Slashdot Mirror
Sherlock Holmes Finally In the Public Domain In the US
ferrisoxide.com writes "As reported on the Australian ABC news website, film-makers in the US are finally free to work on Sherlock Holmes stories without paying a licencing free to the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle after a ruling by Judge Ruben Castillo. A quirk of U.S. copyright law kept 10 stories out of the public domain, on the basis that these stories were continuously developed. In his ruling Judge Castillo opined that only the "story elements" in the short stories published after 1923 were protected and that everything else in the Holmes canon was "free for public use" — including the characters of Holmes and Watson.
Holmes scholar Leslie Klinger, who challenged the estate, celebrated the ruling.
'Sherlock Holmes belongs to the world,' Mr Klinger said in a statement posted on his Free Sherlock website.
IANAL, but the ruling of Judge Castillo that "adopting Conan Doyle's position would be to extend impermissibly the copyright of certain character elements of Holmes and Watson beyond their statutory period," is surely going to have implications across U.S. copyright law. Mark Twain must be twisting and writhing in his grave."
I smell a lot of vile and unsavory SyFy productions ramping up with this ruling.
"SyFy, that great cesspool into which all the loungers and idlers of the Empire are irresistibly drained."
But of course US Law is World Law because the US rules the world by bombing the shit out of anyone who disagrees.
"Watson, come here, I want you!".
Disney will now be able to bring the stories of the the brothers Grimm to the big screen, like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. No longer will our culture be stolen from us by dead people and uncreative "owners of intellectual property."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
both Scottish based.
I thought that the subtle homosexual undertones throughout the entire series were well known. In fact, they play prominently at the start of the The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, a feature film from 1970. No, it's not a pornographic flic, but a comedic mystery directed by Billy Wilder that even features Christopher Lee.
In my personal view, however, there's nothing homosexual about Sherlock Holmes. Just because a man dislikes women, and prefers the company of another man, treating him as a life-long companion in work and play, even when at the Turkish baths, it does not mean that he's a homosexual. He might like to smoke a pole as much as he likes to smoke a pipe, but again, that does not make him a homosexual. It's perfectly normal and straight for two completely heterosexual males to touch one another's genitals. Just because two men love each other and form a bond stronger than steel it does not mean that they are gay.
How can Sir Arthur Conan Doyle be incentivised to write more Sherlock Holmes books, if he can't enjoy exclusive rights to his works?!
Nooooooooooooooooo!
Still, 90 years is an awfully long time... these copyrights should have reasonably expired several decades ago.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Holmes scholar Leslie Klinger, who challenged the SCUM SUCKING PARASITE LAWYERS AND WORTHLESS TWATWAFFLE DESCENDENTS OF DOYLE, celebrated the ruling.
TFTFY
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
From a the NYT:
I'm pretty sure Sherlock Holmes is gay. I was on tumblr the other day...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Can't get no ... satisfaction!
http://img.fark.net/images/cache/850/j/jU/fark_jU5MA_W1N1jxMT7_8iE0c2KiJ78.jpg?t=uMnH4D-9SCtapNiiVZstkQ&f=1388379600
http://img.fark.net/images/cache/850/o/on/fark_onGXRu1urUkFW6zy0gcTuoeJexM.jpg?t=vRfHtGEh_BPYn9I_hHTG0Q&f=1388379600
At least the conclusion. US law governs a copyright's enforceability in the US. How could it be any different?
There's a slightly more detailed story posted on the plaintiff's website. They're also hosting a copy of the full decision from Judge Castillo, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Reports of Mark Twain twisting and writhing in his grave have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, the late Mr. Twain has been quite immobile since the most recent reports of his death.
The Mark Twain article reproduces a 100 year old NTY microfiche where somebody corrected a spelling incorrectly.
Don't call me a spelling Nazi because it was 25 years before that.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Great, now he'll never write any more.
-Dave
Sherlock Holmes --- an imaginary character --- has more rights than real people.
... it's just bizarre!!!
Hitler, Albert Einstein and Elvis make frequent cameos in media and often star in YouTube videos, having no rights because they are *REAL* people.
But Mickey Mouse and Sherlock Holmes and Barbie have more rights as imaginary characters.
Curious legal system we have. Feel free to use Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon (hello Futurama!) in a story
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
Now we get more crap like Peter Jackson's take on Tolkien but for Holmes. (rolls eyes peevishly)
01/01/01
You're thinking trademark. In the United States, it appears per Dastar v. Fox that a trademark cannot be used to extend the term of an expired copyright. It might be different in Canada, given what I've read about Anne of Green Gables.
