Hacker News Reader

Comment by pavpanchekha | Hacker News Reader

I am fascinated by the nuance that went into this decision. The argument by the Doyle estate intrigues me: they claim that the characters themselves (as a sort of platonic form) were not fully developed until Doyle stopped writing.

For example, they would argue that in every story, Watson had once played rugby, though this fact wasn't published until a later story. Thus this aspect of Watson's character is still protected. The real meat of their argument is that the pieces that were "discovered" after 1923 are so central to Watson that there's no un-copyright-ed Watson left if those pieces are still protected. (But the judge rejected that argument.)

This seems sensible if you imagine Sir Doyle "discovering", not "inventing", Watson.

View on HN

> This seems sensible if you imagine Sir Doyle "discovering", not "inventing", Watson.

If you imagine that, then you would be imagining Watson right out of the scope of copyright, which covers creations, not discoveries.

I think you're distinction is a semantic one. pavpanchekha could have easily framed his observation as Sir Doyle "creating" aspects of Watson's character.

No, the whole point was the distinction between "discovering" and "inventing", a distinction which would not exist if "discovering" was replaced with "creating".

You're not a Platonist, are you?

Regardless, it would be plausible to imagine a character conceived of by an author, who has curious behaviors in early stories, the motivation for which is only revealed in a much later story. This would be an example of a process of "discovery" about a character, but this discovery is happening in the form of revelations in the text rather than by the act of the author.

If you wanted to make the analogy more precise, you could imagine a character created with peculiar traits, and the author later realizes a single explanation for those traits which they had not originally conceived, which they then write into a story. In these two cases, the effect on the reader might be identical, but in one essential information about the character was held back and in one it was developed later.

All of this is a little academic, though, since none of the information about Holmes & Watson in the post-1923 stories has a material effect on their characters, as ACD's estate attempted to argue.

> In these two cases, the effect on the reader might be identical, but in one essential information about the character was held back and in one it was developed later.

But we aren't talking about the reader. We're talking about the author. Plot reveals later in the story (that the reader experiences) have nothing to do with an author writing those things over time.

If Doyle 'discovered' Watson (not created), then Watson is not copyrightable. If Doyle created Watson (which he clearly did, being the author of a fictitious character in a series of fictional novels and stories) then Doyle didn't "discover" anything, he just refined his creation.

  you're -> your

Sorry.. I'm not of native English tongue myself, but this one annoys me to no end.

While we're at it, it would be "Sir Arthur" in short form, though it's really nor proper to use the honorific at all after a knight is deceased -- the knighthood is strictly a lifetime honour, and dies with the knight. In the case of people like Arthur Conan Doyle, it makes biographical sketches awkward, since he was a Knight Bachelor, not a knight of an order of chivalry, so there isn't a "real" postnominal you can use in a list of awards and decorations ("Kt" is usually used these days, but it's easily confused with "KT", indicating a Knight of the Order of the Thistle, when set in traditional small caps); one needs to either break the rules or use something like "in life he was styled...".

I believe the safest and least weird thing to do is simply not call anyone by the ridiculous honorific "Sir" or generally maintain the distinction between knights of any order and the rest of us.

Do you consider doctor (MD or PhD) to be similarly ridiculous, or do you make a distinction?

Also ridiculous. That some institution granted you a degree doesn't compel the rest of us to call you by a special name. When I ask medical doctors about that (my wife is one, for example), their main reason for supporting the "Dr" title is that it creates a sort of formal separation between the patient and the doctor which keeps things professional, similar to how we had to call our elementary teachers "Mr" or "Ms". I don't buy that argument; for example, why wouldn't that apply equally to nurses? To me, it's seems like a trick for lending them an artificial air of authority.

I know a lot of people with PhDs, but I can't think of any who want to be called "Doctor", because that's exceedingly silly. I know it works a bit differently outside of the US.

I tend to agree. I think agreeing within a group to differentiate based on honorifics can be useful if the group is homogenous enough in nature, but for a society in general it just creates arbitrary distinctions.

