Doyle's estate sues Netflix for giving Sherlock Holmes too many feelings

So says the headline.

Quote:

Enola Holmes is based on a series of novels by Nancy Springer starring a newly created teenage sister of the famous detective. They feature many elements from Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, and most of these elements aren’t covered by copyright, thanks to a series of court rulings in the early 2010s. Details from 10 stories, however, are still owned by Doyle’s estate. The estate argues that Springer’s books — and by extension Netflix’s adaptation — draw key elements from those stories. It’s suing not only Netflix, but Springer, her publisher Penguin Random House, and the film’s production company for unspecified financial damages.

From that paragraph, the headline would almost seem like it has to be a gross misrepresentation; but it isn't. The "key elements" the Doyle estate claims are being used in violation of its copyright are not plot devices, characters, locations, or events, as one might reasonably expect. Literally, Doyle's estate is asserting that giving Sherlock Holmes a likeable persona - such having him express compassion for another human, or even simply having respect for women - constitutes ripping off the stories they own. They claim that only in these 10 stories - the last ones Doyle wrote - did Holmes ever attain any semblance of warmth or humanity, and therefore any interpretation of Holmes as a relatable person even if not in precisely the specific ways described in those stories, is protected by their copyright.

Quote:

So the estate now says Springer and Netflix are basing Enola Holmes on the personality that’s still protected. And the new personality’s key traits include relating to other people and reacting with “warmth and emotion” to a female character who happens to be his immediate family — in other words, some of the most basic updates any author might make to a century-old character. The complaint even includes some fun literary analysis about what a hardcore jerk the original Holmes was: His closest companion, Watson, revered Holmes and was generous in his admiration. But to Holmes, Watson was utilitarian — to be employed when useful, then set aside. Holmes did not treat Watson with warmth. Holmes told him, “You have a grand gift for silence, Watson. It makes you quite invaluable as a companion.” (“The Man with the Twisted Lip.”) Holmes did not even congratulate Watson when Watson told Holmes he was going to marry Holmes’s client Mary Morstan. Hilariously, it also suggests the copyright specifically covers Sherlock Holmes caring if Watson is injured or kidnapped — which may come as a surprise to the characters’ massive fanfiction following.

I suppose I don't really have a philosophical stake in this particular dispute, I find it more amusing than anything else. On the surface it sounds silly to me; I haven't read any original Holmes in quite a long time, but I can't say that I remember Holmes' "humanity" in the later stories rising as a result of any kind of arc of character development, but just kind of suddenly "being there". But I could very easily be wrong, and I'm curious about what others think.

via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2VjOLWS