• Latest
    • AI
    • Careers
    • Diversity
    • Future of IP
    • Law firm news
    • Standard-essential patents
    • Trade secrets
    • Unified Patent Court
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Copyright
  • Jurisdiction reports
  • Rankings
    • About Rankings
    • China Rankings
    • Germany Rankings
    • Global Rankings
    • UK Rankings
    • USA Rankings
    • Diversity & Inclusion Top 100 2025
    • Leaders 2025
    • Company Directory
  • WIPR Insights
    • Magazines
    • Whitepapers
  • Events
    • Conferences
    • Conference Videos
    • Webinars
  • About
  • Contact
  • Newsletter
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Newsletter
  • Login


Subscribe
  • Home
  • Copyright
  • Sherlock Holmes copyright dispute resolved
sherlock-1
6 January 2014Copyright

Sherlock Holmes copyright dispute resolved

The organisation which manages copyright protection for the Sherlock Holmes stories has been told authors may be able to use the character in future works without permission.

The US ruling means that, despite copyright only expiring on some of the stories, authors can depict the fictional detective without paying license fees or getting permission from the Conan Doyle Estate.

Sherlock Holmes was first created by Scottish scientist and author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in the late 1800’s.

The majority of his work is already in the public domain in the US having been published prior to 1923. However, 10 of his short stories, published after 1923, remain under copyright protection.

The dispute relates to a case at the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

It was first heard in February last year when US author Leslie Klinger attempted to publish an anthology called In the Company of Sherlock Holmes.

However, when publishing house Pegasus was contacted by the Doyle Estate to sign a licensing agreement, it refused and said it wanted a court to determine whether it could portray the character.

In its arguments, the estate argued that copyright protection for 10 short stories were not due to expire until 2022 and that the character should remain under complete copyright protection.

It also argued that as the later stories contained significant character developments for Holmes and his partner Dr Watson, it should protect the characters as a whole including their depiction in older works.

In a judgement published on December 23, Judge Ruben Castillo agreed that Doyle had continued to develop the characters and that they should stay protected until the remaining copyright runs out at the end of 2022.

However, Castillo said there were character elements, such as Holmes’s name and address, which were made available in earlier works and therefore not protected under copyright.

According to Jonathan Reichman, partner at Kenyon and Kenyon LLP in New York, the result was to be expected given US copyright rules.

“The rules surrounding works published before 1923 is very clear under US copyright law in that it will fall within the public domain,” said Reichman, adding that anything published after that date had the potential to be protected.

“The estate came up with what was a clever argument by saying that the characters were still evolving after the cut off period,” said Reichman.

“It’s a clever argument but it’s not a winning argument. The main basis of the characters were fully formed by the end of the pre 1923 stories and certainly contained enough elements for a new author to draw on.”

In a statement, Benjamin Allison, counsel for the Doyle Estate said there remained unanswered questions and that it was looking into an appeal.

“The estate hopes to appeal the decision so that Sherlock Holmes and many other significant characters created over a series of novels or stories receive protection for the full copyright term,” Allison said.

However, Allison added: “Even under the current ruling … all development of the Holmes and Watson characters by Sir Arthur in ten post-1922 stories remain fully protected by copyright. These ten stories—set at a variety of earlier points in the two men's fictional lives—contain significant elements of both characters.”

Klinger told the New York Times that he planned to continue writing his book.

“Sherlock Holmes belongs to the world, and this ruling clearly establishes that,” Klinger said. “People want to celebrate Holmes and Watson, and now they can do that without fear.”

Reichman added that he would expect an appeal from the estate despite it being a “long shot.”

“They [the estate] may feel as though they have nothing to lose – they put in a lot of effort so far so why not go for it.

However, Reichman added it was unlikely to set a precedent for authors failing to get a license to use works.

“I think it is fairly unusual to have a character portrayed across stories that straddled the 1923 line so it’s unlikely this issue will be presented again.”

Already registered?

Login to your account


If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.

For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Copyright
Court confirms Sherlock Holmes is in public domain
17 June 2014   A US appeals court has reaffirmed an earlier ruling that the popular Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain and his character may be used without permission from right holders.
Copyright
Author seeks Sherlock Holmes copyright removal
19 February 2013   A US author has asked a court to wipe any existing copyright protection over fictional crime detective Sherlock Holmes, 83 years after his creator’s death.


Editor's picks

A step too far? Why Stewart’s approach is dividing opinion
Patents
A step too far? Why Stewart’s approach is dividing opinion
20 June 2025

Editor's picks

Patents
A step too far? Why Stewart’s approach is dividing opinion
20 June 2025
Future of IP
‘Sad beige’ lawsuit shows how hard it is for influencers to stand out
20 June 2025
Trademarks
Creative licence: Inside the LEGO Group’s Asia playbook
16 June 2025
Copyright
‘Cynical and bewildering’: UK omits copyright protections in Data Bill
13 June 2025
Patents
Vidal: Stewart’s ruling steers IPR process ‘dangerously off course’
11 June 2025
AI
Getty slams Stability’s ‘distorted AI rubbish’ in opening arguments
10 June 2025

More articles

A step too far? Why Stewart’s approach is dividing opinion
What is an ‘AI training declaration’ and who might need one?
Vidal: Settled expectations factor is ‘unconstitutional overreach’
‘Sad beige’ lawsuit shows how hard it is for influencers to stand out
Stamped out: What was in the US Copyright Office AI report?
Third Circ grants first ‘fair use’ AI and copyright appeal in Thomson v ROSS
Getty bid to broaden claim shut down by Court of Appeal
How to cook a frog: The erosion of exclusive copyright in the EU

  • Home
  • News
  • Directory
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Terms of Subscription

WIPR
Newton Media Ltd
Kingfisher House
21-23 Elmfield Road
BR1 1LT
United Kingdom

  • Twitter
  • Linkedin