How does this woman hold a copyright on something created in 1887?

Anything published, I believe, prior to 1923 is now in the public domain.

The first Sherlock Holmes story, "A Study in Scarlet," was published in 1887. The final Sherlock Holmes story was published in 1914.

If I were the movie studio(s) and executives involved, I would seriously litigate her claim to ownership.

That being said... I am an avid Holmesian. The BBC series of the 1980s, starring Jeremy Britt, has been the only celluloid incarnation of Holmes that captured the essence, not just of the characters, but of the stories themselves. After seeing just the trailers for the current film, I made a conscious decision to avoid it.

I am not well versed on copyright ownership of items over 100 years ago, but part of me understands her point.

If you change facets of a character or storyline, is it really an adaptation of the original work? Why mess with a classic?

As I recall, Isaac Julien got in trouble with the Langston Hughes estate for implying his movie Looking For Langston was about the author.

A gay Sherlock may have to distance itself from the copyright holder by using the "inspired by" label.

Yeah, copyright law has gotten out of hand. I read this story this morning and wondered the same thing - Thomas Jefferson wanted it to last for a 17-year period, after which all works would become public.

That makes sense - at a certain point they become a part of our collective culture. This woman didn't write any of the books, so why is she making bank off them?

I thought it was life of the author plus 70 years, and Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930, according to wikipedia.

And, yeah, she doesn't like gay people. Srsly, you can't say that the book would be sullied with gay innuendo if you don't have an issue.

From http://www.sherlockholmesonline.org/LicensingInfo/index.htm

"

CartoonIn the EC, the entire work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle enjoys copyright protection until 31 December 2000. After that date, a number of characters created by the author will enjoy trademark protection.

In the US, the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1997 (105th Congress, 1st Session H.R. 604 ) has extended the renewal term of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works among others for an additional 20 years. This means that all works published after December 31, 1922 are protected for 95 years following the date of publication. For further information see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:HR.604

The characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Watson, Mrs. Hudson, Professor Challenger, Brigadier Gerard and the Hound of the Baskervilles among others are trademarked by the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate.

Use of any character or any book not in the public domain for any purpose whatsoever is prohibited without a license from the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate."

This is the official licensing site for Sherlock Holmes. It would appear, despite Ms Plunket's claim to the contrary, all aspects of Sherlock Holmes are now in the public domain, world-wide.

Here's another interesting tidbit concerning Ms Plunket, from the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/12/2009-01-12_judge_rules_arthur_conan_doyles_heirs_ca.html):

" Judge rules Arthur Conan Doyle's heirs can’t recoup legal fees

BY Thomas Zambito
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, January 12th 2009, 9:21 PM

It's elementary: She can't pay what she hasn't got.

Andrea Plunket, who owns the rights to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works, convinced a judge that she's too broke to pay the author's heir $135,000 from a failed copyright infringement lawsuit.

"I used to be incredibly well-off because I had a very rich mother and father and an incredibly wealthy husband," said Plunket, 67, who once dated Claus von Bulow. "If I had $70,000 or $80,000 I'd pay them, but I don't."

Dame Jean Conan Doyle argued that Plunket is hiding her assets, particularly her interest in a Catskills bed and breakfast known as Pannonia Farms. Plunket says her father left the property to her daughter.

"I'm just the baby-sitter," Plunket said.

Manhattan Federal Judge Kimba Wood Monday sided with the one-time millionaire.

Conan Doyle's heirs have been trying unsuccessfully to get Plunket to cough up $135,000 in legal fees after she lost a copyright-infringement lawsuit.

The Hungarian socialite said she renounced her fortune for "religious and philosophic reasons" in the 1980s after a breakup with von Bulow that followed his acquittal on charges of injecting his wife, Sunny, with an overdose of insulin that rendered her comatose.

"I've seen families destroy each other for money," she said. "Von Bulow - I lived through that for five years. That was money-motivated."

Plunket's family bought Conan Doyle's literary estate in the late 1970s.

In court papers, Plunket mocked her legal opponents with a reference to von Bulow's famed lawyer. "Even Alan Dershowitz, who is very bold, has never done that," she wrote."

