[ SECRET POST #2469 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2469 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #353.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[feathercircle]

Isn't Sherlock Holmes (mostly) public domain, anyway? You might face problems trying to write Elementary or BBC Sherlock fic, but even the most stringent copyright law won't affect you if you're playing with a canon whose copyright has expired.

[crunchysunrises]

Or will it?! *ominous muusic!*

As I understand it, the estate holders for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's literary properties are currently raising an argument that ALL Sherlocks are THEIR Sherlock - one character in different circumstances that should rightfully belong to them.

(The other side has politely refrained from saying, "That's nuts!" They're instead arguing that Sherlock is now an archtype. And a couple of other things, including the infeasibility of enforcing the other side's position.)

I don't think it'll work out for the estate holders for a variety of reasons but the litigation keeps showing up in my circle. So I keep an eye on it without resorting to actual effort. ^_^

But generally, I think you're right.

[(Anonymous)]

But even if it's all the same character, the character and all the works are still in the public domain, aren't they?

[blueonblue]

The Case Book of Sherlock Holmes was published in the US in 1927, so those stories are not in the public domain in the US.

[crunchysunrises]

Nope! Not necessarily!

Assuming for a moment that they're right and somehow their theory of the case works, the issue would arise of WHEN they should compute copyright from.

So, although it's been over seventy years since ACD died (and thus the original stuff would be in the common domain), it's only been a few years since House and BBC Sherlock is still being made, as is Elementary, etc. If all Sherlocks are the original Sherlock, then by bootstrapping ACD's stuff to this younger, newer stuff, the estate holders could theoretically breathe life into the copyright protecting ACD's stuff from the public. (Which, I suspect, is the whole reason for this litigation.) By sharing House, BBC Sherlock, or Elementary's copyright dates, they'd be good to go for another lifetime plus X number of years. (Seventy, maybe? I don't know. I know only the barest things about the U.K.'s legal system.)

[feathercircle]

...No?

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but unless the UK's system differs dramatically from the US equivalents, I'm pretty sure that you can't extend copyright duration just by continuing to produce works using a character or setting. If that were the case, Disney wouldn't need to keep storming in and pushing for longer and longer exclusivity every time Mickey is about to fall into the public domain.

[crunchysunrises]

I'm not a copyright attorney either but I don't think Mickey's up for public domain any time soon since in the U.S. I know it's generally life + 70 years for an individual creator's copyright or, if published by a corporation, 95 years from publication. (The 'or 120 years from creation' clause came much later that Walt would've produced Mickey.) So, without looking up when Mickey first came out, Mickey's probably protected for the time being.

Regardless, however, the situation between Mickey and Sherlock isn't analogous since the pertinent copyright laws are governed by two independent countries.

Anyway, I don't think the ACD estate cares about fanfic one way or the other. They probably care deeply, however, about getting a portion of the proceeds from the Sherlock-homages/spinoffs.

I'd link you to the articles by actual copyright attorneys on this topic but their website apparently only keeps articles for a certain period of time and then they're lost to the ether. And all the other articles I read wondered more about 'When does a character become an archtype?' which isn't actually pertinent to this discussion. Sorry!

[feathercircle]

Mickey's not up for public domain any time soon because Disney has fought for the various copyright extensions in America. If they hadn't, his protected status would have expired in the early 2000s.

Regardless, copyright owners desiring to cash in on highly marketable derivative works is an entirely different thing from derivative works extending copyright duration. If you ever track those articles down I'd be interested in seeing them; if that is in fact the case it's unlike any copyright provisions I'm aware of and I'm curious about the details.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe archive.org can help to access to those articles?

[(Anonymous)]

No. Holmes is in the public domain in the UK. The End.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's actually the Conan Doyle estate but a woman in the U.S. who has the copyrights for the Casebook stories which, as someone pointed out, were published too late to have passed into public domain in the States. IIRC, she is not related to Conan Doyle in any way and did not inherit the copyrights, rather she used to be married to a guy who bought them and she got to keep them in the divorce.

[crunchysunrises]

That's interesting! (And it seems as valid a way of coming into property as any other... although, I find it deeply amusing.)

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. I can't argue the legality of it (although what control she has over Sherlock Holmes in general is another matter) but it's hard to have much sympathy for someone who is neither the creator of a work nor the creator's chosen heir.