Comments on: Sherlock Holmes in a leotard? Ask the trademark owner! http://www.teleread.org/blog/2007/08/18/sherlock-holmes-in-a-leotard-ask-the-trademark-owner/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:45:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Joseph Gray http://www.teleread.org/blog/2007/08/18/sherlock-holmes-in-a-leotard-ask-the-trademark-owner/#comment-503034 Joseph Gray Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:12:04 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6974#comment-503034 To borrow from a past president, Disney is "The Evil Empire". Mr Disney Corporation, tear down this copyright wall :-) To borrow from a past president, Disney is “The Evil Empire”. Mr Disney Corporation, tear down this copyright wall :-)

]]> By: Robert Nagle http://www.teleread.org/blog/2007/08/18/sherlock-holmes-in-a-leotard-ask-the-trademark-owner/#comment-502697 Robert Nagle Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:41:36 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6974#comment-502697 Walt Disney corporation could have stockpiled Disney's comics for all its major characters and published them in dribs and drabs for decades after Disney's death. That would have allowed Disney to extend their trademark on copyrighted material indefinitely. Thank god Berne's Death + 70 put an end to that! Walt Disney corporation could have stockpiled Disney’s comics for all its major characters and published them in dribs and drabs for decades after Disney’s death. That would have allowed Disney to extend their trademark on copyrighted material indefinitely. Thank god Berne’s Death + 70 put an end to that!

]]> By: Branko Collin http://www.teleread.org/blog/2007/08/18/sherlock-holmes-in-a-leotard-ask-the-trademark-owner/#comment-502492 Branko Collin Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:02:04 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6974#comment-502492 "<i>Walt Disney made a living plundering the public domain</i>" You don't "plunder" the public domain, you use it. The word "plunder" suggests that after Disney was done with it, there was nothing left. What's also interesting to see is that Disney used stories that were only a few years or decades old. Imagine modern movie makers re-using stories, worlds and characters from the 1980s. Things like the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica wouldn't be an exception but a rule. “Walt Disney made a living plundering the public domain”

You don’t “plunder” the public domain, you use it. The word “plunder” suggests that after Disney was done with it, there was nothing left.

What’s also interesting to see is that Disney used stories that were only a few years or decades old. Imagine modern movie makers re-using stories, worlds and characters from the 1980s. Things like the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica wouldn’t be an exception but a rule.

]]> By: Bill Monks http://www.teleread.org/blog/2007/08/18/sherlock-holmes-in-a-leotard-ask-the-trademark-owner/#comment-502349 Bill Monks Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:56:27 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6974#comment-502349 Isn't that other Conan - The Cimmerian - also trade-marked? For that matter wasn't the likeness of Charlie Chaplin copyrighted? Madness. Walt Disney made a living plundering the public domain and now it's almost certain no major work made in the last fifty years will ever enter the public domain. Isn’t that other Conan - The Cimmerian - also trade-marked?

For that matter wasn’t the likeness of Charlie Chaplin copyrighted?

Madness. Walt Disney made a living plundering the public domain and now it’s almost certain no major work made in the last fifty years will ever enter the public domain.

]]> By: Rob Preece http://www.teleread.org/blog/2007/08/18/sherlock-holmes-in-a-leotard-ask-the-trademark-owner/#comment-500772 Rob Preece Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:27:12 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6974#comment-500772 Specifically relating to Sherlock Holmes, there are a number of derivative works already published--and which have been published for a number of years. My understanding of trademark law is that, failure to enforce these marks renders them invalid. That doesn't negate the issue. Trademark is and has been an interesting second chance for those who don't like the wiggle-room copyright law carries with it. Rob Preece Publisher, www.BooksForABuck.com Specifically relating to Sherlock Holmes, there are a number of derivative works already published–and which have been published for a number of years. My understanding of trademark law is that, failure to enforce these marks renders them invalid.

That doesn’t negate the issue. Trademark is and has been an interesting second chance for those who don’t like the wiggle-room copyright law carries with it.

Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com

]]> By: Robert Nagle http://www.teleread.org/blog/2007/08/18/sherlock-holmes-in-a-leotard-ask-the-trademark-owner/#comment-500728 Robert Nagle Sun, 19 Aug 2007 13:56:51 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6974#comment-500728 <a href="http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Grumpy old bookman </a> has the <a href="http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2005/08/detective-work-on-sherlock-copyright.html" rel="nofollow"> complete backstory on the Sherlock Holmes issue</a> (Thanks, google!). Basically he reprints a letter from a US attorney with her opinion about the status of the Sherlock Holmes trademark. Interestingly, the lawyer points out that because the Sherlock Holmes copyright is jointly owned, either of the copyright owners could grant permission for derivative works. The key issue is whether trademark applies to works where a small amount of the work is under copyright. It's quickly becoming clear that Sonny Bono's main benefit to corporations is not in the realm of copyright but the realm of trademark. Grumpy old bookman has the complete backstory on the Sherlock Holmes issue (Thanks, google!).

