Sherlock Holmes copyright case

[Bramblethorn]

Interesting case here: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-extortion-threat-20140815-column.html

In brief: most of the Sherlock Holmes stories are now in the public domain, but the last ones are still in copyright, expiring about 2022/23. The Doyle estate has been using this to gouge people publishing anything that uses the Sherlock Holmes characters for royalties, and mostly people have been paying up rather than fight it.

But somebody finally took them to court and got a scathing judgement against them, with costs. Bad news for copyright trolls, good news for authors!

 

[sr71plt]

Huh? How is this good news for authors? The author of the Sherlock Holmes stories is Conan Doyle. The judgment was against his interests.

I do see the point that the character should be considered in the public domain now, but I don't see your point that this is good news for the estate of the author--Conan Doyle or any of the rest of us who would like to be authors who keep on giving from our rights to our families.

And the "authors" piggy-backing on the Sherlock Holmes bandwagon now? They can jolly well write their own characters if they don't want to give anything back to the actual creator of the character.

Think you have a strange perspective of what's in the original author's interests (even though I agree it's time for Sherlock Holmes to be free game).

 

[Serafina1210]

Huh? How is this good news for authors? The author of the Sherlock Holmes stories is Conan Doyle. The judgment was against his interests.

I do see the point that the character should be considered in the public domain now, but I don't see your point that this is good news for the estate of the author--Conan Doyle or any of the rest of us who would like to be authors who keep on giving from our rights to our families.

And the "authors" piggy-backing on the Sherlock Holmes bandwagon now? They can jolly well write their own characters if they don't want to give anything back to the actual creator of the character.

Think you have a strange perspective of what's in the original author's interests (even though I agree it's time for Sherlock Holmes to be free game).

Bramblethorn didn't say the decision was in the original author's interest, but that it was good for authors (plural). It may not be good for the long-dead Conan Doyle, but it's unquestionably good for the many authors who'd like to make use of a figure that's become a cultural icon.

And it's good for the culture, too, that copyrights and other kinds of monopolies should expire after a reasonable time, and cultural productions should become common property. It was settled in the eighteenth century that we shouldn't have to pay to quote the Bible and Shakespeare; now it's Conan Doyle's turn.

 

[sr71plt]

Author equals author. If it isn't good for the original author, it isn't good for current authors. I swear that there are few here thinking like authors rather than like those wanting to rip authors off for their own convenience and to avoid doing their own original work.

I did post that I thought it was time for the hold on Sherlock Holmes to expire. That doesn't make it in the interest of real authors, though, other than following the law telling them how long their protections hold for. It's just in the interest of writers and other media packagers who don't want to do their own original work and consumers who want stuff for free and not to give any a token bow to the one who created the material.

Sorry, Serafina. I don't think you're thinking like an author either.

 

[Serafina1210]

Sorry, Serafina. I don't think you're thinking like an author either.

I should know better than to argue with you, Pilot, because I've learned that Pilot Is Never Wrong.

But let me ask: what if you wanted to write a story featuring a hot three-way with Jane Eyre, Rochester, and St John: should you have to pay? What happens to authors, and to culture, in a world where that's not possible?

An author has an interest in preserving the value of her literary property, but also in her ability to draw on the universe of cultural production for inspiration. Those interests have to be balanced. We do that by allowing copyrights to expire after a reasonable time.

 

[Hypoxia]

The purpose of copyright was (long ago) to give a creator exclusive rights to their creation for a LIMITED TIME, to encourage them to create more good stuff. One hundred years after the creator's death is NOT a limited time, except maybe for bristlecone pines. I blame DisneyCorp, who were desperate to keep Mickey Mouse in chains, and bribed, er I mean contributed to enough legislators to wreck the public domain in USA. If a creators' heirs and assigns wish to make money after their cash cow has died, they can write their own damn stories (per Willie Nelson in SONGWRITER).

Continuing copyright decades after a creator's death does NOT encourage more creation. Indeed, it stifles creation, crushes the telling of history (try to re-screen a 1960s documentary -- good luck getting all the (C) clearances) and has serious consequences. Case in point: the UK had strong IP laws in the early 1800s. Books were costly. Publishers got very rich. Britain was the leading industrialized nation, but industrialization proceeded slowly because technical literature was pricey and available only in very limited quantities.

