132:. When the Estate learned of this book's impending publication, it contacted Pegasus Books, asserting that if Pegasus intended to publish the work legally, it needed to obtain a license from the Estate. The Estate wrote, "f you proceed instead to bring out unlicensed, do not expect to see it offered for sale by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and similar retailers. We work with those compan routinely to weed out unlicensed uses of Sherlock Holmes from their offerings, and will not hesitate to do so with your book as well."
330:
But the Doyle estate had made clear that if
Klinger succeeded in getting his book published the estate would try to prevent it from being sold by asking Amazon and the other big book retailers not to carry it, implicitly threatening to sue the publisher, as well as Klinger and his co-editor, for copyright infringement if they defied its threat. The twin threats—to block the distribution of the book by major retailers and to sue for copyright infringement—created an actual rather than merely a potential controversy.
292:, defines derivative works as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.
248:, where some of the radio scripts had entered in public domain while some others were still protected, the plaintiff was allowed to use public domain material without any license. The estate, however, argued that the characters of Holmes and Watson continued to get developed through the complete canon, including in the ten stories, and therefore should remain under copyright protection until the final work enters the public domain. The Court, again using the
228:, the Court had held that a threat of litigation was not essential for a case or controversy under Article III. Rather, the Court explained, the test was "whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment."
371:
original and subject to protection, does not "revive the expired copyrights on the original characters." The Court, rejecting the appeal of the defendants, argued that the Estate essentially asked for 135 years of copyright protection over the characters of Holmes and Watson, which was contradictory to the goals of the statute and hence not permissible under the law.
269:... are protected only to the extent the work in which that particular aspect of the character was first delineated remains protected." The Court held that if the argument offered by the defendant is held to be the law, it would essentially mean into extension of the statutory duration of protection and that would be against the objectives of
22:
407:
allows authors of derivative works to use characters and expressions in works which have entered into public domain. Thus, a character which has been modified in subsequent works does not get a perpetual copyright. The copyright protection in subsequent works is limited to the original contributions,
198:
over the case because there was no "actual controversy" between the parties, as required before the Court may issue a declaratory judgment, because the Estate had not threatened litigation against
Klinger. Klinger disagreed, asserting that a direct threat of litigation was not the sole means by which
135:
Klinger believed that he did not need to obtain and pay for a license from the Estate, because the characters of Holmes and Watson had already entered the public domain and hence could be freely used. However, Pegasus Books was concerned about the communication it had received from the Estate and did
329:
Had
Klinger had no idea how the Doyle estate would react to the publication of In the Company of Sherlock Holmes, he could not have sought a declaratory judgment, because he would not have been able to demonstrate that there was an actual dispute. He could seek advice, but not from a federal judge.
231:
Here, exercising the "unique and substantial discretion" accorded to the Courts under the
Declaratory Judgment Act, Judge Castillo found that a "substantial controversy" existed between the parties, that the parties had clear "adverse legal interests," and that publication of the book was dependent
112:
were inspired by the
Sherlock Holmes canon and included canonical characters and elements. Before the anthology was published, the Conan Doyle Estate asserted to Random House that the Estate had exclusive rights to use the characters of Holmes and Watson, and if Random House intended to publish the
370:
Finally, the Court held that, in the initial works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the characters of Holmes and Watson were sufficiently delineated as to become eligible and subject to copyright protection. Any subsequent alteration to these characters made in the ten stories, even though independently
340:
The Court held that, had
Klinger published the sequel without seeking the declaratory order, he would have faced a copyright infringement suit from the Estate. Further, it was held that the action brought by the plaintiff was purely a matter of law, i.e., whether he can use the character of Holmes
287:
the characters, but that of "increment in expression". To the extent that an author of a derivative work contributes to the increment of expression, copyright protection is to be granted to the underlying work. The estate argued that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle developed the characters throughout the
366:
The Estate contended that there is a distinction between "flat" and "round" characters, and that the ruling of the district court, along with the cited precedents, should be limited to flat characters. Since the ten copyrighted stories made the characters of
Sherlock Holmes and John Watson more
53:
The courts held that the characters of Holmes and Watson had entered the public domain along with the story elements of the works on which the copyright protection had expired, i.e., published prior to 1923; hence, they can be used in subsequent works without procuring a license. However, the
344:
Interestingly, it was also noted by the Court that for post-1923 works, the plaintiff did not intend to seek a declaratory judgement, since he acknowledged that the copyrights in the ten stories were valid, and the district court only discussed them due to certain exhibits being mislabeled.