Hey now, Buckaroo Banzai is all kinds of cool.
Free at last !!
Whatever happened to Granada Holmes ?? A&E would rather Duck Dynasty is what happened !! Tell me poeple am I going insane ??
also played a character in a two-part episode of Enterprise:
Demons and Terra Prime, the next to the last episodes.
that in order to avoid making a 'punjabi-mexican' out to be the bad guy, they made an old, white man in power to be The Man and the current bad guy, while a genetically superior ultra-white man is the bad guy in waiting...
i liked the latest movie but i do miss Ricardo Montoban, not just as Khan but as your host on Fantasy Island.
Doyle has been dead since 1930. That means that Sherlock Holmes has been in the public domain in Scotland since 2000. If something is PD in the country of origin, it is PD to all Berne signatories. That's part of how the CTEA was sold to the US public, as our authors would be 'disadvantaged' if we kept a shorter term.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
There's no grave gymnastics to be had here. Clemens had planned to add to his stories over time, so that people would want to preferentially purchase his editions over the free-culture versions. He didn't want to sit on his laurels while jackbooted thugs ensured him a rent-seeking income - he was, after all, a writer.
Today, those against the Copyright regime frequently propose similar strategies.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
we all know had Holmes been the intellectual 'property' of Disney, the Law would simply be changed by US politicians with large cheques from Disney Inc in their back-pockets. In the UK, a 'Jimmy Savile' style clique of music celebs that have always kept close relationships with UK politicians, easily won massive extensions to copyright periods covering their recordings, against the wishes of almost the entire UK public.
There is no democracy in any meaningful sense of the word in either the UK or USA. Those that pay-off the politicians (often with surprisingly small amounts) get to make the Laws. The People, on the other hand, are just the smelly, cretinous, hopeless, forgettable scum to all major politicians, brain-dead scum who are easily convinced to 'vote' for either face of the same beast every five years or so.
This is a lesson in respect. Sheeple get no respect because, to the politicians, they literally do nothing to earn respect. And when the politicians' celeb chums ask for anything, even if their wishes require p*ssing on the public from a great height, the politicians say "consider it done".
But, as I said at the top, as for the existing law, well despite the 'best' advice from the usual legal suspects, the existing Law cannot be gamed with nonsense about ongoing changes to character. These copyright laws were NEVER about 'orphan works' untouched for years by potential owners. These laws are about ALL works, including works actively published up the the last date of their copyright protected period.
PS in Europe, a decade back or so, powerful European IP lawyers tried to claim things like the Mona Lisa were still under copyright, and that use of images derived from ANY art (regardless of age) owned by the RICH in the EU had to happen with the permission of the owner. Dishonest lawyers working for scummy companies and estates, trying it on, is nothing new.
I guess this means a US court will bravely stand up to bring Mickey Mouse into the public domain somewhere around 3500 AD.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The fact he's based in L.A. and gets involved in relationships with scantily clad bimbos before racing through the streets in a souped up car whilst stuff explodes all around him as he chases the evil genius bent on world domination to a soundtrack of horrid bump 'n' grind download chart hits could be a groundbreaking advance in cinematic art.
You should submit that as a story.
You can buy the DVD set of Sherlock Holmes episodes produced by Granada Television. You can also watch the episodes on YouTube. In my opinion, Jeremy Brett portrayed Sherlock Holmes in the manner in which I always imagined the character when I read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works about Sherlock Holmes.
Hmmm. A Donald Duck pr0n version?
Wait, a pr0n version of Sherlock and Wa..., err, John Holmes? A century worth of speculations is over?
Nah, it will never take off.
Just like owners of slaves had more rights than slaves.
Mickey also belongs to the world, yet we'll never see it hit public domain. Not until Walt's defrosted.
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
sorry stupid usa it was 1973 in canada and even with new law its 2003
if you goto those dates you find diminishing copyright such that in 73 it was in public domain also
A judge in the United States of America ruled against an unreasonable extension of copyright law?
1) This conflates two things: the normal 1923 limit which kept 10 stories out of the public domain, and the "continuously developed" idea which was used to keep the characters (not the stories) out of the public domain based on the fact that the stories are not in the public domain.
2) Neither one of those two conflated ideas is a "quirk of copyright law". The 1923 limit is well-known and can't sensibly be called a quirk. The "continuously developed" idea is something that is not a quirk for the opposite reason: the Sherlock Holmes heirs pretty much made it up.
3) The judge ruled against the "continuously developed" idea on the grounds that copyright doesn't work that way. Only the incremental changes made to the characters in the last 10 copyrighted stories cannot be used, but the characters themselves can be used as long as only story elements from the public domain stories are used.
