Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

[Charles Ballowe <hangman(at)steelballs.org>]

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 05:16:52PM -0700, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> Woooowwww There! The idea can not be copyrighted and the whole point is 
> for you to take the ideas with you but not the exact expression of them. 
> THe question is how much you do with the ideas? For example, Imitations do 
> not qualify as derivative works because they are original works How many 
> fictional detectives have a less smart friend, a doctor, that are always 
> recording the cases? Until fairly recently others could not create 
> derivative works with characters called Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson and 
> set in late Victorian London. I don't know if you've ever noticed by 
> Ridley Scott's "Alien" created a whole industry of clone movies that are 
> essentually identical to it. Are they derivative works of the original? 
> No. Are they extrememly bad imitations (most of them)? YES. Are they 
> protected by copyright? Yes.
> 

So why was the author or publisher of "The Wind Done Gone" taken to court?
I realize the injunction was dropped, but that is a derivative work - right?
Putting somebody in a position where they must defend their creation seems
like a load of something unpleasant. While it is true that what I have in 
mind might not be ``derivative works'' by law, the fact that somebody could
call them such and force a legal defense is enough to bother me. Parody,
while well protected still draws lots of fire and legal fees. I'd prefer 
to see only the original work protected. The ability to use cultural icons
like Sherlock Holmes or Mickey Mouse in a story should not be restricted 
by copyright. 

--(not so)random question--
If I were writing a story about a detective and his side kick and gave them
names and proceded to introduce the characters as "Fred is exactly like 
Sherlock Holmes, except his name is Fred..." would that make mine a derivative
work? Why redescribe a character people already know?