Something similar happened with Sherlock Holmes, where IIRC the first two volumes of stories fell out of copyright, but the third volume was still copyrighted and using elements introduced there was forbidden.
This is a terrible conceptual mistake on the part of copyright law.
Yes, last year—erm, I mean in 2020—the Doyle estate sued Netflix for creating a movie in which Holmes shows emotion… they claimed:
“Among other copied elements, the Springer novels [on which Netflix’s film is based] make extensive infringing use of Conan Doyle’s transformation of Holmes from cold and critical to warm, respectful, and kind in his relationships.” [1]
This is essentially the entire substance of the lawsuit: that creating a new sister character that Holmes felt affection for infringed on their copyright of a single passage in one of the later Doyle stories where Holmes expressed concern for Watson who had gotten shot.
"When Conan Doyle came back to Holmes in the Copyrighted Stories between 1923 and 1927, it was no longer enough that the Holmes character was the most brilliant rational and analytical mind. Holmes needed to be human. The character needed to develop human connection and empathy."
This seems surprising given:
"I fear that it is at a cost which will give pain to my friends, and especially, my dear Watson, to you."
- The Final Problem (1894)
"“My dear Watson,” said the well-remembered voice, “I owe you a thousand apologies. I had no idea that you would be so affected.”
- The Empty House (1903)
“Upon my word, Watson!” said Holmes at last with an unsteady voice, “I owe you both my thanks and an apology. It was an unjustifiable experiment even for one’s self, and doubly so for a friend. I am really very sorry.”“You know,” I answered with some emotion, for I have never seen so much of Holmes’s heart before, “that it is my greatest joy and privilege to help you.”
- The Devil's Foot (1910)
I think the biggest mistake is the assumption that if others were allowed to use your creation in their works, you would suffer in some way, that it would be taking money and/or fame from the original artist. I think it couldn't be further from the truth.
For instance, look at Dmitri Glukhovsky and his Metro books - be basically allowed anyone to write any books placed within the same universe, still using the "Metro" logo and characters. Dozens of other books appeared, telling the tales of other metro systems elsewhere in the world and how they've dealt with the apocalypse - but the point is, all those other books have only increased the popularity of the original, and expanded it.
The other good example, weirdly, was always Star Wars books - especially pre-Disney star wars was very lenient with what stories could be told, and unless it was just straight up smut it would be allowed - as a result, star wars fans had hundreds(thousands?) Of books telling stories with their favourite characters and new ones but taking place in the universe they loved. Yes Lucas took a cut, but in general you could just write a book about Han Solo and it would be fine.
That's how copyright should work. Why not let other people tell stories with Pooh and the rest?
Here is the but: imagine someone were to publish a story set in your universe where suddenly the nazis took over and everyone liked it.
This is an extreme point, but it's one reason not to allow everyone to use your trademark without prior asking. Because maybe you're not okay with that AND suddenly your a bit famous works are in the same pot with something you wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole aaaand your sales go down.
Today's outrage culture could cancel you, even if you did nothing wrong.
In a better universe I am all with you and I personally would feel honored and flattered if other people would use my created worlds for their works
I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater - what could happen should stop us? I mean, sure, but I somehow don't think this is a real problem.
Going back to my example - among those thousands of star wars books, there are some which are incredibly bad nowadays, sexist, racist, or just pure trash that came and went. I suspect its impact on the actual Star Wars the franchise was zero.
>>Today's outrage culture could cancel you, even if you did nothing wrong.
Maybe, but I don't want to live in a world where worrying about it restricts my choices. If someone wrote a book where the Pooh is now a dictator running a fascist hundred mile forest, and it somehow sold a million copies......then I'm going to laugh at the idiots calling for the original to be cancelled. They shouldn't be given any authority over this, outrage on twitter is cheap.
"what could happen should stop us" this is the base assumption for a lot of laws and compliance bullshit. So apparently, yes.
Also, you don't want to live in such a culture. That is fine. You may create something beautiful and then "donate" it to the public domain.
The choice is yours entirely.
Again, as a consumer I totally understand where you're coming from. As a producer I would think differently (that's simply empathy though, I am not a successful producer)
Whatever valid arguments might exist to restrict speech through copyright, sales going down is not one of them. Otherwise you could lawfully prohibit negative reviews.
Sales going down by someone using your original world/characters in a way that is then deemed unpopular is definitely restricted/not possible in a world with enforceable Copyright.
And that was my point, not sales going down on their own.
Negative reviews have nothing to do with someone else being able to take e.g. James Bond and making him a homosexual or taking Conan the Barbarian and making him a woman or a sidekick etc.
Drastic or even small changes can always be unpopular and affect the whole franchise. If said franchise is no longer under your control alone, this is an argument pro copyright from the viewpoint of a creator.
The point is that sales don’t factor into it in the first place. An infringing work could increase sales, and the copyright holder would still have just the same rights. Think of anime fansubs—which effectively brought Japanese anime to mainstream popularity in the west, yet are still heavily cracked down upon by license holders, and always have been.
Yes, it could. That is why you, as the copyright holder, have the final say in the matter and may take the risk or not.
Think about e.g. Warcraft. It was supposed to be a Warhammer game. The license was "revoked", so they spun up their own story/world and created a successful franchise.
The thing is, I totally am opposed to copyright and patents, yet I can see where they are coming from and I can see reasons for them.
How is that the original concept of copyright? That article begins by saying this:
> Prior to the statute's enactment in 1710, copying restrictions were authorized by the Licensing of the Press Act 1662. These restrictions were enforced by the Stationers' Company, a guild of printers given the exclusive power to print—and the responsibility to censor—literary works.
the original concept of copyright was to throw a bone to middle/upper class printers so that the proliferation of printing presses could be arbitrarily limited as the ability for anyone to print anything threatened the crone, the state and the upper class by printing revolutionary ideas.
"Licensing of the Press" allowed to control who could print, by lawful threat of violence, and that enabled censorship of ideas. Copyright sweetened that deal to those who owned printing presses: enforcement of scarcity enabled a business model where good content could be kept expensive and money is funneled to the publisher who owns the exclusive right to make copies. For this they agreed to do censorship.
The argument that copyright is a right of the content creators, who were mostly dependent on patrons, and that those creators could only be paid fairly by the publishers if their product was exclusive, was peddled back then and swayed some of the intelligentsia to support the concept, but this was not the core ideal. At the beginning copyright was about entrenching a small circle of collaborators, who got the right to copy, and violently removing the means of production of those printing revolutionary thoughts.
This is a terrible conceptual mistake on the part of copyright law.