Slashdot Mirror
Sherlock Holmes and the Copyright Tangle
spagiola passes along a New York Times piece on the copyright travails of Sherlock Holmes. "At his age [123 years], Holmes would logically seem to have entered the public domain. But not only is the character still under copyright in the United States, for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership issues so tangled that Professor Moriarty wouldn't have wished them upon him."
Basically, nobody wants to give up rights to it because they can make money from it.
What would Brian Boitano do?
You can blame Disney and their rodent for the current state of copyright laws. Don't think that when copyright period for Mickey once again draws to a close there won't be a large bundle of cash handed out to the nearest person able to extend the period another 20-50 years.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Sherlock Holmes on Project Gutenberg
The fact that none of the current living "heirs" is a direct descendant of the author is further proof of how screwed up our system is.
But I can understand why they fight so hard. If they didn't have Holmes, they'd have to all get real jobs and work for a living.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Mr. Lellenberg said that Sherlock Holmes remains under copyright protection in the United States through 2023, and that any new properties involving the detective “definitely should” be licensed by the Conan Doyle estate. Asked about a recent Red Bull television commercial that features a cartoon Holmes and Watson, Mr. Lellenberg said he had not seen it. “Very interesting,” he said. “News to me.”
He then twirled his mustache, petted the Persian cat on his lap, raised an eyebrow, tilted his head, rubbed his hands together, and said: "release the lawyers!"
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
So you create copyright works in country A, and when that expires you then renew your copyright in country B? After that expires will they just transfer it yet again to another country and extend it yet again? Since all of these countries have [evil] trade treaties copyright in one is copyright in all....
Copyright is seriously out of control and I point the finger squarely at the US for creating this greedy flawed system...
The article doesn't explain precisely why it's still under copyright, except that it was renewed in 1981 after falling into the public domain, as permitted by the Copyright Act of 1976. But why hasn't it fallen back into the public domain again? Looking through this chart, I can't find any combination of circumstances that would allow an 1887 work, whose author died in 1930, to remain in copyright until 2023.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If IP owners are going to be such absolute children about this, maybe we should revert back to the old law.
It was once legally agreed upon that 14+14 years was an adequate amount of time to commercially exploit your copyright. With today's digital distribution and rapid-fire publishing houses, does it really need to be a HUNDRED years?
If copyright is extended jobs are lost. You don't need to hire people to create new stuff because you can still earn money from the ancient stuff.
If you extend copyright: Some number of jobs (thousands, tens of thousands?) saved.
What jobs? Once the work is created, the author, strictly speaking, doesn't have a job, unless he starts working on a new one.
Or did you mean lawyers and accountants?
That Americanism says it all...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Because this is a typical kdawson article, that in this case picked a New York Times article that was itself also clueless.
Most Holmes stories were published prior to 1923 and are in public domain in the US. The remaining stories are copyrighted, but if you don't use any elements from those copyrighted stories you should be fine, and since they are only a few at the end, it really isn't all that hard not to use anything from those stories. To say that Sherlock Holmes is copyrighted until 2023 is a little misleading--if you want to use material covering his entire Doyle career (his last Doyle story was 1927), then you have to wait until 2023, but you generally won't need to.
Or stay the fuck away from the US market. I pray to god, for you guys to have a revolution, since you are being fucked over by all of that "new royalty".
Copyrights are granted as a contract between society and the creator. Society grants protection for an artist's work for a brief time, in return society becomes the benefactor of these works once copyrights elapse. Failure to release works to public domain and instituting new copyright laws to lengthen copyright duration violate this contract, in effect theft of culture. Copyrights - 7 years. Patents - 10 years. Anything more is stealing your culture.
You can Trademark a character, but you can't Copyright him.
You can Copyright "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (which is in the Public Domain), but "Sherlock Holmes" isn't Copyrightable.
Note that much of the Holmes canon is in the Public Domain, since it was originally published in the 19th century. There are only a few Conan Doyle stories (and a great many movies and Holmes stories by other authors) that were Copyrighted late enough to still be under Copyright.
Note also that owning the Trademark for Holmes allows one to play goalkeeper for anyone who wants to do an original Holmes work (and extract money in the process), but it doesn't actually allow one to control the republishing of the original Holmes stories from the 19th Century.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"