I speak of course, about the fact that while 90% of his stories are public domain, the Doyle estate STILL gets to sue the living hell out of you because you dared to give your version of the character a personality other than what is portrayed in the what, handful of books that aren't public domain yet? I say 'guarded' in quotes, because it's literally the simplest shit that sets them off. If you portray him in any way similar to the last books that aren't in public domain, apparently they reserve the right to sue you. I don't think there *are* any other characters quite like him, it's a shame too because I'm sure many would love to pay the licensing fees to work with the character. But at this point there's no salvaging any good will Doyle estate once had with the industry. It's quite funny that they CAN'T sue you if you use exactly the same character and call him Herlock Sholmes.
I mean, they can try, but the court has dismissed a few cases of this because the character only closely resembles Sherlock Holmes. One of their most egregious (I think that's the right word) cases is with Enola holmes movie. He's not in the movie for what, ten minutes? I guess as long as the name isn't Sherlock Holmes they can't do much in court, even if the characters are otherwise the same. It's how Capcom finally got away with localizing the Great Ace Attorney games.
As far as copyright goes, the name doesn’t really matter. The name isn’t subject to copyright protection to begin with, at least not in the U.S. If you have a character that is a spot-on duplicate of one that is covered by copyright, that would be infringement irrespective of the name. However, if you are writing a parody, you may have a defense (again in the U.S.)
The Tolkien estate in general is notoriously protective of their material. I would dare say even to a Sherlock Holmes level.
As they should be! Oh God no! People really should make their own stuff up. Apart from taxes and dying, both of which are disputed, there are a few absolute incontrovertibles in life. 1. No more Xfactor tryouts should ruin Hallelujah and just leave it to Tim Buckley's son. 2. No-one should record Raglan Road after Luke Kelly's insurmountable rendition. 3. No-one writing today is going to improve Tolkien, Doyle, Dickens, etc. Leave the masters be.
Or you can set it in contemporary times, make him a medical sleuth, and change his name to Gregory House.
James Bond as well. Whoever owns the movie rights sued Honda in the 1990s over a sixty-second car commercial. I don't think the character in the commercial even had a name, but they convinced a court it was basically a clone of James Bond and the court issued an injunction against Honda.
Intellectual property is a dumb idea. HP Lovecraft had the right idea in inviting everyone to have fun with his characters.
Well yes, but I can understand why say GRRM wouldn’t want people messing with his stuff posthumously. But threadwise, Godzilla and Toho.
Yeah, I think context here is important. The court won't even bother trying to defend a lawsuit against a word-for -word copy of Sherlock himself as a character. I think Ace Attorney has a defense (har) though. It's generally seen as satirical with fun characters that barely resemble what inspired them. I feel like Herlock Sholmes in The Great Ace Attorney is probably going to be more in line with a parody, which parodies are within creative commons I think. (Even though to parody certain stuff you need permission from the IP owners or something)
The idea that a story or characters are “your own” as soon as someone else meets them is a modern illusion propagated by bourgeois ideology which all artists should hate in every atom of their being. Indeed our creations as they form in our brains are themselves refractions of collective experiences that have culminated in our individual expressions. Creation is always both a collective and individual affair the sooner writers realize that the sooner they can behave as a glorious community instead of a frenzy of squires each scrabbling to become lords in some baron’s mud pit. Nobody bothered to call Ovid or Wu Cheng’en or Shakespeare fanfic writers- and anyone who does today is an ass- because the insane and stupid idea of an individual writer’s “canon” (grimly guarded by legions of lawyers) didn’t exist when the myths and legends they drew on were breathed to life. Thank Sarasvati or Crom or whoever that the person who first burped forth some version of the swan maiden tale wasn’t such a creep as to think of patenting it.
I don’t know who that is but what’s he afraid of? How many plays, movies, comics, tv shows, and video games have been made of Journey to the West, without affecting the quality of the novel one iota?
CliffNotes version: Panda's saying that once your character is made public, it belongs to the public and public interpretation and its stupid to want to control how people interpret your characters
The idea that a story or characters are “your own” as soon as someone else meets them is a modern illusion propagated by bourgeois ideology which all artists should hate in every atom of their being. That is such a good sentence. I'm not talking about controlling how readers interpret a character created by someone else. I'm not even talking about reinterpreting fairytales or Shakespeare. I'm talking about the value of writers delving into their own imaginations to find out what is there and bringing it out rather than continuing someone else's train of thought and flights of fancy. It's a matter of exploring one's own creative mind rather than an insistence on ownership of a character or idea.
I find it rare that anyone can do characters justice in the same way the original author could anyway. I mean, it's not like I haven't copied other authors' settings (although never their characters), and I like to flatter myself that I made a good fist of it, but objectively, probably not.