Sherlock Creators Not Pleased About CBS's New Show

[vansau]

Sherlock Creators Not Pleased About CBS's New Show

Who would've imagined that the folks behind the BBC's Sherlock would be upset about CBS's new series about a modern day Sherlock Holmes?

<a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115338-CBS-Investigates-New-Sherlock-Holmes-TV-Show>CBS's decision to order a pilot for Elementary - a new TV show with a modern day take on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories - was met with a lot of wry head-shaking across the Web last week. This was because the show's premise bears an uncanny resemblance to the BBC's own (excellent) show, <a href=http://www.amazon.com/Sherlock-Season-One-Benedict-Cumberbatch/dp/B004132HZS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326942711&sr=8-1&tag=vglnk-c21-20>Sherlock. It turns out that Sherlock's creators noticed the similarities, too, and are warning CBS that it could face a nasty legal battle over the new show.

Sherlock executive producer Sue Vertrue (who's married to the show's co-creator Steven Moffat), took to Twitter after CBS announced the ordered pilot. While she didn't exactly call the network out for being run by unoriginal hacks, she did note that this show was ordered only after CBS offered to do an American remake of Sherlock:

We understand that CBS are doing their own version of an updated Sherlock Holmes. It's interesting, as they approached us a while back about remaking our show.

At the time, they made great assurances about their integrity, so we have to assume that their modernised Sherlock Holmes doesn't resemble ours in any way, as that would be extremely worrying.

We are very proud of our show and like any proud parent, will protect the interest and wellbeing of our offspring.


On one hand, the concept of an updated Sherlock Holmes can't really be copyrighted, but Vertrue and her co-producers do have a substantial leg to stand on when it comes to things like the settings, costumes, characters, narrative/visual style, and plotlines featured in Sherlock. That could cause a lot of legal headaches, considering how much background checking will (potentially) need to be done with each episode; if things become too much of a hassle, CBS may just abandon the project.

Source: Screen Rant

Permalink

 

[GiantRaven]

So instead of one modern day Sherlock Holmes show? We get two? Most likely with interesting cultural differences due to being made in different countries? I completely fail to see how this is anything other than a win.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Need I mention the US Red Dwarf, Life On Mars, Coupling(Moffat), The IT Crowd...

You've got the US "Holmes", he's called House MD.

 

[ZeroMachine]

So instead of one modern day Sherlock Holmes show? We get two? Most likely with interesting cultural differences due to being made in different countries? I completely fail to see how this is anything other than a win.

It's CBS.

That, in and of itself, should be enough to cause some worries.

I personally hope that "Elementary" gets cancelled. An American Sherlock Holmes? As in, he lives in America? BOLLOCKS.

(DISCLAIMER: I'm an American, so I have every right to say it's a stupid American idea, and I have no right to say "bollocks".)

 

[ZeroMachine]

Need I mention the US Red Dwarf, Life On Mars, Coupling(Moffat), The IT Crowd...

You've got the US "Holmes", he's called House MD.

Also, this. If I want an over-dramatic, sometimes hilariously so, American version of Sherlock Holmes with a twist, I'll watch House.

House still doesn't hold a candle to Cumberbatch's Sherlock, though, as much as I love good ol' Hugh.

 

[IndianaJonny]

Need I mention the US Red Dwarf, Life On Mars, Coupling(Moffat), The IT Crowd...

You've got the US "Holmes", he's called House MD.

May I add Shameless to that list?

There seems to be an epidemic in recent American releases that are just rehashes of older/other current material.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

We understand that CBS are doing their own version of an updated Sherlock Holmes. It's interesting, as they approached us a while back about remaking our show.

At the time, they made great assurances about their integrity, so we have to assume that their modernised Sherlock Holmes doesn't resemble ours in any way, as that would be extremely worrying.

We are very proud of our show and like any proud parent, will protect the interest and wellbeing of our offspring.

Even if said offspring is actually the child of Arthur Conan Doyle, not the BBC, and has been in the public domain for decades now...

Doyle's characters and stories have, but reiterations of them can still be copyrighted if they deviate in a substantive matter away from the original source material (not a very high bar to hit, I might add). For example, you can use the script for Romeo and Juliet without any issue, but you can't make a 90s urban gang movie version (ala Leonardo DiCaprio) because that copyright is held by the studio.

In this case, the setting (modern day) and minor twists in the characters (Watson as a modern Afghanistan vet instead of a Victorian one) may be substantial enough to sustain BBC's claim over the IP.

 

[GiantRaven]

It's CBS.

That, in and of itself, should be enough to cause some worries.

Non-american here. I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. What makes them so terrible?

 

[ZeroMachine]

It's CBS.

That, in and of itself, should be enough to cause some worries.

Non-american here. I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. What makes them so terrible?

In all honesty, I could be in a minority here, but I feel that their shows are far too overdramatic, and not in an entertaining or funny way. The original CSI was good for a while and, from what I understand, NCIS is good (though I'd be lying if I said I've enjoyed a single minute of that show) but most of their new stuff is, IMO, absolute shit.

And I don't know if it's a common thing in... er... where you're from? But here with rare exception you can tell what channel a show is on from watching just one episode, and sometimes less.

Needless to say, I have no faith in Elementary coming even close to matching the perfect combination of funny, serious, and smart that Sherlock has.

 

[DEAD34345]

That just seems stupid to me. How can anyone own the concept of a modern day Sherlock Holmes show (other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, maybe)? It wasn't an original idea to begin with...

Of course, I'm fairly certain the American version will suck, but that's a completely different point.

 

[BrotherRool]

Sue Vertrue is the wife of the notoriously word-play heavy Steven Moffat? Really?