353:
The Estate contended that the character cannot be lawfully used without a license until the copyright of the later works—in which the characters of Holmes and Watson were further developed—expires. The Court ruled that this assertion lacked any basis under the law or the copyright statute.
69:"), published between 1887 and 1927. The Conan Doyle Estate was a company owned by certain collateral descendants of Conan Doyle and others, which claims ownership of certain intellectual property rights to Conan Doyle's works and grants licenses to use these rights.
324:
Article III of the
Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to cases or controversies. Thus, only when there is an "actual dispute", a federal court should exercise its jurisdiction. That requirement, the appeal court held, was fulfilled:
170:
The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgement that the characters of Holmes and Watson had entered the public domain and hence could be used by the plaintiff and that he was further allowed to use the any expressions depicted in first fifty works.
296:" Interpreting and adopting the definition, the Court held that the ten stories are indeed derivative works of the earlier works, but that this does not affect their copyright protection, since they satisfy the "increment in expression" test.
362:
in the subsequent/derivative works. Upholding the district court's ruling, the Court noted that the ten stories are derivative works, inspired from earlier stories, and hence only the original elements in the ten stories remain protected.
252:
case as a reference point, ruled that only the "increments of expression" of the ten stories—i.e., the ways in which these stories further delineated the characters—are protected. The defendant also argued that the reference taken from
86:", which extended the copyright term for certain works published in and after 1923 to 95 years from their original publication date. The copyrights on these ten stories expired from 2019 to 2023 on the first day of the year, dubbed
199:
an actual controversy could be created. Here, Klinger asserted, the Estate's assertions that publishing the book without a license would be unlawful and its threat to deter online retailers from distributing the book by using the
54:
copyright protection in works published in and after 1923, was still valid, and the unique expressions found in those works could still not be used without the permission of the
Defendants until the works' copyrights expire.
181:
Whether on the merits of the case
Klinger was allowed by the law to use the characters of Holmes and Watson and the story elements, both for pre-1923 works, and post-1923 works (the ten stories still copyrighted at the
419:, "he only originality required for a new work to be copyrightable is enough expressive variation from public-domain or other existing works to enable the new work to be readily distinguished from its predecessors."
166:
for granting summary motion is that, "he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of Law."
826:
Memorandum from the United States Supreme Court Office of the Clerk for Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd. v. Leslie S. Klinger, Nov. 3, 2014,
367:"rounded", the Estate argued that the characters warranted copyright protection. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the difference between flat and round characters was irrelevant to the law.
854:
283:
the characters, and those elements are events rather than the characteristics of Holmes and Watson. Justice Castillo, rejecting the argument, held that the test is not whether elements
137:
39:
265:
such as Holmes and Watson. However, the Court held that the argument made by the Estate is without any legal basis and further observed that "the copyrightable aspects of a character
411:
Further, although public domain works and their elements can be used in subsequent or derivative works, such derivative works still have to meet the conditions of originality (
42:(988 F. Supp. 2d 879). These decisions, by the District Court and the Court of the Seventh Circuit, clarified the validity (under copyright law) of the use of characters of
160:
The district court allowed the plaintiff to file for a summary motion due to the absence of defendant in the initial proceedings. The standard, as the Court noted, under
408:
which the Court identifies as "increment of expression", and does not extend the copyright protection of characters or expressions that appeared in the original work.
113:
anthology, it needed to enter into a licensing agreement with the Estate. Random House signed a licensing agreement with the Estate before publishing the anthology.
