Sherlock Holmes and the Copyright Tangle 290
spagiola passes along a New York Times piece on the copyright travails of Sherlock Holmes. "At his age [123 years], Holmes would logically seem to have entered the public domain. But not only is the character still under copyright in the United States, for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership issues so tangled that Professor Moriarty wouldn't have wished them upon him."
Ah, greed (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. Lellenberg said that Sherlock Holmes remains under copyright protection in the United States through 2023, and that any new properties involving the detective “definitely should” be licensed by the Conan Doyle estate. Asked about a recent Red Bull television commercial that features a cartoon Holmes and Watson, Mr. Lellenberg said he had not seen it. “Very interesting,” he said. “News to me.”
He then twirled his mustache, petted the Persian cat on his lap, raised an eyebrow, tilted his head, rubbed his hands together, and said: "release the lawyers!"
Re:The copyright cash cow (Score:5, Funny)
Basically, nobody wants to give up rights to it because they can make money from it.
Not "Basically", but rather "Elementary"!
"Sherlock Holmes was the Conan Doyle family curse" (Score:3, Funny)
The Conan Doyle family would like your pity.
They were forced to obtain and maintain the copyright on the Sherlock Holmes stories. It's so terribly hard managing all those bank accounts.
In fact, Jean Conan Doyle said that "Sherlock Holmes was the Conan Doyle family curse."
I certainly feel something for the family now.
Unspeakable Evil... (Score:4, Funny)
"Really, sir?" (Score:4, Funny)
"Yes, really, Watson. I'm sure the Traveler will allow us the use of his machine."
"Is there no other way, sir? This seems most excessive..." Watson trailed off, fully aware of the futility in trying to sway Holmes from his conviction. Perhaps Holmes is right. Nip this in the bud while the opportunity still remained.
"Sir, how do you suggest we approach this matter? Surely you cannot expect to drop in from a century in the future and expect tea and scones? The matter of that rather scary looking contraption you wish to employ needs to be addressed as well, sir."
"Quite simple, Watson. I intend that we should mount this "contraption", as you put it, and set the controls to precisely 19 feet in elevation, the corner of Glasshouse and Regent, on the morning of August 16 in the year 1974. Then return." Holmes removed his spectacles and gave them a quick rubbing with the bottom edge of his smoking vest, closely watching Watson from the corner of his eye. The smoke from his pipe cloaked his gaze from Watson.
Watson's eyes glazed slightly as he took in what Holmes had just said. Then they widened. Then they widened more.
"You cannot be serious, sir! You mean to crush Ms. Nina under that contraption?" Watson said, his astonishment tinged with an obvious air of distaste. "Sir, I implore you. Have we really come to this? Time traveling assassins?"
Holmes, more tired then he had ever been in his life, gave Watson a sad, almost regretful smile. "If we are ever to live the life Arthur intended, to solve the riddles that require solving, to live up to our potential, she must die. Then all will be right in the world of Sir Doyle."
Watson, always the one to find some solace in the worst of circumstances, flashed Holmes a quick grin of highly polished teeth. "Can I bring a camera?"
Re:where does the 2023 date come from? (Score:5, Funny)
No shit, Sherlock? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The copyright cash cow (Score:1, Funny)
"if you can milk something infinitely, it removes all incentive to create new creative works"
For the holder of the original IP, yes. However, for other people this could been seen as a good thing - I can't write a book about Sherlock Holmes because he's still under copyright, etc. etc., so instead I create my own character and scenario.
Which is better? Taking a public domain character and inserting them into a story, or being forced to come up with something new - and possibly better - instead?
It depends on how you look at it - some people haven't got a creative bone in their body and would rather just take existing works and tinker with them. For others, they would rather come up with someone of their own invention.
Surely coming up with something new and original is preferable to delving into the public domain archives.
Re:Disney (Score:4, Funny)
Time to get 4chan to use Mickey Mouse instead of Pedo Bear
Re:The copyright cash cow (Score:5, Funny)
Taking a public domain character and inserting them into a story, or being forced to come up with something new - and possibly better - instead?
Dunno. Let's look at Disney classics like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and compare it with one of their latest, Bolt.
Re:No shit, Sherlock? (Score:3, Funny)
No Sherlock? Shit.
Re:The copyright cash cow (Score:1, Funny)
No shit, Sherlock.