Post by K'Sennia Visitor on Jun 26, 2020 16:29:48 GMT
[Article] Arthur Conan Doyle’s estate sues Netflix for giving Sherlock Holmes too many feelings
Respecting women: covered by copyright?
By Adi Robertson@thedextriarchy Jun 25, 2020, 12:32pm EDT
Share this story
The estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has sued Netflix over its upcoming film Enola Holmes, arguing that the movie’s depiction of public domain character Sherlock Holmes having emotions and respecting women violates Doyle’s copyright.
Enola Holmes is based on a series of novels by Nancy Springer starring a newly created teenage sister of the famous detective. They feature many elements from Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, and most of these elements aren’t covered by copyright, thanks to a series of court rulings in the early 2010s. Details from 10 stories, however, are still owned by Doyle’s estate. The estate argues that Springer’s books — and by extension Netflix’s adaptation — draw key elements from those stories. It’s suing not only Netflix, but Springer, her publisher Penguin Random House, and the film’s production company for unspecified financial damages.
The Doyle estate made a similar argument five years ago in a lawsuit against Miramax for its film Mr. Holmes — among other things, it claimed Mr. Holmes included plot details about Holmes’ retirement, which only happens in the final stories. But its new argument is a lot more abstract: basically, if this movie wants Sherlock Holmes to express emotions, its creators need to pay up.
Share this story
The estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has sued Netflix over its upcoming film Enola Holmes, arguing that the movie’s depiction of public domain character Sherlock Holmes having emotions and respecting women violates Doyle’s copyright.
Enola Holmes is based on a series of novels by Nancy Springer starring a newly created teenage sister of the famous detective. They feature many elements from Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, and most of these elements aren’t covered by copyright, thanks to a series of court rulings in the early 2010s. Details from 10 stories, however, are still owned by Doyle’s estate. The estate argues that Springer’s books — and by extension Netflix’s adaptation — draw key elements from those stories. It’s suing not only Netflix, but Springer, her publisher Penguin Random House, and the film’s production company for unspecified financial damages.
The Doyle estate made a similar argument five years ago in a lawsuit against Miramax for its film Mr. Holmes — among other things, it claimed Mr. Holmes included plot details about Holmes’ retirement, which only happens in the final stories. But its new argument is a lot more abstract: basically, if this movie wants Sherlock Holmes to express emotions, its creators need to pay up.
Read the rest of the story here -> www.theverge.com/2020/6/25/21302942/netflix-enola-holmes-sherlock-arthur-conan-doyle-estate-lawsuit-copyright-infringement
I thought this might be of interest to any publishers who like to incorporate public domain material in your works.
Yeah, I got rid of it because I wasn't impressed. I didn't care for the original Netflix shows or movies and the other stuff was stuff you can see anywhere. I just watch movies and shows on other apps now. We also still have cable because we love sports. If it wasn't for sports we'd get rid of cable too. I don't see the big deal about Netflix and seems to me that the longer they are around, the worst they get. I think they were better when they had to compete with cable, etc. Once they ended up surpassing cable and other outlets it's like they felt they didn't have to work as hard with the programming. Just my take. Kind of like Amazon, once you take over a market you're not gonna continue to break your back to be the best. You already are. But Netflix has lost a lot of ground due to tons of free apps out there and other paid companies coming along. 
