
Enola Holmes sued due to giving Sherlock “copyrighted” emotions - occamschainsaw
https://news.avclub.com/netflix-might-be-in-legal-trouble-for-giving-sherlock-h-1844863748
======
vmilner
The complaint reads:

"When Conan Doyle came back to Holmes in the Copyrighted Stories between 1923
and 1927, it was no longer enough that the Holmes character was the most
brilliant rational and analytical mind. Holmes needed to be human. The
character needed to develop human connection and empathy."

This seems surprising given:

"I fear that it is at a cost which will give pain to my friends, and
especially, my dear Watson, to you."

    
    
         - The Final Problem (1894)
    

"“My dear Watson,” said the well-remembered voice, “I owe you a thousand
apologies. I had no idea that you would be so affected.”

    
    
         - The Empty House (1903)
    

“Upon my word, Watson!” said Holmes at last with an unsteady voice, “I owe you
both my thanks and an apology. It was an unjustifiable experiment even for
one’s self, and doubly so for a friend. I am really very sorry.”“You know,” I
answered with some emotion, for I have never seen so much of Holmes’s heart
before, “that it is my greatest joy and privilege to help you.”

    
    
         - The Devil's Foot (1910)

------
eqvinox
That headline and article view is really not quite getting the point.

The estate's argument is that the Sherlock character from the later stories is
significantly different from the earlier one by the change in emotions. Which
sounds kinda-sorta reasonable, though I'm not a legal expert and it doesn't
seem clear-cut. Characters are, however, copyrightable.

------
everdumb
the Doyle estate argues that, while they admittedly lost the copyright to all
of the Holmes stories written before 1923—i.e., most of them—into the public
domain back in 2014, it’s only in the latter stories that they still have the
rights to that Doyle began to give Holmes recognizable human emotions. (A
reaction, they argue, to Doyle wrestling with his grief over the loved ones he
lost during World War I.) Said feelings—like, say, being worried about his
(non-canonical) sister Enola—are thus a new element Doyle only introduced in
those later stories, which makes them trademarked elements still controlled by
the family

The fact that nonsense like this legally credible in one of those things where
I feel the need to scream but do not have a legal mouth to scream with. It's
strange how these rich people legacy estates can seem like such parasites.
Looking forward to the Rowling estate attacking all of fantasy in the
centuries to come.

------
dTal
An interesting legal argument. The crux of this would be if the emotions on
display were sufficiently similar - and idiosyncratic - to count as a derived
work. Emotions are a human universal, so it probably doesn't fly to claim that
_any_ emotions are inspired by Doyle's later Holmes work. Take, by analogy,
eating; if Doyle had simply omitted to mention Holmes eating until a later
work, I don't think it could be argued that _any_ depiction of him eating is
derivative of that work. If on the other hand he had specifically made a point
of describing Holmes as enjoying frankfurters, which he stashed in his pocket
to be consumed while on the case, then this unusual behaviour could still be
under copyright.

Since emotions are far more slippery than a frankfurter, this case - while
likely weak - hinges on a point of literary interpretation.

Disclaimer: IANAL

