Since the expiration of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act in 2019, ending a 20 year freeze on copyrighted works entering the public domain, people have been hailing Jan 1 as "Public Domain Day".
On Jan 1, 2023 a new crop of works from 1927 will enter the PD, including:
-The first three Hardy Boys books
-Alfred Hitchcock's The Lodger
-To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf
-Steppenwolf by Hermann Hesse
-H. Rider Haggard's final book about Allan Quatermain
-And most importantly, the final Sherlock book by Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes.
The reason for the importance regarding the Sherlock book is because the Estate has sue happy since the first Sherlock works have entered public domain. In 2014 a fellow wrote some brand new Sherlock stories and the Estate sued him, claiming that while some works were in the Public Domain, not all of them were. However the court decided that so long as the new works were using only the elements found in the public domain, and not, let's say some sort of character evolvement still protected, then it's all good. But that hasn't stopped the Estate from going after everyone they could while they held on to the fringes of their copyright. Two years ago they sued Netflix and a host of authors, directors, producers over the Enola Holmes movie. Nothing was officially decided, it's assumed some type of settlement occured.
But the point is, the Estate has been overreaching regarding copyright protection basically to squeeze every last drop they can out of it. But now, the public is fully free from any Estate retaliation to play with Sherlock Holmes.
The real test, however, comes in 2024 when Steamboat Willie enters the PD. This was the reason the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" was created in the first place. And as more and more iconic intellectual properties enter public domain, I think we're going to see a bit of chaos, but hopefully from that chaos we'll gain some clearer rules in how to handle these things.
Public Domain Day
Posted: 08 Dec 2022, 16:39
by mcommini
"Character evolvement" basically being anything that depicts Sherlock as having an ounce of feeling for his fellow man.
Public Domain Day
Posted: 09 Dec 2022, 06:48
by tuttle
mcommini wrote: ↑08 Dec 2022, 16:39
"Character evolvement" basically being anything that depicts Sherlock as having an ounce of feeling for his fellow man.
The funny thing is that's exactly the point the Estate hinged their argument on. They claimed the last stories were really the only ones where we find a warm and empathetic Sherlock, one who treated women kindly. Literally this was their argument against Enola Holmes. They claimed Sherlock treating women with any sort of kindness was violating copyright.
Since they settled out of court we don't know how it would have gone down, but there were indications that such things as kindness, warmth, and empathy are not protected under copyright. You'll note that after Winnie the Pooh became PD any usage of the character for the time being does not involve his red shirt. That's the type of character evolvement that I think is in play.
mcommini wrote: ↑08 Dec 2022, 16:39
"Character evolvement" basically being anything that depicts Sherlock as having an ounce of feeling for his fellow man.
The funny thing is that's exactly the point the Estate hinged their argument on. They claimed the last stories were really the only ones where we find a warm and empathetic Sherlock, one who treated women kindly. Literally this was their argument against Enola Holmes. They claimed Sherlock treating women with any sort of kindness was violating copyright.
Since they settled out of court we don't know how it would have gone down, but there were indications that such things as kindness, warmth, and empathy are not protected under copyright. You'll note that after Winnie the Pooh became PD any usage of the character for the time being does not involve his red shirt. That's the type of character evolvement that I think is in play.
Why did Pooh go full monty? Or did he go with a white shirt?
Funniest thing I overheard was a "remote happy hour" and the leader said "be mindful of your camera ... you know, in case anyone is Pooh Bearing it". I had to think for a moment and then busted out laughing... what a clever thing to say!
Public Domain Day
Posted: 10 Dec 2022, 06:23
by Del
"Pooh-Bearing it"! Shamelessly frolicking about with no pants....
Too many possible puns about "bare bears." I can't come up with a funny one.
Sure gives a whole 'nother dimension to "public domain," though.
Lower-case nudity seems to be a common theme with bears. Here's Yogi Bear & Boo-Boo, and Baloo Bear (Disney's Tailspin).
Full monty...
Public Domain Day
Posted: 29 Dec 2022, 05:33
by tuttle
As if anyone needed anymore convincing why Canada is getting gheyer...
They just passed their own stupid law that essentially creates a 20 year freeze on their public domain.
mcommini wrote: ↑08 Dec 2022, 16:39
"Character evolvement" basically being anything that depicts Sherlock as having an ounce of feeling for his fellow man.
The funny thing is that's exactly the point the Estate hinged their argument on. They claimed the last stories were really the only ones where we find a warm and empathetic Sherlock, one who treated women kindly. Literally this was their argument against Enola Holmes. They claimed Sherlock treating women with any sort of kindness was violating copyright.
Since they settled out of court we don't know how it would have gone down, but there were indications that such things as kindness, warmth, and empathy are not protected under copyright. You'll note that after Winnie the Pooh became PD any usage of the character for the time being does not involve his red shirt. That's the type of character evolvement that I think is in play.
My wife and I have enjoyed the Enola Holmes films, and duly noted the different sort of Sherlock, and his older brother especially, from the more recent SH movies with RD Jr.
mcommini wrote: ↑08 Dec 2022, 16:39
"Character evolvement" basically being anything that depicts Sherlock as having an ounce of feeling for his fellow man.
The funny thing is that's exactly the point the Estate hinged their argument on. They claimed the last stories were really the only ones where we find a warm and empathetic Sherlock, one who treated women kindly. Literally this was their argument against Enola Holmes. They claimed Sherlock treating women with any sort of kindness was violating copyright.
Since they settled out of court we don't know how it would have gone down, but there were indications that such things as kindness, warmth, and empathy are not protected under copyright. You'll note that after Winnie the Pooh became PD any usage of the character for the time being does not involve his red shirt. That's the type of character evolvement that I think is in play.
My wife and I have enjoyed the Enola Holmes films, and duly noted the different sort of Sherlock, and his older brother especially, from the more recent SH movies with RD Jr.
I think the Estate gave permission for the RD Jr. version, where they didn't with Enola Holmes. (And you can tell it's a money grab because the books had been out for a long time before the movie. Only when it looked like a money maker did they pounce.) But regardless, Doyle's Sherlock will be fully and finally in the PD so he'll belong to all of us to do with as we please.
The next 10-15 years will be extremely interesting as more and more of what has become dominant in our pop culture will become PD. Loads of pulp fiction heroes will become free to use in the next few years and then begins the iconic superheroes and cartoon characters. Even The Hobbit becomes PD in 2033! (Which is bittersweet because had the US not freeze the PD for 20 years, we would have experienced all of this already.)
Shamelessly frolicking about with no pants....
