Sherlock Holmes Is in the Public Domain, American Judge Rules • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by twocommas » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 1:19 AM UTC

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…

"At a deep level, the act of discover and the act of creation are identical." -Kevin Kelly (1)

Years ago I spoke with Kevin about this notion and it's relation to quantum mechanics. "Did the particle already exist in XYZ state (discover) or did you observation manifest (create) it." We agreed, it's the exact same thing.

(1) http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2010/01/tending_the_gar.p...

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

#72

Post by daleswanson » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 1:20 AM UTC

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 ?

See for example, the Star Trek TNG episode that used Sherlock Holmes. At the time, the studio assumed Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain, but were contacted by the estate and told they would have to license the character if they wanted to use him again. This almost prevented a follow up episode, and probably did prevent other follow ups to what was considered a good story line.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Elementary,_Dear_Data

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

#73

Post by chaz » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 1:39 AM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #24

praxulus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a sensible way to extend copyright on "active" IP that is still being used in new content, while allowing copyright to expire on "dormant" IP that has been left untouched for years? I don't think it's unreasonable for Disney to still hold copyright on Mickey Mouse (that might be the nostalgia talking), but there are plenty of creations from much more recent times that have long overstayed their welcome in th…

Disney holds a trademark on Mickey Mouse in perpetuity, so your nostalgia is covered. I'd be happy with a copyright system where the fee is $5 for the first year of government-protected monopoly, $10, for the second, $20 for the third, and on and on at the rate of $5*2^n for as long as they like. Note that at the fifteen-year mark, the renewal fee for another year of copyright enforcement would be over $30 million, w…

> over $30 million, which seems appropriate.

Appropriate to who? Maybe Disney, but not for the vast majority of people who are creating works every day. Just yesterday, we had a guy doing a Song a Day make the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6966581. He started it in 2009. Doing very rough math, that puts his burden as:

  2009: 365 x $5 * 2^5 = $58,400
  2010: 365 x $5 * 2^4 = $29,200
  2011: 365 x $5 * 2^3 = $14,600
  2012: 365 x $5 * 2^2 = $7,300
  2013: 365 x $5 * 2^1 = $3,650
  TOTAL: $113,150

Even if you adjust the scheme and make the first 10 years free or change the exponent/constant, it still puts the burden on the creator. Automatic, unregistered copyrights were deliberately designed to take the friction out of creating, and I fear this would add friction instead.

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

#74

Post by loceng » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 1:42 AM UTC

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…

This would leave the copyright open-ended forever, so long as they continued to evolve the character..

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

#75

Post by rodgerd » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 1:44 AM UTC

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?

You've even got a real example to draw on; U. S. Grant wrote his memoirs to provide for his wife and children.

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

#76

Post by jaekwon » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 1:49 AM UTC

GauntletWizard wrote: post #43

relevate wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sh…

I just want a DNS system. That is, I want to know whether what I am buying is original or not. Let the market decide whether they want the original or fakes. Even the original creator shouldn't have a say on whether other people buy and sell derivatives (or even direct copies!) of the creator's work.

The only thing I care about is truth. If you make a claim X, e.g. branding your item as in a trademark, then it should be true. But I see no harm in allowing products that do not make any false claim at all.

Abstract art doesn't belong to the creator. Once it's published it has a life of its own, like a mathematical proof of a theorem. The only thing that is yours is the claim that you did it. I wish the world worked this way. We'd see more innovation in everything.

The whole patent/copyright thing, I find absurd.

For patents, imagine if the population were a million times greater than it is now, some staggering number. Would you feel comfortable with a patent system then? Probably anything you could come up with would infringe marginally upon another's protected under a temporary monopoly. People would be shut out from selling anything at all, except those who already had resources to discover new inventions.

Copyright is different because perhaps the scope of possible interesting discoveries or inventions is much broader so anybody could participate and create something unique. But even then, who is the creator of abstract art to tell others to not derive joy or economic sustenance from his/her creations? As long as the transactions were based upon truth, e.g. no lying about who the creator is, ideally with correct attribution, then it's none of anybody else's business! If the consumer wants to purchase "fake" fan-fiction, just take it in stride. It does not affect you, your creative ability, nor your economic condition.

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

#77

Post by mcv » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 1:50 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #7

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…

> 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.

> If you imagine that, then you would be imagining Watson right out of the scope of copyright, which covers creations, not discoveries.

More precisely, copyright covers expressions, not inventions or discoveries. And any patent on Watson has long run out.

So it seems to me that writing new stories involving Watson, even ones where he played rugby, should be perfectly fine. Just reproducing the later stories is not allowed without permission.

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

#78

Post by icambron » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 1:55 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #70

icambron wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the safest and least weird thing to do is simply not call anyone by the ridiculous honorific "Sir" or generally maintain the distinction between knights of any order and the rest of us.

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". I don't buy that argument; for example, why wouldn't that apply equally to nurses? To me, it's seems like a trick for lending them an artificial air of authority.

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.

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

#79

Post by kbenson » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 2:11 AM UTC

icambron wrote: post #78

kbenson wrote: post #70

Earlier 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".…

I tend to agree. I think agreeing within a group to differentiate based on honorifics can be useful if the group is homogenous enough in nature, but for a society in general it just creates arbitrary distinctions.

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

#80

Post by scoot » Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 2:58 AM UTC

icambron wrote: post #78

kbenson wrote: post #70

Earlier 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".…

I found it amusing to learn that, in some parts of the world, surgeons are conferred the title of Mr, Miss, Mrs or Ms as preferential to Dr, as if above the petty nonsense of using "Dr" as a social differentiator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon#Titles

And now we are wildly off-topic!