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

91–100 of 120 posts

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

#91

Post by djur »

KeliNorth wrote: post #87
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.

Though copyright as it is has issues, this seems very off, as characters are the work, moreso than the settings and even plot - as only one of those three items tends to be unique. I've written books and stories, and the best answer I can give to you is this: 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 th…

The idea that a creator has an absolute moral right to control of their characters is a fairly recent one, and it certainly isn't a widely respected one -- imagine how many movies, books, etc. would have never been written if people had considered Dracula, Don Quixote, Frankenstein's Monster, Othello, etc. to be inviolable property of their authors. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument for state protection of copyright.

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

#92

Post by chrismcb »

hrasyid wrote: post #15

Pardon my ignorance, but shouldn't it be a "duh" that the copyright already expired?

While I agree this should be a "duh." But the question is, the copyright for what? Some of the Holmes stories are still under copyright, and that is what they are arguing... Fortunately they are wrong.

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

#93

Post by davidw »

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?

> 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?

Fair enough, but Conan-Doyle's children are dead too. How many generations should get the benefit of something before the public at large does?

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

#94

Post by gabemart »

praxulus wrote: post #16
Moto7451 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing we'll be seeing another one of these before then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

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…

I've done quite a bit of work with public domain text. While more flexible copyright terms do have some advantages, it becomes a nightmare to work out whether or not a given text is still in copyright, especially for the large majority of work that falls into obscurity.

Copyright covers an enormous range of output. Keeping a central ledger that tracked the copyright status of hundreds of millions of items would be a massive undertaking.

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

#95

Post by elwin »

KeliNorth wrote: post #87
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.

Though copyright as it is has issues, this seems very off, as characters are the work, moreso than the settings and even plot - as only one of those three items tends to be unique. I've written books and stories, and the best answer I can give to you is this: 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 th…

> Those characters do not live in your head.

The problem with that argument is that this statement is simply not true once you tell me about the characters. Now they are in my mind too, and I want control over my own thoughts, just as you do.

I understand that you're saying that the ideas remain yours whether they are in your mind or mine. Either way, accepting your characters into my mind means giving up my control over my mind and thoughts. You are colonizing my mind with your ideas and insisting on limits on my thoughts about them. This would be all right if you paid me rent for storing your creations in my brain, but that would be completely impractical.

> Copyright is just a legal extension of that God-hood I exert over things in my head.

Analogies between humans and divine attributes tend to fall apart when they have to deal with the existence of more than one human. I think this highlights the weakness of the author's moral rights. The author's creation of the character was inspired by many other human creations and real-life characters. The character will go on to be recreated by every person whose unique perspective influences its imagination. Yet the moral rights argument requires picking out one act of creation, conferring divinity upon it, and pretending there are no rival divinities that could possibly conflict with its solitary status.

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

#97

Post by danielweber »

davidw wrote: post #93
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?

> 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? Fair enough, but Conan-Doyle's children are dead too. How many generations should get the benefit of something before the public at large does?

It shouldn't be based on lifetimes or the number of generations, just a flat number of years.

If I buy an annuity that pays out over 50 years, it should pay out over 50 years, whether or not I die tomorrow or I live another hundred.

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

#98

Post by danielweber »

dragonwriter wrote: post #21
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…

> 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? Periodic -- say, every 7 years -- renewals with exponentially increasing costs to renew.

The problem is deciding what unit to which you need to apply the renewal costs. A photographer may make hundreds of very creative works a year, while an author may make only one.

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

#99

Post by frobozz »

The entire Holmes canon has been in the public domain in its original country of publication for some time.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930 (more than 70 years ago) and I don't see any evidence that he wrote anything about Mr. Holmes after 1963 (50 years ago)

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

#100

Post by rational_indian »

prewett wrote: post #86
snogglethorpe wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Americans see everyone as equal in status (in theory); in paragraph two of our first document, we say that it is, in fact, self-evident that all men are created equal. Since we are all equal, titles don't really serve much purpose, as the whole point of titles is to distinguish yourself.

>we say that it is, in fact, self-evident that all men are created equal.

How is this self evident?

Post reply on HN