![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
221bcrow
The above anon was a message sent to Inevitably-Johnlocked.
The anon mentions a Conan Doyle Estate, but the one they are talking about is actually a false estate run by a homophobic woman who did not have any rightful legal claim to the copyrights of the Sherlock Holmes books.
There is not one “Estate” in Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle’s name... but two. Due to both of them using Sir Arthur’s name, the distinction can be difficult, particularly when articles discussing them do not specify clearly as to which ‘estate’ the article is about. One of the estates is run by indirect descendants and family members of the late Sir. Arthur, and the other one was run by a woman who went by the name of Andrea Plunket.
The Conan Doyle Estate, run by family members of Sir Arthur, have legal ownership over any copyright regarding the books.
The Conan Doyle Literary estate, which was run by Andrea Plunket, did NOT own copyright as what copyright she did have was reaquired by Dame Jean Doyle and the Conan Doyle Estate.
The fact that Andrea Plunket no longer legally own copyright over the books did not stop her from continuing to run her literary estate and use it to try to threaten to sue anyone who made adaptations, including Ritchie, and try to get as much money as possible out of anyone who was willing to pay. Usually when the cases actually go through court, the Literary Estate loses as their tangled web of false claims of ownership slowly unravel. Court cases are, however, long and expensive and unfortunately all too often people had been willing to simply pay whatever fee the false estate is demanding so as to keep them off their backs. This has the unfortunate side effect of also giving the so-called “Literary Estate” more money so as go after creators of other adaptations.
In addition to harassing creators of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, Andrea Plunket had, at one point in time, also attempted to sue the REAL Conan Doyle Estate.
Who is Andrea Plunket?
Via bbcsherlockftw:
“Andrea Plunket was Sheldon Reynold’s wife, and after they became divorced in 1990, she fought to maintain ownership of the copyrights to Conan Doyle’s works. Her claims were rejected in court, but Plunket continued to operate as though she owned the copyrights anyway. This eventually resulted in a lawsuit by the Doyle family—or, Conan Doyle Estate Ltd.—which Plunket lost. However, she has not paid the Doyle heirs any damages—in fact, she went back to court to plead that she is not financially capable of paying the $135,000 [$185,000 in other sources] sum.
The court agrees, though the matter of her finances are wrought with oddity, as Ms. Plunket was once a millionaire. She reportedly gave upher entire fortune in the 80ies after her run as Claus von Bulow’s mistress, who was famously acquitted of poisoning his own wife with insulin. Plunket has stated in some interviews that seeing such a horrendous act committed in the name of money left a bad taste in her mouth. She has said in others that she never thought von Bulow was guilty. The Doyle heirs claim that Plunket is hiding the true extent of her fortunes. Plunket claims that she is merely the steward of her current business, a B&B called Pannonia Farms. Who knows. ”
She was ordered to pay Dame Jean Doyle after the whole sordid affair, but being the penny pincher scam artists she is, Plunket claimed to not have the money and avoided paying. This has widely been regarded as a lie as Andrea Plunket was a very wealthy women.
Via Ihearofsherlock.com:
“ Reynolds contacted the Baskervilles Investments Ltd, only to find out that the company was held by a receiver, Mr William G. Mackey, appointed by the Royal Bank of Scotland. And Mr Mackey wanted to sell the complete Conan Doyle literary estate. So Sheldon Reynolds didn't walk away from the meeting with just a license to make a new TV series, but he decided to buy the whole estate. However, he didn't have any money. But his wife Andrea had. Or rather her mother, who had inherited a fortune from her late husband, an heir of Pfizer chemicals.
For the next few years, Sheldon and Andrea Reynolds - together with her parents - ruled over the Sherlock Holmes copyright, until it ran out, fifty years after the death of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. A new copyright act had by then come into use in the US, which made it possible for Conan Doyle's only surviving child, Dame Jean Conan Doyle, to get the copyright back for some stories that were still in US copyright. “
Any and all remaining copyright is the legal property of the Conan Doyle Estate, NOT the Literary Estate.
Twitter account of the false Conan Doyle Literary Estate.
Twitter account of the actual Conan Doyle Estate.
LGBT impact:
There had been articles in the past of ‘the estate’ threatening to sue creators of Sherlock Holmes adaptations should those adaptations dare to show Sherlock Holmes as being gay. The person behind those suits was Andrea Plunket with the literary estate, NOT the actual Conan Doyle Estate.
As far as I am aware, the ACTUAL Conan Doyle Estate is NOT against LGBT representation in Sherlock Holmes adaptations. That was Andrea Plunket. Andrea Plunket also passed away
Via BBCSherlockFTW:
“...A certain Guy Ritchie film made a big smash at the box office, and shortly after, the film’s star—Robert Downey Jr.—appeared on Letterman to talk about the movie and dropped the words “butch homosexual”. This, admit waxing poetic about the Holmes and Watson “bromance”.