412:
869:
35:
456:
162:
76:
in the United States because their copyrights had expired. The remaining ten stories, first published in magazines and later published in book form in
573:
577:
315:
Whether the ruling by the district court with respect to the use of characters of Holmes and Watson and story elements was correct under the law.
125:
628:
Jessica L. Malekos Smith, Sherlock Holmes & the Case of the Contested Copyright, 15 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 537 (2016). Available at:
428:
337:
noted, "Only if Klinger obtains the declaration will he be able to publish his book without having to yield to what he considers extortion."
215:
124:. This book was also a compilation of short stories inspired and influenced by the Sherlock Holmes canon. This book was to be published by
341:
and Watson, and elements in public domain, and accordingly the Judge in the Federal Court was right to assert jurisdiction over the case.
244:: The Court stated that for pre-1923 works, Klinger need not obtain any license, since they already had entered the public domain. Citing
828:
864:
232:
on the Court's potential ruling. Thus, the dispute had "sufficient immediacy and reality" for the Court to exercise jurisdiction.
859:
513:
50:, and the story elements, in unlicensed works. Further, the scope of using characters, in the public domain was also clarified.
358:, Justice Posner noted that copyright subsists in only the original work of authorship, and afterwards, only to the extent of
468:
488:
779:
449:
224:
210:
observed that the actual controversy requirement under the Declaratory Judgment Act resembled the requirements of the
802:
549:
219:
200:
78:
305:
Dissatisfied with the decision of district court, the Estate filed an appeal to the Court of the Seventh Circuit.
641:
345:
Accordingly, the Appeal court held that the summary judgement ruling for the last ten stories can be ignored.
136:
not finalize its contract to publish the book. To address the issue, Klinger filed a copyright lawsuit in the
279:: Klinger argued that even the elements present in ten stories should not be protected, since they do not
83:
669:
288:
canon and therefore, no single work is a derivative work of another. Court rejected this interpretation.
186:
The district court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgement.
65:
authored four novels and fifty-six short stories featuring Holmes and Watson (sometimes referred to as "
211:
829:
https://freesherlock.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/klinger-supreme-court-minute-orderdenying-+cert-c.pd
129:
66:
395:, which was also denied, leaving the Seventh Circuit's opinion as the final judgment in the case.
90:. As of January 1, 2023, all canonical Sherlock Holmes works are in the public domain in the U.S.
38:(755 F.3d 496), in response to an appeal filed by the defendants against the 2013 ruling of the
592:"Arthur Conan Doyle - Licensing - Official Website of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Family Estate"
207:
174:
The district court, on the action brought by the plaintiff had two headings to decide upon:
141:
8:
629:
380:
25:
Public domain depiction of the character Sherlock Holmes, part of the subject of the case
415:) in order to get their own copyright protection. As the Seventh Circuit Court noted in
567:
433:
62:
514:"Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd, No. 1:2013cv01226 - Document 40 (N.D. Ill. 2013)"
312:
Whether the District court had a valid jurisdiction to pass a ruling in the case, and;
555:
545:
93:
87:
379:
Dissatisfied with the Seventh Circuit's decision, the Estate requested an emergency
646:
438:
145:
738:
443:
384:
289:
47:
43:
21:
334:
848:
616:
391:, who denied the application. The Estate then filed a petition for a writ of
270:
73:
559:
195:
105:
539:
388:
140:, sitting in Chicago, against the Conan Doyle Estate. The lawsuit sought
462:
392:
178:
Whether it had the jurisdiction to pass a declaratory judgement, and;
97:
489:"Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd., No. 14-1128 (7th Cir. 2014)"
138:
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
591:
537:
642:"2023 public domain debuts include last Sherlock Holmes work"
541:
The Final Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: Completing the Canon
16:
United States Court case on copyright in fictional characters
855:
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit cases
82:, remained under copyright in the United States under the "
203:, were sufficient to give rise to an actual controversy.
729:
Gaiman v. McFarlene, 360 F.3d 644,660 (7th Cir. 2004).
630:
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/vol15/iss2/9
544:. Haining, Peter. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.
