Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 120 posts

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#41

Post by relevate »

Houshalter wrote: post #37
davidw wrote: post #22

I'm in favor of IP laws, including copyright, but with the idea of creating incentives for people to create. Putting Sherlock Holmes in the public domain is probably not going to have much effect on Arthur Conan-Doyle's writing output, though, so it's probably a good thing at this point.

I'm not sure I understand why characters themselves are copyrighted. I get why its bad to just copy someone else's work, but if I go to the effort to write my own book about the same character, who cares? The world isn't worse off for fan fiction.

I think it's all about branding and preventing copycats from riding off of someone else's coattails. It's the creator who did the hard work of making a particular character well-known, and it wouldn't be fair to let an unknown third party use this popularity for his/herself.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#42

Post by ZeroMinx »

morley wrote: post #17
dragonwriter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems sensible if you imagine Sir Doyle "discovering", not "inventing", Watson. If you imagine that, then you would be imagining Watson right out of the scope of copyright, which covers creations, not discoveries.

I think you're distinction is a semantic one. pavpanchekha could have easily framed his observation as Sir Doyle "creating" aspects of Watson's character.

  you're -> your
Sorry.. I'm not of native English tongue myself, but this one annoys me to no end.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#43

Post by GauntletWizard »

relevate wrote: post #41
Houshalter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand why characters themselves are copyrighted. I get why its bad to just copy someone else's work, but if I go to the effort to write my own book about the same character, who cares? The world isn't worse off for fan fiction.

I think it's all about branding and preventing copycats from riding off of someone else's coattails. It's the creator who did the hard work of making a particular character well-known, and it wouldn't be fair to let an unknown third party use this popularity for his/herself.

I'd actually be perfectly fine if Characters, such as Holmes, fell under Trademark, rather than copyright. Sure, nobody could create new works starring Holmes himself, but there have been any number of Expys over the years, and truly good plots and writing would get recognized, expy or not. It would give the Holmes estate reason to promote additional stories - Trademarks are only valid while in use. They'd have to shepherd the brand, not simply leech on it.

It would also have the added effect of making it finally safe to reduce copyright down to a sane time; Somewhere within a lifetime. The Mouse could be protected under trademark law, while his early adventures would be free for anyone to see.

Trademark is also more open to use - A trademark cannot be used to sell, rather than not used at all as with copyright. It makes it far clearer that The Onion can portray The Mouse as getting caught in a toronto-esque crack scandal, or whatever else they wish to parody, without the ugliness of american "Fair Use" laws.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#45

Post by rplnt »

officemonkey wrote: post #40
Houshalter wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic considering Disney is famous for making films based on other people's stories.

Did you know that Disney is asserting their trademark on Snow White? They believe that they're the only studio allowed to make a film of the Snow White story, even though the Snow White fairy tale is in the public domain?

They are not successful though, are they? There is a low-budget snow-white based TV series that run a year ago (Once Upon A Time).

Also, it is ridiculous considering that character is way older than Disney itself and provably comes from outside US jurisdiction.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#46

Post by ZeroMinx »

rwbt wrote: post #26
mariusmg wrote: post #25

So the character "Sherlock Holmes" is public domain but (some) of the novels are still copyrighted, right ? What is that good for....authors writing new "Sherlock Holmes" novels ? What is the point in having a "character" public domain ?

I'm assuming one can now make movies/television/video games with those characters without paying any sort of royalty.

[serious] Has the BBC had to pay royalties for making/showing their Sherlock series? In that case, to whom? The person who created these fictional characters died over 70 years ago.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#47

Post by eurleif »

davidw wrote: post #22

I'm in favor of IP laws, including copyright, but with the idea of creating incentives for people to create. Putting Sherlock Holmes in the public domain is probably not going to have much effect on Arthur Conan-Doyle's writing output, though, so it's probably a good thing at this point.

>Putting Sherlock Holmes in the public domain is probably not going to have much effect on Arthur Conan-Doyle's writing output, though, so it's probably a good thing at this point.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but couldn't the precedent have an effect on the creative output of people alive today, based on their desire for their descendants to inherit something valuable?

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#48

Post by mitchty »

sfrechtling wrote: post #44

Can somebody explain why american law is relevant here? Please excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't British law supercede American law as Holmes was first published in Britain?

Simple, because this covers America. If Britain wants to enforce its copyrights here, well you'll have to either use force or fire up a treaty. Until then American copyright law applies to something copyrighted in America. Doesn't really enter in that it was published in Britain first.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#49

Post by rwbt »

ZeroMinx wrote: post #46
rwbt wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming one can now make movies/television/video games with those characters without paying any sort of royalty.

[serious] Has the BBC had to pay royalties for making/showing their Sherlock series? In that case, to whom? The person who created these fictional characters died over 70 years ago.

I believe the Copyrights for Sherlock Holmes expired in year 2000 and in public domain since then. So I don't think BBC needed to license it from the estate, at least in the UK.

Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules

#50

Post by dragonwriter »

sfrechtling wrote: post #44

Can somebody explain why american law is relevant here? Please excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't British law supercede American law as Holmes was first published in Britain?

> Can somebody explain why american law is relevant here?

Because actions within the jurisdiction of the United States are governed by the U.S. law?

> Please excuse my ignorance, but shouldn't British law supercede American law as Holmes was first published in Britain?

No, British law doesn't govern what people can do in the United States. I thought we settled that a couple hundred years ago?

Post reply on HN