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
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'
Peter Pan is a different story...
From the copyright page on the official website:
Copyright in the USA is governed by the Universal Copyright Convention, by which a publication enters the public domain 25 years after the author’s death – in Barrie’s case, 1962. However, it was agreed in 1971 that the Berne Convention should take priority over the UCC in countries signatory to both conventions, and therefore Barrie’s extended copyright [was] guaranteed until 2007 in the USA as well. In the UK, the situation is a little more complex with regard to the Peter Pan Gift in that the House [of] Lords passed a special resolution in 1988 via the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act, effectively granting the Great Ormond Street Hospital a perpetual extension to its right to royalties in the UK “in respect of the public performance, commercial publication or any other use of Peter Pan.”
Yes, in the UK they can do that. At least it's for a good cause (Pan royalties fund the hospital).
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
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.
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)
I think that at some point society becomes inseparable from the creative works that influence it. A culture becomes so suffused with references and allusions to novels, music, movies, that they become almost essential knowledge. At that point (and this is what the expiration of copyright is supposed to enforce), the rights ought to go to the public. This concept where copyright could last for 90 years is a pretty new one. It was supposed to be much shorter.
Today's myths and legends and fairy tales and other cultural keystones were someone's creative "property," once, and it would be bizarre if one were, say, prevented from reinterpreting King Arthur, Robin Hood, Beowulf, Shakespeare, the Bible, the Iliad, etc. etc. Some things from a century and less ago like Holmes, Cthulhu, Superman, Mickey Mouse, and so on could be argued to be getting pretty close to a level like that.
US law governs a copyright's enforceability in the US. How could it be any different?
Because of international treaties; the Berne convention, among others.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, according to US copyright law (17 USC 104(c)), the Berne Convention has no effect in the US.
And this isn't odd; copyright treaties are typically not self-executing. They obligate the various treaty states to enact domestic legislation that brings them into compliance with the treaty, but do not serve as copyright laws themselves. In addition, in the US, all treaties stand at an equal level with ordinary federal legislation, and a last-in-time rule dictates which trumps in the event of an irreconcilable conflict. This means that Congress is not bound to adhere to treaties, and can refuse to pass laws that treaties require, and can even pass laws that directly contradict the treaty. This may embarrass the executive branch, and may cause problems for the US in its foreign relations, but sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles.
A fun example is WTO Dispute 160, the gist of which is that certain copyright exceptions in US copyright law violate our treaty obligations, a complaint was brought against the US by the Irish, the US lost the case, and we've never bothered to comply by changing our laws in the decade-plus since we lost.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
US law governs a copyright's enforceability in the US. How could it be any different?
Because of international treaties; the Berne convention, among others.
The Berne convention requires that signatories' copyright statutes meet some requirements for duration and scope of copyright, but it doesn't say that people in one country must apply the law from another country.
US copyright laws apply in the US, regardless of whether the copyright owner is US-based. Same for other countries; they each get to apply their own laws.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
A judge in the United States of America ruled against an unreasonable extension of copyright law?
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
A single copyright law would be nice. The book "1984" is public domain in Canada, but since the British author died in 1950, it won't be public domain in the US until 2045, allowing the author to benefit from ongoing royalties in case he wants to write again...
vi? Who's that?
I disagree. Each country should enact whatever copyright laws are best for its own people.
So get rid of copyright law, then?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It was flexibility that created the 95 year rule to protect Mickie Mouse and Sonny Bono's royalties for his work with Cher.
Those seemed to be the primary concerns at the time, and changing federal law to benefit a few while ignoring the compromise explained in the Constitution seems wrong. I'd agree about international treaties in general though, surrendering sovereignty in small degrees is done too flippantly by the current crop of politicians.
vi? Who's that?