40:
U.S. District Court for Northern district of Illinois
72:
By 2013, 50 of the 60 canonical stories were in the
348:
300:
194:The Estate asserted that the District Court lacked
96:co-edited an anthology of original Sherlock Holmes
308:The Appeal court, had two counts to decide upon:
155:
148:, determining that Klinger could legally publish
846:
803:"July 2014: Petition for emergency stay denied"
457:Société Plon et autres v. Pierre Hugo et autres
870:Copyright infringement of fictional characters
429:Copyright protection for fictional characters
417:Schrock v. Learning Curve International, Inc.
36:U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
800:
572:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
374:
576:) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
152:without paying the Estate for a license.
538:Doyle, Arthur Conan, 1859-1930. (1995).
20:
847:
163:Federal Rule of Civil Procedure no. 56
748:
746:
469:Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.
144:under the Declaratory Judgement Act,
84:Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998
780:Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp.
615:U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1:
450:Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp.
116:Klinger then co-edited a sequel to
31:Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd.
13:
743:
405:Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate Ltd.
225:MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
14:
881:
839:586 F.3d 513, 518 (7th Cir. 2009)
782:, 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930)
319:
150:In the Company of Sherlock Holmes
122:In the Company of Sherlock Holmes
104:, which was published in 2011 by
865:United States copyright case law
349:Validity of copyright protection
301:Court of Appeals decision (2014)
201:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
79:The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes
833:
820:
794:
785:
773:
764:
755:
732:
723:
714:
711:870 F.2d 40, 50 (2d Cir. 1989).
705:
696:
687:
398:
189:
860:2014 in United States case law
801:freesherlock (July 19, 2014).
678:
662:
634:
622:
609:
584:
531:
506:
481:
156:District Court decision (2013)
1:
475:
57:
354:Reiterating the decision in
120:, a second anthology titled
7:
422:
34:was a 2014 decision by the
10:
886:
257:should only be limited to
212:Case or Controversy Clause
387:for the Seventh Circuit,
375:Supreme Court proceedings
235:
130:W.W. Norton & Company
360:increment in expression
335:Justice Richard Posner
332:
246:Silverman v. CBC, Inc.
222:. He observed that in
63:Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
26:
327:
142:declaratory judgement
24:
693:549 U.S. 118 (2007),
596:conandoyleestate.com
720:988 F. Supp. at 13.
671:A Study in Sherlock
650:. December 30, 2022
389:Justice Elena Kagan
128:and distributed by
118:A Study in Sherlock
110:A Study in Sherlock
102:A Study in Sherlock
739:17 U.S.C. § 103(b)
702:988 F. Supp. at 8.
684:988 F. Supp. at 3.
434:Continuation novel
263:complex characters
146:28 U.S.C.S. § 2201
46:and his colleague
27:
220:U.S. Constitution
108:. The stories in
94:Leslie S. Klinger
88:Public Domain Day
877:
840:
837:
831:
824:
818:
817:
815:
813:
798:
792:
789:
783:
777:
771:
770:755 F.3d. at 12.
768:
762:
759:
753:
750:
741:
736:
730:
727:
721:
718:
712:
709:
703:
700:
694:
691:
685:
682:
676:
675:
666:
660:
659:
657:
655:
638:
632:
626:
620:
617:Copyright Basics
613:
607:
606:
604:
602:
588:
582:
581:
571:
563:
535:
529:
528:
526:
524:
510:
504:
503:
501:
499:
485:
439:Jean Conan Doyle
295:
268:
885:
884:
880:
879:
878:
876:
875:
874:
845:
844:
843:
838:
834:
825:
821:
811:
809:
799:
795:
791:755 F.3d at 13.
790:
786:
778:
774:
769:
765:
761:755 F.3d. at 7.
760:
756:
752:755 F.3d. at 5.
