# Sherlock Holmes, action hero and ladies' man **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 3, 2009, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851 "2009-04-03T13:36:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851/41 "2009-04-05T16:49:51Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Wow, that is one seriously bogus claim. The copyrights expired in 2000, as far as I know all the books were written before 1922 so what exactly are they claiming? Trademark on the deerstalker hat and pipe? Has anyone challenged them on this claim? Because if the character was described in a book that is out of copyright, anyone can produce new works based on that character. Otherwise the heirs of Prof Dodgson could claim Alice is their property, or someone could dig up an heir of Shakespere to assert that every production of Romeo and Juliet owes them money. That’s the thing, they weren’t all written before 1922. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851/42 "2009-04-05T18:54:20Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > That’s the thing, they weren’t all written before 1922. Then the stories written after 1922 should have protection. But the ones written before 1922 and the character and all actions and behavior of the character from prior to 1922 should be in the public domain. I hope somebody take this to court and challenges this nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851/43 "2009-04-05T19:09:08Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > There’s also a dog Sherlock. It’s not too bad. > > [Sherlock Hound](http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/holmes/) Don’t forget the Sherlock who works in a hospital and is generally the bane of the hospital’s lawyers’ existence. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851/44 "2009-04-05T19:18:20Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > Don’t forget the Sherlock who works in a hospital and is generally the bane of the hospital’s lawyers’ existence. Right, and that one is portrayed as both having a sex life and a serious inability to form a healthy releationship with women, with one platonic exception based on intellectual attraction. If they portray Holmes as sexually active yet unable to maintain any sort of attachment to women, I think it could still be reasonably faithful to the character. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851/45 "2009-04-05T19:19:31Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Then the stories written after 1922 should have protection. But the ones written before 1922 and the character and all actions and behavior of the character from prior to 1922 should be in the public domain. > > I hope somebody take this to court and challenges this nonsense. Okay, so you can feel free to make a movie of _A Study in Scarlet_ if you want to, but it can’t contain any of the characters also contained in stories written after 1922. It would be a pretty crappy movie without Holmes and Watson, I’d say. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851/46 "2009-04-05T19:24:30Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > Then the stories written after 1922 should have protection. But the ones written before 1922 and the character and all actions and behavior of the character from prior to 1922 should be in the public domain. > > I hope somebody take this to court and challenges this nonsense. I find it all very confusing, especially with the whole trademark thing thrown in. Apparently it caused a minor skiffle when they did the Holmes episode on Star Trek TNG because they hadn’t realized he was still under some form of protection. ---
**Author:** ![gaffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e68b1a/32.png) [@gaffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gaffa)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851/47 "2009-04-05T23:40:58Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > Okay, so you can feel free to make a movie of _A Study in Scarlet_ if you want to, but it can’t contain any of the characters also contained in stories written after 1922. It would be a pretty crappy movie without Holmes and Watson, I’d say. Sorry, but that’s completely contrary to the intent of copyright term expiration. The later books are still in copyright, but I’ve never heard anyone argue that you could retroactively put expired works back into copyright after they have expired by creating a new work incorporating characters from the old work. For example, the [copyright status of Peter Pan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan,_or_the_Boy_Who_Wouldn%27t_Grow_Up#Copyright_status), while complicated, makes it clear that the characters of Peter, Wendy, Captain Hook, and the rest are in the public domain. Things that were added to the play, which by not being published in the US until 1928 remains in copyright, are not in the public domain. So any character attributes that Holmes and Watson possessed in the books that are in the public domain, as well as the characters themselves, are free to use. This sounds like one of those situations where the owner of a copyright to _some_ of an artist’s work asserts a claim on _all_ of that artist’s work hoping that people will pay the fee rather than taking them to court to to clarify everything. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851/48 "2009-04-06T01:48:29Z")
> [@gaffa](#): > > For example, the [copyright status of Peter Pan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pan,_or_the_Boy_Who_Wouldn%27t_Grow_Up#Copyright_status), while complicated, makes it clear that the characters of Peter, Wendy, Captain Hook, and the rest are in the public domain. Except in England, probably part of the “complication” you were referring to, as Bill Willingham found out the hard way. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851/49 "2009-04-06T02:37:09Z")
You could set up a printing press in your garage and churn out as many copies of _A Study in Scarlet_ as you wanted, and legally sell them, since the copyright is expired. That has no impact on the question of whether the trademarks are still protected or not, though. They’re two completely separate areas of law. ---
**Author:** ![Mycroft\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/898d66/32.png) [@Mycroft\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mycroft_H)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851/50 "2009-04-06T04:02:21Z")
Great discussion! As for myself, I think an action Holmes would be in line with the original concept. As others have said, I’ll have to see how the female situation is handled to determine my reaction. However, I am looking forward to this movie very much. From what I’ve been able to read on this, it seems as it if should be good. At least I have my hopes. The release of _The Seven Per-Cent Solution_ in 1976 caused a large increase in people interested in the stories. Sherlockians generally are hoping for a similar response from this film. It has been a few years since a good one has been released. There has been talk of another effort with Sasha Cohen and Will Ferrell. The thought of _that_ one turns my stomach. As for gay film presentations (non-Canonical!), there has been one - _The American Adventures of Surelick Holms_ (1971). On the subject of copyright – the stories collected in _The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes_ (first printed 1927) were renewed by Conan Doyle’s children and are still in copyright in the US. I forget the status in the UK and EU of that book. I _think_ they are all still in effect. All other stories are in the public domain. As for trademark, Andrea Plunkett and Jonathan Clowes Ltd. have lost every single case brought against them by the estate of Arthur Conan Doyle. Their claim of trademark ownership is bogus, but they still push it whenever they can. (The US representative of the ACD literary estate is a friend of mine.) Some groups, when researching copyright, go for the easy solution rather than the right solution. I can’t remember if Plunkett, et al, caused the problem with the Star Trek episodes directly, or if it was a misunderstanding otherwise related to them. Pity because they were great episodes, and I think they wanted to do more but were scared off. If anyone is interested in a comprehensive list of Sherlock Holmes related films, send me an e-mail. I have it as a 255 KB Excel file and would be glad to share. Last thing – **Dex** , you saw Basil Rathbone? Cool! What’s the story behind that? (If you don’t mind sharing.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sherlock-holmes-action-hero-and-ladies-man/491851.md?page=2)