The convoluted story of Sherlock Holmes ownership was covered in a New Your Times piece a while back when the recent crop of movies came out
and restricted by copyright from one of his previous lives. Not that she cares, but she could.
when other countries do the same, and rule that the works of American authors long gone is not subject to copyright law outside of the U.S. "Sherlock Holmes belongs to the USA" is probably what they mean here, and I think more of these rulings will come.
Signature intentionally left blank.
oh wait.... nevermind....
adopting Conan Doyle's position
Lying flat on your back with your eyes closed six feet under ground?
would be to extend impermissibly the copyright of certain character elements of Holmes and Watson beyond their statutory period
That sounds more like the position of Conan-Doyle's ancestors. Conan-Doyle himself famously replied to someone who wanted to stage a play in which Holmes got married with:
"You may marry him, murder him, or do anything you like to him."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
And if you want it, then surely you should agree that it is _worth_ paying for. You can't seriously argue that you want it but it's not worth money.
The problem is, that logic runs into pricing issues. Take this book for example. At the time I wrote this post, the new price was $218, the Kindle edition was $180, and used copies also sold for $180. I would be happy to pay for that book, but not $180, and certainly not $218. I might pay $30.
In reality, I'll pay nothing, since it's so expensive that I'll just have to rely on the library's copy.
Now you can argue that this is a special case since it's a limited run academic book, but the point is that when there is a gap between what someone is willing to pay, and the actual price of the item, you have a lost sale. With respect to physical goods, maybe that's a sale you don't want, since you'd have to take a loss. But with respect to copyrighted goods, in many cases any price is going to net you a profit.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I'm going to change my name to William Shakespeare and claim royalties for all those plays (and sonnets, of course) that have been reproduced without my permission. That'll show 'em.
I'm sure that the pure Mr. Klinger's will states that all of his assets are to be given to charity.
I'm not sure this really matters. (Caveat: I'm not a fan and haven't read the books since I was very young.)
The BBC Benedict Cumberbatch/Martin Freeman incarnation is closer kin to the show Monk than to the Robert Downey Jr/Jude Law incarnation. Using the name Sherlock Holmes is more of a marketing decision than a creative one. Basically, the original stories donate two things: the pairing of a genius with a more ordinary sidekick and the names.
Meanwhile, there have been decades of stories with Holmes influence, which have suffered very little if at all from using different names.
-Dave
A bunch of Baker Street Irregulars will no doubt publish a brief monograph presenting evidence that only the works published before 1923 (if not 1914) are actually by Dr. John H. Watson, M.D., and are thus canon, while subsequent tales are fraudulent dabs by that well-known impostor, Arthur Conan Doyle. (The dead giveaway is that the two weak adventures supposedly written by Sherlock Holmes himself, "The Blanched Soldier" and "The Lion's Mane," come from this later period.)
It says so right there in the US Constitution. It is in fact one of the first things the Constitution says, so those who wrote it must have decided it was important. I think it was a reaction to Royal copyrights and patents which stifled creativity. And from the loos of it I think Jefferson and Franklin were two driving personalities behind it.
On another note, as far as Mark Twain twirling in his grave, I think he would have been very angry if he had know how abusive copyrights have become of late. Persecuting innocent people and ripping off artists while giving a pile of cash to people who produced nothing would probably enrage him.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Isn't the purpose of copyright the rights to copy the original work, and wouldn't the characters be part of trademark? So if book publishers wanted to make new copies of the Sherlock Holmes stories, they now have all rights to do so, but any new works, would still require licensing from the owners of the trademark?
What he is saying is that copyright produces a business model, not as an end, but as a means. The goal is to enrich society, the means is producing a business model. [citation: the US constitution]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Double_Barrelled_Detective_Story
Disclaimer: I never really 'got' Conan-Doyle, but I appreciate that it is a great contribution to the canon of Western literature.
Now - while I'll agree with you and the other posters out there that this is likely to lead to a handful of piss-poor cash-ins on a work which is now public domain, I feel it is more important that the public domain has been enriched via the addition of Sir Arthur's works than it is to bemoan the cash-ins. It's not like you're going to be forced to experienced the latter anyway, is it?
Furthermore, to argue the contrary position (i.e. to wish for the extension of copyright to the detriment of the public domain) seems a bit overly retentive.
Let the bad adaptations come. They will, and most of them will fall by Sturgeon's Principle. The good ones will enrich us all, eventually.
http://www.marketglory.com/strategygame/indi30 free to play strategy game in wich the profit can be transformed in --REAL MONEY--! http://www.image-share.com/ijpg-2372-1.html