6 ms·

I am fascinated by the nuance that went into this decision. The argument by the Doyle estate intrigues me: they claim that the characters themselves (as a sort

I am fascinated by the nuance that went into this decision. The argument by the Doyle estate intrigues me: they claim that the characters themselves (as a sort of platonic form) were not fully developed until Doyle stopped writing. For example, they would argue that in every story, Watson had once played rugby, though this fact wasn't published until a later story. Thus this aspect of Watson's character is still protected. The real meat of their argument is that the pieces that were "discovered" after 1923 are so central to Watson that there's no un-copyright-ed Watson left if those pieces are still protected. (But the judge rejected that argument.) This seems sensible if you imagine Sir Doyle "discovering", not "inventing", Watson.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> This seems sensible if you imagine Sir Doyle "discovering", not "inventing", Watson. If you imagine that, then you would be imagining Watson right out of the scope of copyright, which covers creations, not discoveries.
- morley 13y ago
  I think you're distinction is a semantic one. pavpanchekha could have easily framed his observation as Sir Doyle "creating" aspects of Watson's character.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    No, the whole point was the distinction between "discovering" and "inventing", a distinction which would not exist if "discovering" was replaced with "creating".
    - crygin 13y ago
      You're not a Platonist, are you? Regardless, it would be plausible to imagine a character conceived of by an author, who has curious behaviors in early stories, the motivation for which is only revealed in a much later story. This would be an example of a process of "discovery" about a character, but this discovery is happening in the form of revelations in the text rather than by the act of the author. If you wanted to make the analogy more precise, you could imagine a character created with peculiar traits, and the author later realizes a single explanation for those traits which they had not originally conceived, which they then write into a story. In these two cases, the effect on the reader might be identical, but in one essential information about the character was held back and in one it was developed later. All of this is a little academic, though, since none of the information about Holmes & Watson in the post-1923 stories has a material effect on their characters, as ACD's estate attempted to argue.
      - mburns 13y ago
        > In these two cases, the effect on the reader might be identical, but in one essential information about the character was held back and in one it was developed later. But we aren't talking about the reader. We're talking about the author. Plot reveals later in the story (that the reader experiences) have nothing to do with an author writing those things over time. If Doyle 'discovered' Watson (not created), then Watson is not copyrightable. If Doyle created Watson (which he clearly did, being the author of a fictitious character in a series of fictional novels and stories) then Doyle didn't "discover" anything, he just refined his creation.
  - ZeroMinx 13y ago
    you're -> your Sorry.. I'm not of native English tongue myself, but this one annoys me to no end.
    - stan_rogers 13y ago
      While we're at it, it would be "Sir Arthur" in short form, though it's really nor proper to use the honorific at all after a knight is deceased -- the knighthood is strictly a lifetime honour, and dies with the knight. In the case of people like Arthur Conan Doyle, it makes biographical sketches awkward, since he was a Knight Bachelor, not a knight of an order of chivalry, so there isn't a "real" postnominal you can use in a list of awards and decorations ("Kt" is usually used these days, but it's easily confused with "KT", indicating a Knight of the Order of the Thistle, when set in traditional small caps); one needs to either break the rules or use something like "in life he was styled...".
      - icambron 13y ago
        I believe the safest and least weird thing to do is simply not call anyone by the ridiculous honorific "Sir" or generally maintain the distinction between knights of any order and the rest of us.
        kbenson 13y ago
        Do you consider doctor (MD or PhD) to be similarly ridiculous, or do you make a distinction?
        icambron 13y ago
        Also ridiculous. That some institution granted you a degree doesn't compel the rest of us to call you by a special name. When I ask medical doctors about that (my wife is one, for example), their main reason for supporting the "Dr" title is that it creates a sort of formal separation between the patient and the doctor which keeps things professional, similar to how we had to call our elementary teachers "Mr" or "Ms". I don't buy that argument; for example, why wouldn't that apply equally to nurses? To me, it's seems like a trick for lending them an artificial air of authority. I know a lot of people with PhDs, but I can't think of any who want to be called "Doctor", because that's exceedingly silly. I know it works a bit differently outside of the US.
- mcv 13y ago
  > If you imagine that, then you would be imagining Watson right out of the scope of copyright, which covers creations, not discoveries. More precisely, copyright covers expressions, not inventions or discoveries. And any patent on Watson has long run out. So it seems to me that writing new stories involving Watson, even ones where he played rugby, should be perfectly fine. Just reproducing the later stories is not allowed without permission.
bluekitten 13y ago
That's an interesting argument, but I guess it fell flat because the work itself is subject to copyright, and someone else can now "invent" a Watson that never played rugby.
ijk 13y ago
The irony is that the 10 post-1923 stories are mostly sub-par and include some of the most out-of-character moments. In my mind not using them is an improvement, though I doubt that my opinion is authoritative enough to influence the case.
twocommas 13y ago
"At a deep level, the act of discover and the act of creation are identical." -Kevin Kelly (1) Years ago I spoke with Kevin about this notion and it's relation to quantum mechanics. "Did the particle already exist in XYZ state (discover) or did you observation manifest (create) it." We agreed, it's the exact same thing. (1) http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2010/01/tending_the_gar.php http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2010/01/tending_the_gar.p...
loceng 13y ago
This would leave the copyright open-ended forever, so long as they continued to evolve the character..
- pavpanchekha 13y ago
  Well, so in fact the court did strike down the Conan Doyle estate's interpretation of things, so we can continue talking about Conan Doyle creating, not discovering, the character of Watson. And you are right: siding with the Conan Doyle estate would raise questions. If you'll excuse me to snark for a moment, though: isn't that exactly what's happening with Mickey Mouse? The character keeps evolving and the copyright remains open-ended forever?
  - chrismcb 13y ago
    No that is not what is happening with Mickey Mouse. What is happening with Mickey Mouse is every time Steamboat Willie comes close to being released into public domain, the length of copyright is extended. Steamboat Willie came out after 1923, and is currently set to expire in 2023. Unless of course the law is changed to extended it.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> This seems sensible if you imagine Sir Doyle "discovering", not "inventing", Watson. If you imagine that, then you would be imagining Watson right out of the scope of copyright, which covers creations, not discoveries.