751:
744:
737:
733:
728:
724:
719:
715:
710:
706:
701:
697:
692:
688:
683:
679:
668:
667:
663:
653:
651:
640:
639:
635:
627:
623:
614:
610:
600:
598:
590:
589:
585:
565:
564:
552:
536:
532:
522:
520:
512:
511:
507:
497:
495:
487:
486:
482:
478:
444:Literary estate
425:
401:
385:Circuit Justice
377:
351:
322:
303:
293:
290:17 U.S.C. § 101
266:
259:flat characters
238:
206:District Judge
192:
158:
60:
48:Dr. John Watson
44:Sherlock Holmes
17:
12:
11:
5:
883:
873:
872:
867:
862:
857:
842:
841:
832:
819:
807:Free Sherlock!
793:
784:
772:
763:
754:
742:
731:
722:
713:
704:
695:
686:
677:
661:
633:
621:
608:
583:
550:
530:
505:
479:
477:
474:
473:
472:
465:
460:
453:
446:
441:
436:
431:
424:
421:
403:The ruling in
400:
397:
376:
373:
350:
347:
321:
318:
317:
316:
313:
302:
299:
298:
297:
274:
237:
234:
208:Ruben Castillo
191:
188:
184:
183:
179:
157:
154:
59:
56:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
882:
871:
868:
866:
863:
861:
858:
856:
853:
852:
850:
836:
830:
823:
808:
804:
797:
788:
781:
776:
767:
758:
749:
747:
740:
735:
726:
717:
708:
699:
690:
681:
673:
672:
665:
649:
648:
643:
637:
631:
625:
618:
612:
597:
593:
587:
579:
575:
569:
561:
557:
553:
551:1-56619-198-X
547:
543:
542:
534:
519:
515:
509:
494:
490:
484:
480:
471:
470:
466:
464:
461:
459:
458:
454:
452:
451:
447:
445:
442:
440:
437:
435:
432:
430:
427:
426:
420:
418:
414:
409:
406:
396:
394:
390:
386:
382:
372:
368:
364:
361:
357:
346:
342:
338:
336:
331:
326:
314:
311:
310:
309:
306:
291:
286:
282:
278:
275:
272:
271:Copyright Act
264:
260:
256:
251:
247:
243:
240:
239:
233:
229:
227:
226:
221:
217:
213:
209:
204:
202:
197:
187:
180:
177:
176:
175:
172:
168:
165:
164:
153:
151:
147:
143:
139:
133:
131:
127:
126:Pegasus Books
123:
119:
114:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
89:
85:
81:
80:
75:
74:public domain
70:
68:
64:
55:
51:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
32:
23:
19:
835:
822:
810:. Retrieved
806:
796:
787:
775:
766:
757:
734:
725:
716:
707:
698:
689:
680:
670:
664:
652:. Retrieved
645:
636:
624:
611:
599:. Retrieved
595:
586:
540:
533:
521:. Retrieved
517:
508:
496:. Retrieved
492:
483:
467:
455:
448:
416:
410:
404:
402:
399:Implications
378:
369:
365:
359:
355:
352:
343:
339:
333:
328:
323:
320:Jurisdiction
307:
304:
284:
280:
276:
262:
258:
254:
249:
245:
241:
230:
223:
205:
196:jurisdiction
193:
190:Jurisdiction
185:
173:
169:
161:
159:
149:
134:
121:
117:
115:
109:
106:Random House
101:
92:
77:
71:
61:
52:
30:
29:
28:
18:
216:Article III
849:Categories
654:January 7,
619:, pp. 5–6.
518:Justia Law
493:Justia Law
476:References
463:Solar Pons
393:certiorari
58:Background
568:cite book
383:from the
356:Silverman
277:Post-1923
255:Silverman
250:Silverman
100:, titled
98:pastiches
67:the Canon
812:June 20,
601:June 20,
560:36704211
523:June 19,
498:June 19,
423:See also
285:complete
281:complete
261:and not
242:Pre-1923
647:AP News
218:of the
558:
548:
267:
236:Merits
182:time).
413:Feist
814:2020
656:2023
603:2020
578:link
574:link
556:OCLC
546:ISBN
525:2020
500:2020
381:stay
214:in
851::
805:.
745:^
644:.
594:.
570:}}
566:{{
554:.
516:.
491:.
816:.
674:.
658:.
605:.
580:)
562:.
527:.
502:.
294:'
273:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
