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

[OtterBooks]

I wonder how much money the Conan Doyle family has made from the rights, over the years. I'm guessing it's either much more or much less than I think. I do think it is a good thing that the family benefited from it for a while. Hopefully they managed it well enough to last.

Now the derived stories are going to be scrutinized for any detail that relies on information published after the cutoff date. Like, if he eats a pastry that didn't get mentioned until the later stories..

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Now the derived stories are going to be scrutinized for any detail that relies on information published after the cutoff date. Like, if he eats a pastry that didn't get mentioned until the later stories..

I imagine authors, publishers, movie producers will still pay the licensing fee just to avoid future litigation.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I imagine authors, publishers, movie producers will still pay the licensing fee just to avoid future litigation.

Better yet, write about a new detective - Lockyour Homes

[kennyc]

You must mean Sherwood Helms?

I've Trademarked that. Pay me!

[crich70]

Solar Pons anyone? non canon holmes

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

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.

That's if we are lucky. Frankly I have little doubt that studios like Disney will once again start lobbying to extend the copyright law.

[tadhgadams]

Originally Posted by curtw

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...

Not necessarily. Dynamite Comics has been making John Carter and Tarzan comics without the approval of ERB Inc. I know ERB Inc. sued them almost two years ago but I haven't seen anything new about the case, nor have the comics ceased production.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by bug_me_not

But... why?

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.

[meeera]

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.

How you resolve that when "the family farm" is built on stolen land?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by meeera

How you resolve that when "the family farm" is built on stolen land?

Throughout human history, land has always been possessed by the strongest. Ownership was the result of conquest. So how do you resolve ownership when one thief steals from another thief?

I don't favor rolling back the clock. Any changes made to copyright law would be going forward only. Works already in the public domain would remain so.

[crich70]

In the case of companies like Disney they have a stake in keeping a copyright going because they (or rather the animators) have created interpretations of classic fairy tales. I.e. Snow White, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, etc. and they don't want others to make their own versions which might take $$ away from the purchase of their versions (or so I understand from old chats here at MR). Others do it for similar reasons. Conde Nast claims ownership of a boat load of OTR programs for example. The ironic thing is that they wouldn't have OTR episodes to claim ownership of in a lot of cases if it weren't for private citizens collecting the shows way back when. That's because the media was either very fragile and/or the radio stations that presented the programs back in the heyday of radio didn't think they were worth preserving and so they weren't save by the citizens that listened to them. I don't deny that Disney has the right to protect what it makes, but the actual stories themselves pre-date the creation of the Disney Studios by generations in a lot of cases.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by crich70

In the case of companies like Disney they have a stake in keeping a copyright going because they (or rather the animators) have created interpretations of classic fairy tales. I.e. Snow White, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, etc. and they don't want others to make their own versions which might take $$ away from the purchase of their versions (or so I understand from old chats here at MR). Others do it for similar reasons. Conde Nast claims ownership of a boat load of OTR programs for example. The ironic thing is that they wouldn't have OTR episodes to claim ownership of in a lot of cases if it weren't for private citizens collecting the shows way back when. That's because the media was either very fragile and/or the radio stations that presented the programs back in the heyday of radio didn't think they were worth preserving and so they weren't save by the citizens that listened to them. I don't deny that Disney has the right to protect what it makes, but the actual stories themselves pre-date the creation of the Disney Studios by generations in a lot of cases.

Anyone is free to make their own versions of public domain fairy tales. Disney did it and is just protecting what they created. If these versions started falling into the public domain, people would bypass Disney and download them for free; just like they do for Dickens and Twain. Disney would then lose very lucrative sales.

It's all about money

[DrNefario]

And where would Disney be if those fairy tales hadn't been public domain?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

And where would Disney be if those fairy tales hadn't been public domain?

Any number of places. They could've created their own stories (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck), or purchased/licensed the rights (101 Dalmatians, Winnie-the-Pooh). Lots of options.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

And where would Disney be if those fairy tales hadn't been public domain?

Making more Toy Stories and Finding Nemos...
Less Herculeses and Tarzans...
(In Disney's case, it came down to a Licensed John Carter in preproduction and the PD Snow White. In a better alternate earth, he went with the former. )

I don't favor eternal copyright but I favor mashups and money-grubbing copies and reinterpretations even less. There is a line between inspiration/homage and ripoff and I prefer creators and "creators" steer well clear of it.