I found it amusing to learn that, in some parts of the world, surgeons are conferred the title of Mr, Miss, Mrs or Ms as preferential to Dr, as if above the petty nonsense of using "Dr" as a social differentiator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon#Titles

And now we are wildly off-topic!

Also because surgeons were manual laborers, and therefore not accorded the same respect as gentleman physicians.

A fact that you can gain no end of entertainment from, if you keep reminding your surgeon friends of it.

> I know a lot of people with PhDs, but I can't think of any who want to be called "Doctor", because that's exceedingly silly. I know it works a bit differently outside of the US.

Yes, I've noticed a very strong correlation between country and insistence on using a title conferred by a PhD. Americans do in general seem fairly relaxed about it.

Americans see everyone as equal in status (in theory); in paragraph two of our first document, we say that it is, in fact, self-evident that all men are created equal. Since we are all equal, titles don't really serve much purpose, as the whole point of titles is to distinguish yourself.

>we say that it is, in fact, self-evident that all men are created equal.

How is this self evident?

That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, one of the US's founding documents:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

The nature of self-evidence is that you don't have to say how.

(Though I'm not sure I agree with the parent point that Americans as a group really believe equality in the relevant sense here.)

"are created equal" means a very different thing than "are equal".

Even Americans who really do believe that all people are created equal (which any discussion thread on any major forum -- including HN -- on gender or race issues, among other topics, will reveal is far from all Americans) rarely believe that all people are equal.

The social rule I was taught (in the U.S.) is that if you have a PhD in whangabangology, it's okay to call yourself "Dr. Blah" or "Joe Blah, PhD" in a professional context (writing a paper on whangabangology, or teaching it, or giving a professional talk, or appearing at an official university function), but not in a social context (making a restaurant reservation, say, or being introduced to someone at a party).

Professional usage varies a lot by institution. Where I went to grad school, undergraduates usually use "Doctor" or "Professor" when addressing a member of the faculty, but graduate students usually call the professors that they actually know by their given names. I understand that's not the case everywhere; at some schools even grad students who have worked with a professor for years are still expected to address them by title. I have heard (but have not personal knowledge one way or the other) that the University of Chicago is one of these.

Thank you for this detailed and informative post. I'm unable to edit my comment now, but I hope I'll be reminded of your caution in the future.

> If you imagine that, then you would be imagining Watson right out of the scope of copyright, which covers creations, not discoveries.

More precisely, copyright covers expressions, not inventions or discoveries. And any patent on Watson has long run out.

So it seems to me that writing new stories involving Watson, even ones where he played rugby, should be perfectly fine. Just reproducing the later stories is not allowed without permission.

"At a deep level, the act of discover and the act of creation are identical." -Kevin Kelly (1)

Years ago I spoke with Kevin about this notion and it's relation to quantum mechanics. "Did the particle already exist in XYZ state (discover) or did you observation manifest (create) it." We agreed, it's the exact same thing.

(1) http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2010/01/tending_the_gar.p...

The irony is that the 10 post-1923 stories are mostly sub-par and include some of the most out-of-character moments. In my mind not using them is an improvement, though I doubt that my opinion is authoritative enough to influence the case.

This would leave the copyright open-ended forever, so long as they continued to evolve the character..

Well, so in fact the court did strike down the Conan Doyle estate's interpretation of things, so we can continue talking about Conan Doyle creating, not discovering, the character of Watson. And you are right: siding with the Conan Doyle estate would raise questions.

If you'll excuse me to snark for a moment, though: isn't that exactly what's happening with Mickey Mouse? The character keeps evolving and the copyright remains open-ended forever?

No that is not what is happening with Mickey Mouse. What is happening with Mickey Mouse is every time Steamboat Willie comes close to being released into public domain, the length of copyright is extended. Steamboat Willie came out after 1923, and is currently set to expire in 2023. Unless of course the law is changed to extended it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com