Greg Rapawy wrote: > > --- David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at dd-b.net> wrote: > [...] > > Quite a lot of interesting literary work has come > > out of the Sherlock Holmes universe, after the > > estate no longer controlled it. A lot of > > literature is heavily based on Shakespeare, and > > couldn't be if he were still in copyright (consider > > Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead). > > I think we agreed earlier that it's important things > > go into the pot, and the question is *when*. > > As an example of particular interest, the Paarfi > romances might well infringe Dumas' copyright if > Dumas' works were presently in copyright under modern > American copyright law. (They wouldn't have under the > law at the time Dumas wrote, both because foreign > works were not then covered by American copyright and > because infringement was then defined much more > narrowly.) > > There might be a viable fair use defense, though. In > recent years, courts have been broadening the fair use > doctrine for what are referred to as "transformative" > works -- works that create new art through the > innovative use of old material, including but not > limited to parody. For example, a federal court of > appeals ultimately reversed the preliminary injunction > against the publication of "The Wind Done Gone," a > case which was widely covered in the press. > > I think a court could go either way on the question. These days, it mostly depends on who installed the judges. The current government in the USA seems to be mostly interested in extending copyright for as long as they're paid to do so. The current administration seem to think it can extend any US law it likes anywhere in the world and bully other nations into accepting the change. In short, expect things to get worse.