Notice what the Daily News doesn't say... it doesn't say Ms Plunket owns the American copyright to Sherlock Holmes, but rather to the books of Arthur Conan Doyle. But, according to the law on the Sherlock Holmes licensing site, that must mean the Doyle books published after 1922, and then for only 95 years after that date, so even that will revert to the public domain by the end of 2017.

Moot point -- movie sucked, won't be a sequel in any case.

"I am not hostile to homosexuals, but I am to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books."

The very phrasing of that comment indicates that she is, in fact, very hostile.

This probably won't help, but ...

Recently on Jeopardy there was a contestant who claimed to have written a literary research paper about the Sherlock Holmes series, arguing that the two men were lovers and pointing out many homoerotic allusions in the works that would likely be missed by a modern reader not familiar with ... what shall we call it? ... Victorian underground urban gay lingo.

I was puzzled at the time about how one would go about proving sexual orientation for a fictitious character --- but perhaps it's all about the sodomite zeitgeist and the preponderance of evidence?

As far as I know Sherlock Holmes is copy right free in The EU but not so in the US. In the EU we regularly have spoof Sherlock Holmes novels published.
There is a very beautifully written one: My Dearest Holmes by Rohase Piercey (Gay Men's Press I believe), that's all about the love story between Holmes and Watson.

Conan Doyle is well known to have said, when he met Oscar Wilde, that Wilde was the original version of Holmes.

A very interesting chapter on that issue can be found in the book Strangers. http://www.amazon.com/Strangers-Homosexual-Love-Nineteenth-Century/dp/0393326497/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264638247&sr=8-14
The author describes the evolution of the male detective and his sidekick, mostly from Murders in Rue Morgue by Poe. The Poe text seems to contain genuine gay chiffres and allusions.
And wasn't there a connection between Conan Doyle wanting to stop writing Holmes stories and the Wilde trials? Have to look it up again--(I'm quoting from mind, so take it with a grain of salt)

Holmes and Watson are both young and good looking when they meet and move in together (see original illustrations like http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Books/Pix/pictures/2009/3/18/1237389836165/Drawing-by-Sidney-Paget-o-001.jpg). I find it fascinating that all film versions so far have used only a very late (1910s) Holmes/Watson, when they are about 45+ and Watson is distinctly rounded. But as they use a 19th century setting, all films are consciously falsifying the original. Also, they exaggerate the age gap between Holmes and Watson.

It would have been impossible to show two good looking men living together like that. The new film is the first one that actually dares to hint at that.
Apart from the slightly weird Rupert Everett as Holmes version, of course, where at least Holmes is more or less openly gay. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0-rGbjfVX8

For some Holmes/Watson slash videos see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ylfyFxC_U

I just saw the film-
"And Plunkett says if Ritchie and the screenwriters want to take the character - who is played by Downey in the current movie - in that direction she will not allow a follow-up film."

Plunkett must either not have seen the film yet, or she must be daft. Because the first film *is* already gay/queer.

*spoiler*

Holmes and Watson have a thing going, the bad guys have a thing going, the girl doesn't get Holmes, Watson doesn't really manage to marry. The script uses The Sign of the Four as the background story, the queerest of the original stories, where Holmes plunges into heavy drug use because Watson wants to leave him to marry.
The book was published in the year of the homosexual Cleveland Street Skandal. During that year it was impossible to be naive about homosexuality, and Conan Doyle was a doctor (like Watson).

I just saw the film-
"And Plunkett says if Ritchie and the screenwriters want to take the character - who is played by Downey in the current movie - in that direction she will not allow a follow-up film."

Plunkett must either not have seen the film yet, or she must be daft. Because the first film *is* already gay/queer.

*spoiler*

Holmes and Watson have a thing going, the bad guys have a thing going, the girl doesn't get Holmes, Watson doesn't really manage to marry. The script uses The Sign of the Four as the background story, the queerest of the original stories, where Holmes plunges into heavy drug use because Watson wants to leave him to marry.
The book was published in the year of the homosexual Cleveland Street Skandal. During that year it was impossible to be naive about homosexuality, and Conan Doyle was a doctor (like Watson).