HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

NY Times Takes Up The Case Of Sherlock Holmes And The Lost Public Domain... But Gets It Wrong

from the we're-missing-some-clues-here dept

You may recall that last month we had an interesting discussion here over whether or not Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain. The answer was not entirely clear, because you get different answers from different people. However, it looks like the NY Times is on the case, and has a an article looking into the ownership of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation. Unfortunately, I believe the NY Times gets it wrong.

While the article does detail the amazingly convoluted history over who owned the copyrights (and the various disputes associated with those rights), it gets a bunch of things wrong and (oddly) never seems to talk to any copyright lawyers. While the article does note that Holmes is public domain in the UK, it makes a blanket statement that Holmes is still covered by copyright in the US:
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.
Lellenberg would say that, because Lellenberg is the literary agent for the Arthur Conan Doyle estate, and wants you to believe that. But, as we discussed last time, it's not true. All of the Sherlock Holmes books except one have now entered the public domain. And, yes, this creates quite a mess. But, in theory, anyone who created a work based solely on the public domain works, and which is not based on or derived from that last work, should, in fact, be legit without a license. That doesn't mean that Lellenberg (or some of the others who claim rights over Holmes) wouldn't sue, but it's not correct to claim that Holmes is still completely covered by copyright. The fact that the vast majority of his books are very much in the public domain is a rather important fact -- and totally ignored by the NY Times article.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2010 @ 8:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes... Let's look after the children after our death, when they should be totally self-sufficient, already. And people wonder why the younger generation seems to be so damned lazy?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.