Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're -> your Sorry.. I'm not of native English tongue myself, but this one annoys me to no end.
While we're at it, it would be "Sir Arthur" in short form, though it's really nor proper to use the honorific at all after a knight is deceased -- the knighthood is strictly a lifetime honour, and dies with the knight. In the case of people like Arthur Conan Doyle, it makes biographical sketches awkward, since he was a Knight Bachelor, not a knight of an order of chivalry, so there isn't a "real" postnominal you can…
Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
81–90 of 120 posts
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#82I 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…
This would leave the copyright open-ended forever, so long as they continued to evolve the character..
If you'll excuse me to snark for a moment, though: isn't that exactly what's happening with Mickey Mouse? The character keeps evolving and the copyright remains open-ended forever?
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you consider doctor (MD or PhD) to be similarly ridiculous, or do you make a distinction?
Also ridiculous. That some institution granted you a degree doesn't compel the rest of us to call you by a special name. When I ask medical doctors about that (my wife is one, for example), their main reason for supporting the "Dr" title is that it creates a sort of formal separation between the patient and the doctor which keeps things professional, similar to how we had to call our elementary teachers "Mr" or "Ms".…
Yes, I've noticed a very strong correlation between country and insistence on using a title conferred by a PhD. Americans do in general seem fairly relaxed about it.
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#84How does fan fiction exist at all? Authors have the legal right to go after fans, but choose not to? In this legal climate, I highly doubt that.
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#85Can someone point me to a law review article that covers how characters can be copyrighted? I understand that the text of the book can be copyrighted, but characters? That seems like a stretch. How does fan fiction exist at all? Authors have the legal right to go after fans, but choose not to? In this legal climate, I highly doubt that.
This is a decent review of the issues involved: http://io9.com/5933976/are-fan-fiction-and-fan-art-legal
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also ridiculous. That some institution granted you a degree doesn't compel the rest of us to call you by a special name. When I ask medical doctors about that (my wife is one, for example), their main reason for supporting the "Dr" title is that it creates a sort of formal separation between the patient and the doctor which keeps things professional, similar to how we had to call our elementary teachers "Mr" or "Ms".…
> I know a lot of people with PhDs, but I can't think of any who want to be called "Doctor", because that's exceedingly silly. I know it works a bit differently outside of the US. Yes, I've noticed a very strong correlation between country and insistence on using a title conferred by a PhD. Americans do in general seem fairly relaxed about it.
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#87I'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.
Those characters do not live in your head. They live in mine. I have full control in expressing who and what they are on paper for others to learn more about them. No one else does, no one else can say they did this or that because they don't have any control over my creations, my thoughts, my personal universe. To say someone else can just write with my characters is tantamount to violating an innermost personal space - indeed, it's intruding on one of the most personal forms of control and self-expression possible. You can't just create situations and settings for things that only exist in my mind. I want others to know, so I'll put out a public work. That doesn't mean someone can put something in my world, my character's lives, without my approval. Copyright is just a legal extension of that God-hood I exert over things in my head.
It is just too bad that the current form of copyright is far from ideal, as we've seen. I'm not against fan fic or other expression of still-in-copyright works either, I tend to like them and tend to agree that they do more good than harm, just pointing out that it does matter in some cases, discretion of the author should always be allowed, and just being well-known and popular doesn't magically make that control disappear. Being dead does though, so much of this doesn't really apply to the original topic, but felt I had to make a response to this.
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#88Looking forward to seeing Mickey Mouse in the public domain in a few years?
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#89So 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 ?
Re: Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would leave the copyright open-ended forever, so long as they continued to evolve the character..
Well, so in fact the court did strike down the Conan Doyle estate's interpretation of things, so we can continue talking about Conan Doyle creating, not discovering, the character of Watson. And you are right: siding with the Conan Doyle estate would raise questions. If you'll excuse me to snark for a moment, though: isn't that exactly what's happening with Mickey Mouse? The character keeps evolving and the copyright…