I just came across this article by the New York Times about a lawsuit challenging Conan Doyle copyrights. I thought this article was interesting, because it is the opposite of what we have been discussing. Rather than fighting for copyright, this article fights against one. The name Arthur Conan Doyle may sound familiar, and that is because he was the author of the beloved Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes has become a cultural phenomenon, with in more recent years, multiple movies and television series starring the character, coming about. A few weeks ago, a civil complaint was filed claiming “many licensing fees paid to the Arthur Conan Doyle estate have been unnecessary, since the main characters and elements of their story derived from materials published before Jan. 1, 1923, are no longer covered by United States copyright law.” The complaint also claims that the estate, a business entity in England, sent a letter to a publisher saying it would prevent the selling of “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes” if a licensing fee is not paid. Through the complaint, the court has been asked to “make a declaratory judgment establishing that the basic ‘Sherlock Holmes story elements’ are in the public domain.” The complaint does not deny the fact that the estate is the “sole and exclusive owner” of the material that remains under copyright. The man who filed the complaint believes that he shouldn’t be subjected to copyright laws because he didn’t draw on any material from the stories still under copyright. If the man who filed the complaint is telling the truth, which I must believe he is, then I would have to agree with him. This man shouldn’t be subjected to copyright laws if the works he is drawing from are already in the public domain.
Though he may not have drawn on elements from the materials under copyright, the materials under copyright drew from element from the same source. If they contain similarities, the copyright holder will find a way to argue that their material is being used.
It’s definitely not the norm to argue against copyright, especially when money is involved. But I see the author’s point; public domain should remain public domain. No one should receive monetary compensation for materials in the public domain. Goldstein wrote about the public domain in his book Copyright’s Highway, stating that “The general rule of law is, that the noblest of human productions-knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas-become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use” (Goldstein 10). Goldstein further discusses public domain in writing that, while it differs in other countries, it is a generally accepted Western idea. Sherlock Holmes seems to fit under this concept of the public domain, due to its source and date.