Then the artists can stop 'appropriating' other culture (Tolkien 'stole' elves! No-one else can use elves now!) or fuck off into obscurity like they deserve.
Really, no-one is forcing artists to create or share their products - but once published, the whole world can play with it. The only question is how will the creator monetise (or otherwise benefit from) their creation? However, they are not owed a 'fair' living, especially not in perpetuity.
Go do something productive and work for a charity or a factory. If you're in it for the money, go and create new derivative scams.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is "innocent" palestinian?
I'm pretty sure I could easily twist your quote with some 1930s Germany references, I've seen enough stupid anti-Semitic propaganda from the time to recognise it being spouted here (and yes, Palestinians are another Semitic people, so...)
I'm pointing out that however 'wrong' the Palestinians, Hamas or their supporters are, acting nastier and more 'wrong' does not make you more right. A common element of what is considered humanity and decency is not that someone throws a stone at you, and you chop him into little shreds. Apparently unless you are are a psychtic bully.
I don't like Hamas or their tactics. But I do /not/ see that as justification to go and murder thousands of innocent civilians, especially hundreds of children, nor to destroy their infrastructure, pen them into GHETTOS and starve and trap them. I don't care who is doing that or why, it's wrong. When you are 'newcomers' to the land in the last 70 years, it's even more wrong.
I'm not American, and I say, you are not differentiating, you are murdering. There is really no comparison between the horrible things that happened in Dresden or Hiroshima with the way Israel deals with the Occupied Territories and what's left of Palestine.
When a five-year-old kicks you in the shin, you do not blow away his kneecaps with a pistol, nor mortar his house to bits. Comparing the relative damage done by the Palestinians to that done by the Israelis, and I can tell you which group I feel is being more unfair, inhuman and destructive. (And I say this as someone who used to be a strong Israel supporter.)
I think elements added in later stories may be under protection for a few years still. So if in a later story Holmes admitted a liking to polka dot curtains, and you mentioned this in your 'original' Holmes story, the estate may have room to sue you, although probably only over that small element - and would be incredibly Disney, sorry, petty of them.
Works published or registered before 1978 currently have a maximum copyright duration of 95 years from the date of publication, if copyright was renewed during the 28th year following publication (such renewal was made automatic by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992; prior to this the copyright would expire after 28 years if not renewed). The date of death of the author is not a factor in the copyright term of such works.
All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain; works created before 1978 but not published until recently may be protected until 2047. For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Library of Congress Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated by the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain. With rare exceptions (such as very old works first published after 2002), no additional copyrights will expire (thus entering the public domain) until at least 2019 due to changes in the applicable laws.
So it looks like most of the stories will be long out of copyright, with the later ones heading to 2025 - assuming they had the 28-year extension added (which is likely with Conan Doyle). His date of death only influences the most likely latest date of stories that he wrote, although it would be interesting to see what would happen if an unpublished one was 'found' and published now, or if someone took an incomplete story and 'finished' it.
Again, you are being over simplistic thinking that 'pro-IP' only means people should have exclusive (and presumably total) control over imaginary property, even when said imaginings aren't automatically novel or unique.
And it's an incredibly dumb argument to say that because he thinks bad IP is bad, he thinks all IP is bad. Logic, can you do it?
That's equivalent to saying that because of witch-burnings or Crusades, all Christians are evil superstitious murderers.