Sunday, January 03, 2010
Sherlock Holmes Update
Guy Ritchie - Ritchie's Holmes Sequel Under Threat From Writer's Estate - Contactmusic News: "The executors of SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE's literary estate have threatened to withdraw GUY RITCHIE's rights to the SHERLOCK HOLMES story if the director hints at a homosexual relationship between the lead characters in his sequel."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Does anyone know copyright law? Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright in the UK and the only stories still under copyright in the US are those written after 1907 (Casebook of Sherlock Holmes). Does Ritchie need permission legally?
I don't know exactly how this works. I know that some of the anthologies of Holmes pastiches are authorized by the estate and some aren't. The article says that someone has threatened to withdraw the Ritchie's rights, so maybe there's a way it can be done. I have my doubts, though.
'Cause, OMG! it would ruin sales of new stories written by Doyle....uh, not! That 'executor' needs to understand that there's already so much slash fanfic about Holmes and Watson, that a lifted eyebrow and a longer glance into each other's eyes, isn't going to matter in the grand scheme of whther some 'believes' Holmes and Watson were or were not gay, for cryin' out loud!
First of all, jsut because they call a movie "Sherlock Holmes" doesn't make it so.
Guy Ritchie and Sherlock Holmes don't go together in any universe I care about.
Jeff
I believe that character can remain intellectual property after the copyright for a novel runs out. If not, it would hardly benefit Ritchie to have the Doyle estate telling the press that they disapprove of his treatment.
While I'm a Downey fan, I'm a bit disappointed at the degree to which Charlie Chaplin's spirit carried over into his Holmes portrayal. I would have cast Downey as Watson and Law as Holmes if I used these two actors.
One thing for certain, it is a confusing issue. From I have been able to find, if a work is out of copyright and a character name has not been trade marked then the character name can be used. I found these comments in a post about Disney's use of Peter Pan. http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/026595.html
I don't know the posters qualifications but I believe the situation he describes with Star Trek is accurate
"The next comment has to do with the comment about the Conan Doyle estate. In point of fact, there is no trademark protection for Sherlock Holmes. That's why the Doyle estate was so incensed at the use of Holmes on Star Trek: TNG, and the Holmes spoof Without a Clue. They didn't like it, but there wasn't anything they could do to stop it. Nor did they get any monetary compensation.
The opposite is true for Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan stories. While most, if not all of them are in public domain, Burroughs had the foresight and business acumen to TRADEMARK the character name. Copyright and trademark and not even remotely similar, in terms of what they cover and how they do it. One of the most important superficial differences is that copyright expires, and trademarks live forever."
Thanks. That helps, but it's still confusing. It will be interesting to see what transpires.
If I remember from what Carole Nelson Douglas told me in regards to her novels, some of the stories are still copyrighted, so essentially the character is if you were to write about it. I do know that she got permission to write her pastiches, and that for her it was essentially writing a letter to the estate requesting it...very simple, so she couldn't understand why ST:TNG couldn't have done the same thing and saved themselves a lot of problems.
Post a Comment