“Allowing Plaintiffs to prevent the creation of new works with material in the public domain goes against the ‘carefully crafted bargain’ set forth in copyright law and attempts to create perpetual copyright The Plaintiff should be denied, “the lawyer of Netflix, Legendary and others argue that named the defendant in the lawsuit.
Sherlock Holmes creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has been dead for seven decades – but the producer is behind Netflix’s 2020 film Enola Holmes says that the writer’s legacy is trying to discourage the creator from using the iconic detective character in the original works unjustly.
Conan Doyle’s estate in June sued Netflix, Legendary Pictures, The Mystery of Enola Holmes author Nancy Springer and others related to the movie led by Millie Bobby Brown, including screenwriter Jack Thorne and director Harry Bradbeer. Central to the film is Brown̵7;s Enola, Sherlock’s sister, and stars Henry Cavill as the famous killer.
More than 50 of the author’s novels and short stories about Sherlock Holmes are “undeniable in the public domain”, the defendants argued in a rebuttal proposal submitted on Friday, adding that the estate was in progress. attempt to force third parties to pay for the use of characters in their works.
The family has argued that traits portrayed by the iconic detective in later works, still protected – warmer, more empathetic and respectful of women – were used in the film. is in violation of its copyright.
Defendants’ lawyer, Nicolas Jampol of Davis Wright Tremaine, argues that it is a “fundamental tenet” of copyright law that ideas cannot be protected and their shared feelings, emotions, and characteristics the same way.
Jampol wrote: “In this case, even though Emotional Features and Respectful Characteristics are originals of copyrighted works, they are not ideas that cannot be protected. “Copyright law does not allow the possession of general concepts such as warmth, kindness, empathy or respect, even when expressed by a figure in the public domain – of course, belonging to public, not Plaintiff. “
Jampol then goes through a list of works in the public domain in which Holmes embodies those traits, including an example of a detective treating a woman “with nothing but kindness. and respect “in a 1892 story. Jampol also argued that the estate’s claims that Holmes” cared much for dogs and that the friendship with Dr. Watson could be protected was inappropriate because of Watson. is not in the movie and there are not any scenes where Sherlock interacts with dogs.
Real estate Conan Doyle is also suing for trademark infringement because of the title of the film Holmes. Jampol argued that the statement should be disproved because of the title Enola Holmes is art-related to the film and it does not “explicitly fool” the public into thinking that the property is related to the film.
“Here, the Plaintiff tries to use trademark law to do what copyright law can no longer do: prevent others from using and adapting Sherlock Holmes in their own work,” Jampol writes. “But this is not a function of trademark law. Allowing Plaintiffs to prevent the creation of new works with material in the public domain goes against the ‘carefully crafted bargain’ in the law. Plaintiff’s copyright and attempt to create perpetual copyright will be denied. “
Read the full movement below.