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

51–60 of 120 posts

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

#51

Post by andrewfong »

eurleif wrote: post #47
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?

Yes, this is the rationale the Supreme Court used to justify retroactive extensions of copyright.

From an economic and psychological perspective though, it gets increasingly silly as copyright gets longer and longer. We know that people discount future income, and when you get to time frames of 70-90 years, the present value of any additional income is near-zero.

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

#52

Post by mburns »

crygin wrote: post #33
dragonwriter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the whole point was the distinction between "discovering" and "inventing", a distinction which would not exist if "discovering" was replaced with "creating".

You're not a Platonist, are you? Regardless, it would be plausible to imagine a character conceived of by an author, who has curious behaviors in early stories, the motivation for which is only revealed in a much later story. This would be an example of a process of "discovery" about a character, but this discovery is happening in the form of revelations in the text rather than by the act of the author. If you wanted…

> In these two cases, the effect on the reader might be identical, but in one essential information about the character was held back and in one it was developed later.

But we aren't talking about the reader. We're talking about the author. Plot reveals later in the story (that the reader experiences) have nothing to do with an author writing those things over time.

If Doyle 'discovered' Watson (not created), then Watson is not copyrightable. If Doyle created Watson (which he clearly did, being the author of a fictitious character in a series of fictional novels and stories) then Doyle didn't "discover" anything, he just refined his creation.

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

#53

Post by colkassad »

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.

Both TV shows and the movie studio entered into a licensing agreement with the Conan Doyle estate, it's all in the article.

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

#54

Post by benjvi »

eurleif wrote: post #47
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?

Do you know anyone who responds to incentives like that? No? Me neither...

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

#55

Post by lessnonymous »

bnastic wrote: post #8

Looking forward to seeing Mickey Mouse in the public domain in a few years?

I'm surprised Disney didn't throw all their weight behind the Doyle estate here. Under this precedent, all attributes of Mickey Mouse created in 1928 (his first appearance) appear to become public domain in 4 years time, giving you, me, and my uncle Bob the right to publish Mickey Mouse stories.

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

#56

Post by dragonwriter »

andrewfong wrote: post #51
eurleif wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Yes, this is the rationale the Supreme Court used to justify retroactive extensions of copyright. From an economic and psychological perspective though, it gets increasingly silly as copyright gets longer and longer. We know that people discount future income, and when you get to time frames of 70-90 years, the present value of any additional income is near-zero.

> Yes, this is the rationale the Supreme Court used to justify retroactive extensions of copyright.

No, it isn't. Not only is the stated rationale not addressed in the key case on retroactive copyright extension -- Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) -- that decision doesn't actually justify retroactive extensions of copyright based on any kind of incentive structure. Its only discussion of incentive was in regard to setting the particular term (not its retroactive effect.)

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

#58

Post by ijk »

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?

Because it's already public domain in Britain, and has been since 2000. Since copyright is per-country, that didn't matter for an American case.

Past that, America is a big enough chunk of the English-speaking audience that its American status is a factor for major commercial projects.

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

#59

Post by ijk »

pavpanchekha wrote: post #4

I am fascinated by the nuance that went into this decision. The argument by the Doyle estate intrigues me: they claim that the characters themselves (as a sort of platonic form) were not fully developed until Doyle stopped writing. For example, they would argue that in every story, Watson had once played rugby, though this fact wasn't published until a later story. Thus this aspect of Watson's character is still prot…

The irony is that the 10 post-1923 stories are mostly sub-par and include some of the most out-of-character moments. In my mind not using them is an improvement, though I doubt that my opinion is authoritative enough to influence the case.
Post reply on HN