morley 13y ago
I think you're distinction is a semantic one. pavpanchekha could have easily framed his observation as Sir Doyle "creating" aspects of Watson's character.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  No, the whole point was the distinction between "discovering" and "inventing", a distinction which would not exist if "discovering" was replaced with "creating".
  - crygin 13y ago
    You're not a Platonist, are you? Regardless, it would be plausible to imagine a character conceived of by an author, who has curious behaviors in early stories, the motivation for which is only revealed in a much later story. This would be an example of a process of "discovery" about a character, but this discovery is happening in the form of revelations in the text rather than by the act of the author. If you wanted to make the analogy more precise, you could imagine a character created with peculiar traits, and the author later realizes a single explanation for those traits which they had not originally conceived, which they then write into a story. In these two cases, the effect on the reader might be identical, but in one essential information about the character was held back and in one it was developed later. All of this is a little academic, though, since none of the information about Holmes & Watson in the post-1923 stories has a material effect on their characters, as ACD's estate attempted to argue.
    - mburns 13y ago
      > In these two cases, the effect on the reader might be identical, but in one essential information about the character was held back and in one it was developed later. But we aren't talking about the reader. We're talking about the author. Plot reveals later in the story (that the reader experiences) have nothing to do with an author writing those things over time. If Doyle 'discovered' Watson (not created), then Watson is not copyrightable. If Doyle created Watson (which he clearly did, being the author of a fictitious character in a series of fictional novels and stories) then Doyle didn't "discover" anything, he just refined his creation.
- ZeroMinx 13y ago
  you're -> your Sorry.. I'm not of native English tongue myself, but this one annoys me to no end.
  - stan_rogers 13y ago
    While we're at it, it would be "Sir Arthur" in short form, though it's really nor proper to use the honorific at all after a knight is deceased -- the knighthood is strictly a lifetime honour, and dies with the knight. In the case of people like Arthur Conan Doyle, it makes biographical sketches awkward, since he was a Knight Bachelor, not a knight of an order of chivalry, so there isn't a "real" postnominal you can use in a list of awards and decorations ("Kt" is usually used these days, but it's easily confused with "KT", indicating a Knight of the Order of the Thistle, when set in traditional small caps); one needs to either break the rules or use something like "in life he was styled...".
    - icambron 13y ago
      I believe the safest and least weird thing to do is simply not call anyone by the ridiculous honorific "Sir" or generally maintain the distinction between knights of any order and the rest of us.
      - kbenson 13y ago
        Do you consider doctor (MD or PhD) to be similarly ridiculous, or do you make a distinction?
        icambron 13y ago
        Also ridiculous. That some institution granted you a degree doesn't compel the rest of us to call you by a special name. When I ask medical doctors about that (my wife is one, for example), their main reason for supporting the "Dr" title is that it creates a sort of formal separation between the patient and the doctor which keeps things professional, similar to how we had to call our elementary teachers "Mr" or "Ms". I don't buy that argument; for example, why wouldn't that apply equally to nurses? To me, it's seems like a trick for lending them an artificial air of authority. I know a lot of people with PhDs, but I can't think of any who want to be called "Doctor", because that's exceedingly silly. I know it works a bit differently outside of the US.
mcv 13y ago
> If you imagine that, then you would be imagining Watson right out of the scope of copyright, which covers creations, not discoveries. More precisely, copyright covers expressions, not inventions or discoveries. And any patent on Watson has long run out. So it seems to me that writing new stories involving Watson, even ones where he played rugby, should be perfectly fine. Just reproducing the later stories is not allowed without permission.

bluekitten 13y ago

That's an interesting argument, but I guess it fell flat because the work itself is subject to copyright, and someone else can now "invent" a Watson that never played rugby.

ijk 13y ago

The irony is that the 10 post-1923 stories are mostly sub-par and include some of the most out-of-character moments. In my mind not using them is an improvement, though I doubt that my opinion is authoritative enough to influence the case.

twocommas 13y ago

"At a deep level, the act of discover and the act of creation are identical." -Kevin Kelly (1) Years ago I spoke with Kevin about this notion and it's relation to quantum mechanics. "Did the particle already exist in XYZ state (discover) or did you observation manifest (create) it." We agreed, it's the exact same thing. (1) http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2010/01/tending_the_gar.php http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2010/01/tending_the_gar.p...

loceng 13y ago

This would leave the copyright open-ended forever, so long as they continued to evolve the character..

pavpanchekha 13y ago
Well, so in fact the court did strike down the Conan Doyle estate's interpretation of things, so we can continue talking about Conan Doyle creating, not discovering, the character of Watson. And you are right: siding with the Conan Doyle estate would raise questions. If you'll excuse me to snark for a moment, though: isn't that exactly what's happening with Mickey Mouse? The character keeps evolving and the copyright remains open-ended forever?
- chrismcb 13y ago
  No that is not what is happening with Mickey Mouse. What is happening with Mickey Mouse is every time Steamboat Willie comes close to being released into public domain, the length of copyright is extended. Steamboat Willie came out after 1923, and is currently set to expire in 2023. Unless of course the law is changed to extended it.