Cue Andrea Plunket.
She actually went on record, threatening to withdraw permission for the sequel’s creation if ”that is a theme they [the creators] wish to bring out in the future.” Her full statement is actually pretty cutting, and looks like it belongs inside a dripping speech bubble. Dripping with homophobia, that is.
“I hope this is just an example of Mr. Downey’s black sense of humour. It would be drastic, but I would withdraw permission for more films to be made if they feel that is a theme they wish to bring out in the future.” She’s careful to tack on the disclaimer: “I am not hostile to homosexuals, but I am to anyone who is not true to the spirit of the books.”
Funny thing is, according to a Warner Bro.’s spokesperson, neither Ms. Plunket nor the Doyle heirs were paid any money for the movie’s creation. The Conan Doyle Estate Ltd. is capable of placing their official trademark approval on Sherlock Holmes projects, but since all the stories are out of copyright in the U.K. and Canada, it doesn’t seem like they have too much ground to stand on if they want to go head-to-head with a Hollywood studio to collect royalties on their common-law claims. Of course, the production of Sherlock Holmes artwork is one thing; claiming to own the copyrights is another, hence the aggressive legal action against Andrea Plunket.”
Main Point: It was Andrea Plunket who was Homophobic, not the Conan Doyle Estate, and Andrea Plunket has since passed away so whatever copyright problem there may be with showing LGBT representation, however weak, is no longer an issue.
Adaptations, Lawsuits and the real Conan Doyle Estate
While the false Literary Estate does not own legal copyright over the books, the real Conan Doyle Estate does still retain copyright over some of the books in the United States. It should be noted that there had been a problem with the Doyle Estate using the copyright they owned to the fullest extent possible and to the detriment of the fandom. They had often sued creators and adopters in spite of the fact that the books should have no longer been subject to copyright law as they should have been expired. The persistent lawsuits by the real estate were not for any homophobic purposes, but because they were getting money for adaptations made.
This continuing issue of lawsuits had lead to the case of a lawyer who also happened to be a Sherlockian, Klinger, finally saying enough was enough and fighting to free Sherlock from the grip of copyright.
Stanford - Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd.
Further information regarding Klinger and the issue with the Conan Doyle Estate’s lawsuits: Forbes - The Strange Case of 'Mr. Holmes' Vs. U.S. Copyright Law
It is because of Klinger that all but the last ten books have been confirmed as being free for the public to create adaptations from without fear of lawsuit.
There is a website regarding his efforts and the overall fight to help keep Sherlock Holmes free for the fandom to be able to adapt and enjoy here: free-sherlock.com
Please consider following and supporting Free-Sherlock so as to help keep Sherlock Holmes within the public space.
The following graphics display the copyright issues for only in the United States. The copyright for ALL Sherlock Holmes books in the UK and Canada have since expired.
Further information regarding copyright and the Sherlock Holmes books can be found at Sherlockian.net: https://www.sherlockian.net/acd/copyright.html
Sir Arthur and the Portrayal of Sherlock Holmes
There is a quote that is often used which says much, but the story behind the telegram and how the quote came about is also quite telling.
“You may marry him, murder him, or do anything you like to him”*
While this line is often quoted as showing how Sir Arthur did not care about how Sherlock Holmes was portrayed, it should be noted that this quote only came after William Gillette pressed Sir. Arthur on the matter. Initially Arthur Conan Doyle stipulated that Sherlock Holmes should not be portrayed as being romantically interested in a woman. He did not give Sherlock Holmes a female love interest and preferred that it remained so (reminder that Irene Adler was in love with and married someone else. She had no romantic interests with Holmes.)
“Gillette read Conan Doyle’s script and asked permission to revise it. The author agreed, stipulating only that there be no love interest.”
Keep in mind that at the time that the telegram was written it was inconceivable that Holmes would even have the opportunity to ever marry a man. The possibility of Holmes having a male love interest is not something that would have -ever- been written about, spoken of, or suggested because of the anti-lgbt culture engrained throughout society at the time. The co-dependant partnership of Holmes and Watson was the closest that could be achieved when it came to M/M ‘Love’ interest. A male male relationship would NOT be referred to as a ‘love interest’. Dr. Watson could only ever be referred to as Holmes’ ‘partner’ and ‘friend’. Any reference to ‘love interests’ dealt with women by default and Sir Arthur had stated his disapproval of Holmes having a relationship with a woman.
This point is also significant as it is further evidence regarding how it is adaptations that try to show Holmes as being with a woman that have to bend the stories to do so, not the ones that show Holmes as having other inclinations. It is the -straight- adaptations that deviate more from the canon stories and have to break canon to try to push heteronormativity.
