Summary
This article examines the legal emancipation of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson following the landmark Leslie Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate Ltd case. The US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the majority of Sherlock Holmes works, except for a few stories written between 1923 and 1927, are now in the public domain due to expired copyright. The piece explains how the Conan Doyle Estate previously enforced licensing and how the court’s clarification allows public use of these characters. It highlights the difference in copyright status between the original stories and those written later. The analysis underscores the legal relevance and implications for authors and the use of literary characters in the public domain.
Background
The characters of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, have been at the centre of a long-running dispute over copyright ownership. Following the death of Sir Conan Doyle, the Conan Doyle Estate assumed ownership of those characters and routinely required authors wishing to use them to obtain a licence, offered at a cost of US$ 5000.
When Leslie Klinger and Laurie King sought to publish a new anthology titled “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes,” the Conan Doyle Estate wrote to the publisher, Pegasus, reminding it of the licensing requirement. The Estate’s letter stated:
“If you proceed instead to bring out Study in Sherlock II (the original title of In the Company of Sherlock Holmes) unlicensed, do not expect to see it offered for sale by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and similar retailers. We work with those companies routinely to weed out unlicensed uses of Sherlock Holmes from their offerings, and will not hesitate to do so with your book as well.”
Pegasus declined to proceed without a licence. Klinger, who took the view that the Sherlockean characters had passed into the public domain, brought a declaratory judgment action against the Conan Doyle Estate rather than submit to the licensing demand.
Question Before the Court
Whether the characters of Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, and other elements of the Sherlockean world depicted in stories published before 1923 had entered the public domain, or whether the copyright in those characters continued to subsist by reason of the later stories published between 1923 and 1927.
Findings
Circuit Judge Posner, writing for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, found that the 46 stories and 4 novels written by Sir Conan Doyle before 1923 had been subject to copyright for 75 years from the date of publication, which expired no later than 1997. The 10 stories written between 1923 and 1927 were governed by an amended law under which copyright subsists for 95 years from the date of publication, expiring in the period 2018 to 2022. The original characters as portrayed in the pre-1923 works — including Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, and the associated characters — were therefore in the public domain.
By Order dated June 16, 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that the characters of the Sherlockean world, as depicted in those earlier works, are no longer protected by copyright. Only the novel traits or developments introduced in the final 10 stories — published between 1923 and 1927 — retain copyright protection until the respective 95-year terms expire.
The Conan Doyle Estate petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court. On November 3, 2014, the Supreme Court rejected that petition. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling thereby stood confirmed.
Significance
As it stands, any character or element of the Sherlockean world, except for traits introduced in the last 10 stories, is part of the public domain. Authors may use Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, and the established attributes of those characters — including the detective’s deerstalker hat and his methods of deduction — as protagonists or elements in new literary works without any requirement to obtain a licence from the Conan Doyle Estate. The ruling in Leslie Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate Ltd, Case No. 14-1128, did not establish a new legal principle; it confirmed what the copyright term calculations had long made clear.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.