Basically he reprints a letter from a US attorney with her opinion about the status of the Sherlock Holmes trademark. Interestingly, the lawyer points out that because the Sherlock Holmes copyright is jointly owned, either of the copyright owners could grant permission for derivative works.

The key issue is whether trademark applies to works where a small amount of the work is under copyright. It’s quickly becoming clear that Sonny Bono’s main benefit to corporations is not in the realm of copyright but the realm of trademark.

]]> By: Joanna http://www.teleread.org/blog/2007/08/18/sherlock-holmes-in-a-leotard-ask-the-trademark-owner/#comment-500014 Joanna Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:32:30 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6974#comment-500014 I think this is partly why copyright reform is going to become a bigger and bigger issue until fair use comes back. There was a case here of a documentary film-maker who wanted to use footage of his own grandfather, a former politician, in a background scene on his documentary. The CBC had priced the royalties for the footage so high that he could not afford it---of his own grandfather! And the issue of photographs of art in public places, it's absurd, if I am walking in the park with my niece and want to take a picture of her, and there is a sculpture in the background, must I consult the sculptor first? What if I reproduce my photo to make holiday cards to send to my family? What if I want to sell the portrait of my niece to a magazine? It is insane, and my view is that if you put something out in public like that, you can no longer except to have full control over how people will interact with it. In my view, the fair use and public domain issues of publishing are the same. If you want full control over it, put in a drawer somewhere. But when you publish it, you accept that it's out there in the world and people can, for example, post snippets of it for review purposes, or write academic papers on it. And after your death, it then descends into the public domain where it is part of the culture of humanity. That's how it used to be, and I think we are headed back that way again. People are getting sick of a few greedy people ruining it for everybody else. There are a lot of 'little guy' artists who would be happy to have their work out there after their deaths, gaining new readers and fans, but restrictive copyright law is limiting that. Look at the whole orphan works debacle. It has just gone way overboard and I think the tide may soon be turning back the other way. I think this is partly why copyright reform is going to become a bigger and bigger issue until fair use comes back. There was a case here of a documentary film-maker who wanted to use footage of his own grandfather, a former politician, in a background scene on his documentary. The CBC had priced the royalties for the footage so high that he could not afford it—of his own grandfather! And the issue of photographs of art in public places, it’s absurd, if I am walking in the park with my niece and want to take a picture of her, and there is a sculpture in the background, must I consult the sculptor first? What if I reproduce my photo to make holiday cards to send to my family? What if I want to sell the portrait of my niece to a magazine? It is insane, and my view is that if you put something out in public like that, you can no longer except to have full control over how people will interact with it. In my view, the fair use and public domain issues of publishing are the same. If you want full control over it, put in a drawer somewhere. But when you publish it, you accept that it’s out there in the world and people can, for example, post snippets of it for review purposes, or write academic papers on it. And after your death, it then descends into the public domain where it is part of the culture of humanity. That’s how it used to be, and I think we are headed back that way again. People are getting sick of a few greedy people ruining it for everybody else. There are a lot of ‘little guy’ artists who would be happy to have their work out there after their deaths, gaining new readers and fans, but restrictive copyright law is limiting that. Look at the whole orphan works debacle. It has just gone way overboard and I think the tide may soon be turning back the other way.

]]> By: Paul Biba http://www.teleread.org/blog/2007/08/18/sherlock-holmes-in-a-leotard-ask-the-trademark-owner/#comment-499740 Paul Biba Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:01:03 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=6974#comment-499740 I ran into an example of this the other day. I'm finishing off building a couple of Rietveld chairs for my porch. Rietveld was a Dutch designer who lived from 1888 - 1964. His famous chair is displayed in the Museum of Modern Art and was designed in 1923. You can see it here: http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=4044 In doing some research about the chair I came across a Rietveld website that mentioned the chair but had no picture. According to the website, they did have a picture but the Reitveld estate required that they pay a royalty as the design of the chair was copyrighted. The site removed the picture. So it isn't just in publications that the long arm of copyright stretches out beyond the grave. I ran into an example of this the other day. I’m finishing off building a couple of Rietveld chairs for my porch. Rietveld was a Dutch designer who lived from 1888 - 1964. His famous chair is displayed in the Museum of Modern Art and was designed in 1923. You can see it here:

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=4044

In doing some research about the chair I came across a Rietveld website that mentioned the chair but had no picture. According to the website, they did have a picture but the Reitveld estate required that they pay a royalty as the design of the chair was copyrighted. The site removed the picture.

So it isn’t just in publications that the long arm of copyright stretches out beyond the grave.

]]>