The nascent German states (largely agricultural, not industrial) had no such IP laws. Germanic publishers printed lavish editions, same as their UK ilk, but also printed (and reprinted, and pirated) many cheap editions. Not just of poetry and fiction, but also manuals, guides, other technical and practical literature. By the end of the 19th century, Germany was nearly the planet's leading industrial power, and and a few years later, nearly defeated the UK militarily. The case has been made that the proliferation of pirated practical, technical literature drove the blossoming of Germany as a world power.

A similar game plays out now in China vs the western world. China's IP regime is notoriously lax; China is emulating 1800s Germany. That's how they built their industrial might in just a few decades.

Strong IP: penny wise, pound foolish.

 

[sr71plt]

I should know better than to argue with you, Pilot, because I've learned that Pilot Is Never Wrong.

But let me ask: what if you wanted to write a story featuring a hot three-way with Jane Eyre, Rochester, and St John: should you have to pay? What happens to authors, and to culture, in a world where that's not possible?

An author has an interest in preserving the value of her literary property, but also in her ability to draw on the universe of cultural production for inspiration. Those interests have to be balanced. We do that by allowing copyrights to expire after a reasonable time.

Sorry, Serafina, that snotty first line reeks of you always having to be right yourself (which I've noticed before--and sometimes just walked away from when you haven't really convinced me and it's still just all your unsourced opinion) and not being prepared to discuss the issue. After that, there's no reason why I should respond to the rest of your post. But I will. Then you can just stop posting to me on this thread and feel that your slam makes you superior. Or we can continue discussing if you drop the nasty jabs.

You are conflating two issues--what's in the creating author's interest and what's in the free game realm for other authors to write and readers to read without giving anything back to the creator of the material--when my reaction was to only one issue--what's in the author's interest. And my view is that ultimately an author who isn't shortsighted does not have the interest to have authors' protections eroded. Because they are authors themselves.

The strawman you give isn't relevant to what I posted--which was a disagreement that authors should see this judgment in their interests. The serious author will think in terms of their own works before they'll think in terms of diluting the protections of other authors. This is a form of shooting yourself in the foot.

Why your example isn't relevant is because it concerns characters who are clearly in the public domain. Even so, there's no particular reason why it would be in the interest of the heirs of the original creators of those characters (and the heirs frequently complain that it isn't--not that I feel sorry for them if the material has been legally declared in the public domain).

The Sherlock Holmes case is one based on a public domain issue that hadn't been pinned down before this judgment. The question is when the character (and we're talking the Sherlock Holmes character, not the individual stories written about him) starts timing out under copyright law--at the inception of the character or upon the original author's last use of the character. The court has now ruled that it's the inception (and I think the judge was out of order in not accepting that the estate did have an argument on that that hadn't been ruled on yet--because no one had tested it before). So, Sherlock Holmes is clearly in the public domain now. That's fine (and I said so twice already).

That doesn't mean that the ruling is in the interest of the original author or any other authors with more than a shortsighted view of their interest. It erodes what at least the Conan Doyle estate had functioning, so it erodes that author's interests--and, by extension, the interests of all other authors in what they've created themselves.

As a serious author who does it for money, I'll side with the original creating author over the piggy-backing author or reader looking for a free read every time. That's because I think I'm pretty clear on what a serious author's basic self-interest is.

That doesn't mean that it isn't in the public interest, but when you start waving flags of justice on that, I, as an author, start thinking self-justifying claptrap and theft of what I created. It's fine if the author is good with his/her profitably established characters being used by others (but that's the author's privilege to decide not your right to wave a flag and decide for him/her). And that's what the permissions process is all about.

 

[Serafina1210]

I shouldn't give way to my snotty tendencies. I'll try to be civil.

But the distinction you say I conflate is at the heart of what I was trying to argue (and what Hypoxia said much better than I did). As an author I have an interest both in my freedom to draw on an ever-expanding public domain and in protecting my intellectual property. I see we agree on this.

What I don't get is your assertion that one is vastly more important than the other. We all poach and piggyback on the cultural productions that have preceded us. It's hardly possible to create if you don't. So why does one kind of author's right trump the other for you? There's a civil question. Give me a civil answer.

 

[sr71plt]

I shouldn't give way to my snotty tendencies. I'll try to be civil.

