3 ms·
It's super interesting -- you end up in a situation where the bare character can be used, but subsequent developments of the character remain under copyright.
by dogecoinbase 8y ago
It's super interesting -- you end up in a situation where the bare character can be used, but subsequent developments of the character remain under copyright. This actually makes it extremely difficult to use characters since you wind up in a situation where the modern character as you understand it is inaccessible.
Sherlock Holmes is a famous example of this -- good overview of the extended legal situation here: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1164&context=ckjip https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe...
- plankers 8y agoThat was an interesting read. After reading both that and the other comments the only solid conclusion I can come to is that literary and visual intellectual property are handled differently, as evidenced by thid quote from the paper: Judge Castillo stated that “[b]ecause the Seventh Circuit’s incremental expression case law focuses on images rather than literature, it is difficult to apply its precedent seamlessly.”
- Crontab 8y agoOther examples are Conan and Tarzan.