Supreme Court disinterest leaves Sherlock Holmes firmly in the public domain


#1

[Permalink]


#2

Holy crap, a sensible ruling in a copyright case? What is this world coming to?


#3

They should have put mouse-ears on him – then they would have gotten what they wanted…


#4

Would it be possible for the internet to learn the difference between disinterested and uninterested? The Supreme Court is should always be disinterested. I’m sorry that there’s no word “uninterest”. But too bad. Suck it up and find another phrasing.


#5

disinterest: lack of interest in something.

google’s 2nd definition


#6

Well Feist V. Rural Telephone was a pretty good decision IMHO.


#7

Yes, but it was 23 years ago… I was really hoping you wouldn’t have to dig so far back into history to find another sensible copyright ruling.


Huffing Boing Boing
#8

And of course this ISN’T a ruling by the supremes, just a decision to not hear a case. And considering that their most significant recent copyright ruling was Eldred v. Ashcroft, I’m just has happy to have the current court not making copyright rulings…


#9

“Firmly entrenched” seems premature. Is there anything stopping the Doyle estate from suing someone else outside of the 7th Circuit on the same legal theory rejected by the 7th Circuit? The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and thus doesn’t bind the other circuits to agree with the 7th Circuit.


#10

What would have been the excuse for Doyle’s works being NOT in the public domain in the first place? He died in 1930, after all.


#11

DMCA Warning: Your comment regarding the idea of “put[ting] mouse-ears on [Sherlock Holmes]” infringes on the intellectual property of the Walt Disney company.


#12

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.