By Jason Keyser
Associated Press
CHICAGO — It’s the kind of puzzle that might have amused Sherlock Holmes himself.
Now that copyright protections have expired on nearly all of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s tales about the pipe-puffing detective in the deerstalker hat, are writers free to depict the character in new mysteries without seeking permission or paying license fees?
A federal judge in Chicago says yes, so long as they don’t stray into territory covered in the 10 stories still protected by copyright. Not so fast, says the Doyle estate, which is considering an appeal this month. Descendants of the Scottish physician and author argue he continued to develop the characters of Holmes and Dr. Watson in the later works so they should remain off-limits until the remaining copyrights run out at the end of 2022.
“It’s a bogus argument. It means you can reprint Conan Doyle’s own stories freely but you can’t make up a new story? It doesn’t make logical sense,” said author Leslie Klinger, who brought the case against the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. to settle the matter.
With last week’s ruling in hand, Klinger plans to finish work on “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes,” a book of original short stories featuring characters and other elements from Conan Doyle’s work. He is co-editing the book with plans to publish this fall.
If appeals judges hold it up, the ruling could lift the threat of legal action for the untold scores of writers out there churning out pastiches and fan fiction without permission. Most of them fly under the radar. In Klinger’s case, the estate demanded $5,000, he said.
“Whatever decision they make will essentially determine the fate of many characters, not just Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, but very intricate characters such as James Bond. … What happens as copyrights expire on Ian Fleming’s original stories?” said Doyle estate attorney William Zieske.
The ruling could also weaken the value of the Sherlock franchise to the point that major publishers and movie producers could also decide to move ahead with projects without licensing deals, said Paul Supnik, a Beverly Hills, Calif., attorney specializing in copyright and entertainment law who was not connected with the case.
“At the very least it’s going to affect the bargaining power as to what the estate can do in trying to sell it to the studio,” Supnik said.
