Sherlock Holmes Finally In the Public Domain In the US 207
ferrisoxide.com writes "As reported on the Australian ABC news website, film-makers in the US are finally free to work on Sherlock Holmes stories without paying a licencing free to the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle after a ruling by Judge Ruben Castillo. A quirk of U.S. copyright law kept 10 stories out of the public domain, on the basis that these stories were continuously developed. In his ruling Judge Castillo opined that only the "story elements" in the short stories published after 1923 were protected and that everything else in the Holmes canon was "free for public use" — including the characters of Holmes and Watson.
Holmes scholar Leslie Klinger, who challenged the estate, celebrated the ruling.
'Sherlock Holmes belongs to the world,' Mr Klinger said in a statement posted on his Free Sherlock website.
IANAL, but the ruling of Judge Castillo that "adopting Conan Doyle's position would be to extend impermissibly the copyright of certain character elements of Holmes and Watson beyond their statutory period," is surely going to have implications across U.S. copyright law. Mark Twain must be twisting and writhing in his grave."
Re:Arthur Conan Doyle was Scottish (Score:5, Informative)
No the US law applies because a Georgian Princess bought out the other English heirs of the Scottish author who then assigned it to Swiss to manage it.Later when the swiss started skimming off the top, she then sold the whole thing off.The person who purchased it was American but the estate was managed by another Swiss man. Due to a quirk in the US law, the british (dis)inherited tried to reclaim the property, but were conned by a texas lawyer who sent the notices to a non existent address in Switzerland instead of the correct address in US or Switzerland. So the ownership of the estate remains in the US. Hence US law applies.
I did not make any of this up [sherlockholmesonline.org].
Decision text (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Arthur Conan Doyle was Scottish (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Informative)
What you can't use is any recent (re)translation or re-imagining or edition from [publisher].
That's the reason that "American Classics" keep getting new editions cranked out, even though the story hasn't changed in a century.
So while Disney doesn't own Snow White (or any of the other stories), they own their version.
The Disney version strays enough from the Brothers Grimm that Disney has claimed and received copyright and trademarks.
Of the two legal claims, Disney is vastly more likely to slaughter you with trademarks than copyrights.
Re:You did make it up (Score:5, Informative)
US law governs a copyright's enforceability in the US. How could it be any different?
Because of international treaties; the Berne convention, among others.
Re:You did make it up (Score:5, Informative)
No, according to US copyright law (17 USC 104(c)), the Berne Convention has no effect in the US.
And this isn't odd; copyright treaties are typically not self-executing. They obligate the various treaty states to enact domestic legislation that brings them into compliance with the treaty, but do not serve as copyright laws themselves. In addition, in the US, all treaties stand at an equal level with ordinary federal legislation, and a last-in-time rule dictates which trumps in the event of an irreconcilable conflict. This means that Congress is not bound to adhere to treaties, and can refuse to pass laws that treaties require, and can even pass laws that directly contradict the treaty. This may embarrass the executive branch, and may cause problems for the US in its foreign relations, but sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles.
A fun example is WTO Dispute 160, the gist of which is that certain copyright exceptions in US copyright law violate our treaty obligations, a complaint was brought against the US by the Irish, the US lost the case, and we've never bothered to comply by changing our laws in the decade-plus since we lost.
Re:A bad remake is a foot! (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright law was never about to offer a business model to authors. Copyright law was always about to ensure that works are produced and published, to enrich society. If it turns out that copyright laws actually reduce the amount of works produced and published, then copyright law should be abolished. Normally, copyright law should be at balance to offer authors enough protection that they can make a dime of their works, but also short so that society (the public domain) can be enriched.
That is why the original copyright term in the USA was just 14 years with the option to extend for another 14 years, and also only for registered works. With the Internet the copyright term should been shortened because the Internet offers a faster way for authors to make a dime of their work. You obviously bought into the Hollywood propaganda that copyright is a natural right of authors to have a business model. No it's not. It's an monopoly right that is granted to benefit at the end the public domain.
Re:A bad remake is a foot! (Score:4, Informative)
That's because "Ford" is trademarked, and "F150" is also trademarked (in the context of vehicles at least). That has nothing to do with copyright.