences of a perpetual monopoly. Like all other monopolies, it will unavoidably raise the price of good books beyond the reach of ordinary readers. They will be sold like so many valuable pictures..... [the] booksellers, by grasping too much, would lose their trade altogether; and men of genius would be quite discouraged from writing, as no price can be afforded for an unfashionable commodity. In a word, I have no difficulty to maintain that a perpetual monopoly of books would prove more destructive to learning, and even to authors, than a second irruption of Goths and Vandals. "

Here's the full opinion if you're so inclined.

TL;DR version: Intellectual property is not "property" under the common law, and a perpetual copyright is damaging rather than helpful to society.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Patents are out of control and given out much too freely. We're in dire need of patent reform that restricts what can and can't be patented. I also don't believe names should be allowed to be copyrighted. Need reform here also.

Presumably than you're okay with patents expiring after 25 years. If I'm right about that, how does it make sense that the "property right" in an idea (in this case, an invention) can expire, but the "property right" in the expression of an idea should be able to last forever?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Presumably than you're okay with patents expiring after 25 years. If I'm right about that, how does it make sense that the "property right" in an idea (in this case, an invention) can expire, but the "property right" in the expression of an idea should be able to last forever?

There is a difference I think between the two. A written work such as a novel is finished when it is published. Sequels can be written but the 1st book is considered complete once it is a published work. An invention on the other hand such as say the electric light isn't necessarily a finished product. It is possible that improvements may be made to make the bulb more efficient. The initial idea of an electric light likewise can be discovered or worked out only by one person, but if someone can make a more efficient one or one that works by a different method then it would be a new thing in some respects.

[Tarana]

I also don't believe names should be allowed to be copyrighted. Need reform here also.

The Artist formerly known as Prince (and is now Prince again) would agree with you. If you recall, he wasn't allowed to use his own name for some years. Seems to me that even Cher couldn't perform for a year or more after her divorce from Sony Bono because he owned her name as well.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Even though I favor renewable copyright forever,.

people are missing i think that the monkey said renewable copyright not perpetual copyright. the holder would have to make a case or meet some standard for the rights to be renewed. if no one stepped up at right time to renew or didnt meet the standard/criteria etc then it would still become public domain.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

people are missing i think that the monkey said renewable copyright not perpetual copyright. the holder would have to make a case or meet some standard for the rights to be renewed. if no one stepped up at right time to renew or didnt meet the standard/criteria etc then it would still become public domain.

Yep. That's how come "City at World's End" by Edmund Hamilton is already PD I think. He wrote it in the 50's and you wouldn't think it would be PD yet but apparently he didn't renew the copyright or his estate didn't depending on when it ran out and so it's PD already.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Except it's not "property" in the sense you mean, and never has been at law. Here's Lord Kames from a 1773 case (and he also explains why perpetual copyright is a bad idea as a bonus):

I'm aware of what the law says and I disagree with it. I favor changing it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Presumably than you're okay with patents expiring after 25 years. If I'm right about that, how does it make sense that the "property right" in an idea (in this case, an invention) can expire, but the "property right" in the expression of an idea should be able to last forever?

I'm not okay with expiring patents. They'd get the same treatment as copyright, but with stricter standards than allowed today. Just because person A invents a steam engine, that doesn't close the book on it. Person B can invent a steam engine too using a different method. Now we have two patents for the steam engine; and more importantly, competition.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

people are missing i think that the monkey said renewable copyright not perpetual copyright. the holder would have to make a case or meet some standard for the rights to be renewed. if no one stepped up at right time to renew or didnt meet the standard/criteria etc then it would still become public domain.

Originally Posted by crich70

Yep. That's how come "City at World's End" by Edmund Hamilton is already PD I think. He wrote it in the 50's and you wouldn't think it would be PD yet but apparently he didn't renew the copyright or his estate didn't depending on when it ran out and so it's PD already.

Yep; if you don't renew the copyright, your book becomes public domain. If you don't pay your property taxes, your house becomes public domain (ie; eviction, followed by auction).