Lexplug logoLexplug

Leslie Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
111 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1065, 755 F.3d 496, 2014 WL 2726187 (2014)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a literary work enters the public domain, all elements of that work, including its characters, are free for public use. Copyright protection for subsequent derivative works featuring the same characters only covers the new, original elements added in those later works and does not extend or revive the copyright of the character as depicted in the original, public-domain works.


Facts:

  • Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a series of 56 stories and 4 novels featuring Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson.
  • The copyrights for the 46 stories and 4 novels published before 1923 have expired, placing those works in the public domain.
  • The copyrights for the final 10 stories, published between 1923 and 1927, are still held by the Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd. (the Doyle estate).
  • Leslie Klinger co-edited an anthology of new stories inspired by the Holmes canon, for which his first publisher paid a license fee to the Doyle estate under pressure.
  • For a planned second anthology, Klinger arranged for Pegasus Books to publish it.
  • The Doyle estate informed Pegasus Books that it must obtain a license to publish the second anthology.
  • The Doyle estate threatened to work with major retailers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble to prevent the sale of the book if it were published without a license.
  • As a result of the estate's threats, Pegasus Books refused to publish Klinger's book until he obtained a license.

Procedural Posture:

  • Leslie Klinger sued the Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd. in federal district court, seeking a declaratory judgment.
  • The Doyle estate initially failed to respond to the complaint and was found in default.
  • The district court allowed Klinger to file a motion for summary judgment, to which the Doyle estate responded.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Klinger, issuing the declaratory judgment that he was free to use the public-domain material.
  • The Doyle estate, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the copyright protection for a literary character that is developed across a series of works extend to cover the character as a whole until the copyright on the final work in the series expires, thereby preventing the use of the character as depicted in earlier, public-domain works?


Opinions:

Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge

No. When a story enters the public domain, its elements, including its characters, become fair game for follow-on authors. The court found no basis in statute or case law to extend a copyright beyond its expiration date simply because a character was further developed in later, copyrighted works. The ten later Sherlock Holmes stories are derivative works, and their copyrights protect only the incremental, original additions made in those stories, not the underlying characters who were fully developed in the earlier, now public-domain works. Citing Silverman v. CBS Inc., the court affirmed that copyrights in derivative works protect only the new creative contributions. The estate's argument for protecting 'round' characters until their final depiction is copyrighted would improperly shrink the public domain, increase costs for future creators, and discourage creativity by incentivizing authors to recycle old characters rather than create new ones. The alterations in the later stories do not revive the expired copyrights on the original characters.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the scope of copyright for characters that evolve over a series of works. It rejects the concept of a single, holistic copyright for a character, confirming that character elements enter the public domain along with the specific works in which they are depicted. The ruling strengthens the public domain, providing greater freedom and legal certainty for creators wishing to build upon iconic characters from expired works. This precedent limits the ability of copyright holders to leverage copyrights on later derivative works to control the use of material from earlier works that are legally in the public domain.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Leslie Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd. (2014)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"