But the distinction you say I conflate is at the heart of what I was trying to argue (and what Hypoxia said much better than I did). As an author I have an interest both in my freedom to draw on an ever-expanding public domain and in protecting my intellectual property. I see we agree on this.

What I don't get is your assertion that one is vastly more important than the other. We all poach and piggyback on the cultural productions that have preceded us. It's hardly possible to create if you don't. So why does one kind of author's right trump the other for you? There's a civil question. Give me a civil answer.

I think it's a bit late to claim you've been civil. I didn't initiate playing the card; you did.

How many professional writers do you know? I don't really know anyone trying to make serious money out of it who isn't more focused on their own protections than on the ever-expanding public domain--and I work in the business. So, I guess that comes down to opinion and I have a right to mine (which I believe is an informed one). On the issue of concern for public access, neither of us really has a right to decide on that for other authors or to assert they all do or should want to openly share their property to all takers, do we?

I trust we both understand that there's a difference between the "ability to draw on the universe of cultural production for inspiration" and making use of the specific Sherlock Holmes character. The topic is the latter. I have no plans to waltz off into the former as a cloud screen.

 

[Serafina1210]

I think it's a bit late to claim you've been civil. I didn't initiate playing the card you did.

How many professional writers do you know? I don't really know anyone trying to make serious money out of it who isn't more focused on their own protections than on the ever-expanding public domain--and I work in the business. So, I guess that comes down to opinion and I have a right to mine (which I believe is an informed one). On the issue of concern for public access, neither of us really has a right to decide on that for other authors or to assert they all do or should want to openly share their property to all takers, do we?

I trust we both understand that there's a difference between the "ability to draw on the universe of cultural production for inspiration" and making use of the specific Sherlock Holmes character. The topic is the latter. I have no plans to waltz off into the former as a cloud screen.

I'll try to be civil anyway, even if I didn't start out that way.

How many professional writers do I know? Lots, including myself. Lit is my current hobby. A good part of my income comes from writing, and I know lots of writers--some of them fiction writers.

I understand that the Holmes case deals with a narrow issue. I see every victory of champions of the public domain over rapacious (and often idle) holders of ancient copyrights as a victory for authors and the culture.

But, hey, that's just my opinion, as your opinion is just yours. We'll have to agree to disagree about this, since I know we won't persuade each other.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll try to be civil anyway, even if I didn't start out that way.

How many professional writers do I know? Lots, including myself. Lit is my current hobby. A good part of my income comes from writing, and I know lots of writers--some of them fiction writers.

I understand that the Holmes case deals with a narrow issue. I see every victory of champions of the public domain over rapacious (and often idle) holders of ancient copyrights as a victory for authors and the culture.

But, hey, that's just my opinion, as your opinion is just yours. We'll have to agree to disagree about this, since I know we won't persuade each other.

I'm a 17-year professional mainstream book editor as a second career and have worked in three publishing houses in addition to writing some 120 books in my own name and pen names (for a good deal longer than 17 years). Let's not compare "whose is bigger." That doesn't lead anywhere. And, you're right. My opinion is mine--and was mine in my first post. Anyone who wants to believe that an author who's working for serious money thinks about letting other folks just using their established characters because they want to or in some stuff about it being in the greater public good either equally with maintaining their rights over the use or in greater proportion is welcome to have that never-never-land fantasy if they like. Common sense doesn't necessarily always pan out (or some probably do believe that).

And I'll repeat that it's my opinion that a serious author would not take the deeply prejudicial position of "every victory of champions of the public domain over rapacious (and often idle) holders of ancient copyrights as a victory for authors and the culture." That's the position of a user (in more ways than one).

 

[Serafina1210]

I'm a 17-year professional mainstream book editor as a second career and have worked in three publishing houses in addition to writing some 120 books in my own name and pen names (for a good deal longer than 17 years). Let's not compare "who's is bigger." That doesn't lead anywhere. And, you're right. My opinion is mine--and was mine in my first post. Anyone who wants to believe that an author who's working for serious money thinks about letting other folks just using their established characters because they want to or in some stuff about it being in the greater public good either equally with maintaining their rights over the use or in greater proportion is welcome to have that never-never-land fantasy if they like. Common sense doesn't necessarily always pan out (or some probably do believe that).

