Character Matters

The estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is suing Netflix, Nancy Springer, the director of the Netflix movie and others for copyright infringement owing to depictions of the character of Sherlock Holmes which are still protected by copyright.

Legal blogger Duncan Calow for DLA Piper discusses an author's copyright in a character, and why it can be difficult to borrow (and exploit) someone else's character.

Here:
https://mse.dlapiper.com/post/102gagn/not-so-elementary

Or here:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cf642867-b625-4531-8fbc-0012b489067a

Legal bloggers for RK Dewan & Co cover the same copyright infringement lawsuit from another angle, and also explain how and why the cold Sherlock (no longer in copyright) became the kinder, gentler Sherlock (still in copyright).

Here:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.lexology.com/4232f53f-8c46-49e0-b509-69dfbfd32a7f.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAVYILUYJ754JTDY6T&Expires=1594496980&Signature=fAA8LyJyC1VQ%2FAkEKhuOGMIi55s%3D

Or here:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f94afa6-3e18-42c1-8e1c-8a45d6497ee4

Apparently, there are some law firms who shall be nameless, who are alleged to infringe copyright on their own blogs or websites. One would have thought that a law firm would a) know better and b) have more character.

Legal blogger Karen E. Rubin, for Thompson Hine LLP on the blog looks into it and offers great advice on how to decorate your blog legally, albeit not as cheaply as snagging someone else's photo or video from a social media site.

Here: https://www.thelawforlawyerstoday.com/2020/07/5079/#page=1

If you look at the blog's tags or labels, you can extrapolate which lawfirm & lawfirm is the defendant.

Less titillating, but perhaps the most interesting, copyright-related, legal blog of the week might be that of Venable LLP from Lee S. Brenner.  If you ever wondered what are the legal limits of First Amendment Speech, apparently a court of appeals has drawn the line: the First Amendment does not protect misleading commercial speech.

Read more:
https://www.closeupsblog.com/2020/07/court-of-appeal-affirms-no-first-amendment-protection-for-misleading-commercial-speech/#page=1

If you claim something in an advertisement that is more likely to deceive than to inform (accurately), you should take this to heart. Prevaricating for profit is not protected speech. Perhaps, the issue is even more egregious given the business name of the accused.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/