Last year , a Union justice ruled that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are no longer cover by U.S. right of first publication law . But , the Conan Doyle Estate continue its litigation — and today , another federal judge supply a blistering statement , saying that the estate might also be violating anti - trust law .
“ The Case of the Greedy Estate ” is a story in three parts . First , in 2013,editor Leslie Klinger file a ill against the Conan Doyle Estate regarding an anthology of new Sherlock Holmes story . The the three estates had imperil to block sales of the anthology unless it invite a licensing fee for the role of elements of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ’s original account .
US evaluator rules Sherlock Holmes and Watson are in the public domain
Ruben Castillo , Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that , even though not all Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain , chemical element from the stories that appear before January 1st , 1923 are in the public world .
Then , in Part II of our saga , 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posnerrejected an appealmade by the estate , concluding in June 2014 that , “ The spectre of perpetual , or at least nearly perpetual , copyright … loom , once one realizes that the Doyle estate is seeking 135 years ( 1887–2022 ) of right of first publication protection for the character of Sherlock Holmes as depict in the first Sherlock Holmes story . ”
The Doyle estate of the realm ’s business strategy is sheer : charge a pocket-size licence fee for which there is no legal fundament , in the Leslie Townes Hope that the “ rational ” writer or newspaper publisher ask for the fee will pay it rather than incur a greater toll , in legal disbursal , in challenging the legality of the demand . The strategy had worked … only Klinger ( so far as we do it ) resisted . In impression he was a private lawyer general , battle a disreputable business pattern — a form of extortion — and he is try by the present movement not to obtain a reward but only to avert a red ink . He has performed a public service — and with satisfying hazard to himself , for had he lost he would have been out of pocket for the $ 69,803.37 in fees and costs get at the trial and appellant levels .
And then came the real zinger : that the Doyle estate could be in misdemeanor of U.S. anti - trust laws :
We note at long last that the estate was diddle with fervour in asking Amazon and other bookseller to collaborate with it in enforcing its nonexistent right of first publication claims against Klinger . For it was enlisting those sellers in a boycott of a competitor of the estate , and boycotts of competition outrage the anti - trust laws . The common boycott is of a purchaser by his suppliers , bring on by a rival of the emptor for rid of competition from that vendee … .. This case is different , in its facts but not in economic substance or effectual relevance , because the boycotters enlist by the Doyle estate were buyers from the victim , rather than sellers to it . But functionally they were suppliers — supplier of crucial distribution service to Klinger .
“ It ’s time the acres , in its own ego - interest , changed its business model , ” concluded Posner .
Books
Daily Newsletter
Get the best technical school , science , and polish news in your inbox daily .
News from the futurity , delivered to your present .
You May Also Like