EDIT: And is even threatening legal action

 

[PurePareidolia]

Well I for one learned a lot about whether or not it's illegal to display the Swastika in Germany, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Sherlock Holmes.

 

[redisforever]

...if things become too much of a hassle, CBS may just abandon the project.

Honestly, I hope so. Based on their last "remake" of a British show, Life on Mars, that I saw, no. Don't.

 

[Caffiene]

That just seems stupid to me. How can anyone own the concept of a modern day Sherlock Holmes show (other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, maybe)? It wasn't an original idea to begin with...

If Arthur Conan Doyle still held the rights to Sherlock Holmes, then you could only own the concept of a modern day Sherlock Holmes by him licensing you the rights.

But due to the time its been since he wrote Sherlock, it is now public domain. You still cant simply own Sherlock Holmes and stop other people from using it, but if you create a work based on Holmes you can own the parts that you invent. In this case, the idea of him being in the modern day, the particular way you incorporate modern technology into the story, and changes youve made to the original, etc.

If you were to try to sue someone for copyright infringement then the court would look at how many of your unique inventions, as opposed to the stuff from the original Holmes stories, were copied and whether those elements indicate that the person youre suing was deliberately copying not just the classic Holmes but your own original work.

(I strongly recommend Law of the Geek [http://lawofthegeek.com/] for an interesting explanation of IP, for anyone whos interested. Its a podcast hosted by two geeky IP lawyers, covering geek culture IP cases.)

 

[Strain42]

I'd like to point out two things here.

1. Sherlock didn't invent the concept of a modern day Sherlock Holmes. There have been novels about it, and even that Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century deal (I didn't say there were GOOD examples...)

2. Yes, most American takes on British shows are pretty bad, but I've yet to see a good British take on an American show either. (Days Like These...ugh...just awful)

I'm a fairly avid Sherlockian myself, and yeah, I like Sherlock...a lot. In fact it's no hyperbole to say I was utterly surprised at how much I really liked it (except the second episode...it wasn't that good) and I'm even prepared to admit that Elementary probably won't be that good, and will probably even get cancelled after one season.

But I'm at least willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and check it out first.

There's room in my heart for two modern day Sherlock Holmes. Honestly, with both of these series and the RDJ movies...I'm just happy that Holmes is getting shown more in the public.

As long as elementary doesn't try to portray Watson as a bumbling sidekick, I'm happy.

This message brought to you by the captcha message "Band tsMynal"

 

[Something Amyss]

Even if said offspring is actually the child of Arthur Conan Doyle, not the BBC, and has been in the public domain for decades now...

Yes, THAT's the part of the material they're talking about.

 

[DEAD34345]

That just seems stupid to me. How can anyone own the concept of a modern day Sherlock Holmes show (other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, maybe)? It wasn't an original idea to begin with...

If Arthur Conan Doyle still held the rights to Sherlock Holmes, then you could only own the concept of a modern day Sherlock Holmes by him licensing you the rights.

But due to the time its been since he wrote Sherlock, it is now public domain. You still cant simply own Sherlock Holmes and stop other people from using it, but if you create a work based on Holmes you can own the parts that you invent. In this case, the idea of him being in the modern day, the particular way you incorporate modern technology into the story, and changes youve made to the original, etc.

If you were to try to sue someone for copyright infringement then the court would look at how many of your unique inventions, as opposed to the stuff from the original Holmes stories, were copied and whether those elements indicate that the person youre suing was deliberately copying not just the classic Holmes but your own original work.

(I strongly recommend Law of the Geek [http://lawofthegeek.com/] for an interesting explanation of IP, for anyone whos interested. Its a podcast hosted by two geeky IP lawyers, covering geek culture IP cases.)

Yeah, I get you, and I understand how it works (in a very broad sense). I just think it's stupid.

They should own the rights to their own show, I guess, but that's it as far as I'm concerned. I don't understand why they should be able to arbitrarily "own" and therefore be able to halt any other modern interpretations of Sherlock Holmes, or any other modern interpretations of Sherlock Holmes that share certain similarities with their own. It becomes even more stupid when the thing you own the rights to wasn't an original idea in the first place, as in this case. Making modern versions of classic books isn't exactly a revolutionary thought, and I'd be extremely surprised if there wasn't a whole host of modern takes on Sherlock out there.

Besides which, doesn't it completely fly in the face of capitalism and legally enforce monopolies? If someone out there can make a better modern day Sherlock Holmes than you can (doubtful in this case, as I hear the show is really good), then why shouldn't they be able to do it? That's what capitalism is all about, yet copyright laws make it illegal to compete with the first product in that specific area.

The only real benefit I can see to the laws are entirely for the existing companies that already own ideas, who get to stifle their competition. Why do we want that?

 

[Zen Toombs]

This reminds me that I need to watch Sherlock, but that is neither here nor there.

Anyways, this sounds interesting. I hope that CBS will do the right thing here.

 

[Monsterfurby]

Huh, with US non-cable television's track record in show quality (either predictable or with a "we-need-to-point-out-the-obvious-because-our-viewers-are-stupid mentality - just compare Law and Order and Law and Order UK) regardless of it being remakes or originals, I can't say that I have high expectations for this one.

The UK Sherlock series was truly great, with deep characters and some original twists on the material, although I felt it went a bit overboard and had plot points that would better fit a Tom Clancy novel on occasion.

And that's the UK version. Imagine what the US version would be like. Subtlety has not really been a staple of US television...

In any case, since I am neither a UK nor US viewer and therefore will only watch both on DVD, it will be interesting to see which I will stick with. In any case though, it will be hard for the US' version to reach Sherlock's standard. Although of course I hope that it will be even better.