And I'll repeat that it's my opinion that a serious author would not take the deeply prejudicial position of "every victory of champions of the public domain over rapacious (and often idle) holders of ancient copyrights as a victory for authors and the culture." That's the position of a user (in more ways than one).

I'm not playing whose is bigger (the game would be absurd for me anyway). I haven't talked about how many books I've written or how long I've been at it. I'm not going to, either. You asked if I knew any professional writers (perhaps assuming that I didn't), and I answered you. The rest of what you have to say is opinion backed up by bluster, and maybe a little Ayn Rand.

 

[sr71plt]

I took it as a challenge. So, that seems to be all there is to that. My opinion remains that you don't have the perspective of a serious author who isn't shortsighted. So, there it is.

 

[StrangeLife]

As soon as the author is dead the copyright is no longer "in his interest." Because he doesn't care... he's dead.

When I die, my workplace will stop sending pay checks to my house, and I frankly don't see why it should be different for the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd.

 

[sr71plt]

As soon as the author is dead the copyright is no longer "in his interest." Because he doesn't care... he's dead.

When I die, my workplace will stop sending pay checks to my house, and I frankly don't see why it should be different for the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd.

Oh, you don't have a family? I really, really don't believe this on what's supposedly an author's forum.

Each time this type of topic comes up on the AH, I really, really don't get the idea that authors are posting here.

 

[Serafina1210]

I took it as a challenge. So, that seems to be all there is to that. My opinion remains that you don't have the perspective of a serious author who isn't shortsighted. So, there it is.

I'm willing that Pilot should think me unserious. Indeed I believe I will bear up. So having said my little say, I will bow out of this thread.

 

[AZMotherLover]

I should know better than to argue with you, Pilot, because I've learned that Pilot Is Always Wrong.

Fixed that for you.

 

[StrangeLife]

Oh, you don't have a family? I really, really don't believe this on what's supposedly an author's forum.

Each time this type of topic comes up on the AH, I really, really don't get the idea that authors are posting here.

Yes, I have a family. But when I die they are still not getting any more pay checks from my employer. If I want them taken care of in the event of my death, I have to make provisions for that while I'm still alive. Like savings and insurances and stuff like that.

I'm not trying to be trollish and I fully understand why the industry currently riding the gravy train is reluctant to get off, but there is something askew when people who has never penned a single Sherlock Holmes story can earn a living off them almost a century after they were written.

 

[Hypoxia]

As soon as the author is dead the copyright is no longer "in his interest." Because he doesn't care... he's dead.

When I die, my workplace will stop sending pay checks to my house, and I frankly don't see why it should be different for the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd.

Indeed. The intent of a LIMITED copyright period is to 1) let the creator enjoy the fruit of their work, and 2) encourage them to create something else, and not just float on their earlier work. Nothing there about family annuities. (My kids don't need such; they work hard and make more money than I ever did. And I inherited rather little from my own late parents.) Nothing about perpetually feeding other non-creators, either. Do staff of the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd create new works? If they don't, why pay them a dead man's royalties?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Huh? How is this good news for authors? The author of the Sherlock Holmes stories is Conan Doyle. The judgment was against his interests.

I do see the point that the character should be considered in the public domain now, but I don't see your point that this is good news for the estate of the author--Conan Doyle or any of the rest of us who would like to be authors who keep on giving from our rights to our families.

And the "authors" piggy-backing on the Sherlock Holmes bandwagon now? They can jolly well write their own characters if they don't want to give anything back to the actual creator of the character.

Think you have a strange perspective of what's in the original author's interests (even though I agree it's time for Sherlock Holmes to be free game).

ACD is dead, his children are dead, and if he'd had any grandchildren (which he didn't) they'd quite likely be dead by now too. His creations of Holmes and Watson enjoyed the full extremely-generous copyright period, undoubtedly making him a fortune, and the specific content of the later stories is still covered by copyright for the next few years. He's not really suffering at this point.

What the judge knocked down was a spurious attempt to claim copyright on the early material beyond its legal span, used as a method of extorting money from living authors who were in fact obeying the law and using material that belonged in the public domain.

The same sort of tactic comes up in other venues: for instance, a friend of mine uploaded recordings of herself singing material that's long since been in the public domain, but copyright trials filed a complaint requiring her to either take it down, or allow them to monetise it via advertising. It happens in patent law as well. I'm happy to see it knocked on the head.