‘Sherlock’ Producer Warns CBS: We Will Protect Our Series (Legally)
Jan 24, 2012 by Anthony Ocasio‘Sherlock’ executive producer Sue Vertue is taking off the gloves on CBS’s modern day Sherlock Holmes pilot ‘Elementary’, promising to protect the well-being of their series.
When CBS decided to order the modern-day Sherlock Holmes pilot Elementary, fans of the BBC and PBS series Sherlock were appropriately perplexed. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with creating a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, it’s currently being done. By the best. And it’s very good.
Fortunately, Sherlock executive producer Sue Vertue (and wife of co-creator Steven Moffat) isn’t staying quiet about CBS’s programming decision. Shedding some light on why CBS decided to move forward with their modern-day Sherlock Holmes pilot, as well reassuring fans that they’ll make sure Sherlock is in no way negatively impacted by Elementary, Vertue lays out the uphill battle that CBS will have if they decide to take their modern telling of Sherlock Holmes to series.
Following the announcement of CBS’s Elementary, Vertue took to Twitter to mock the network’s decision (which has since been removed): “Mmm interesting CBS, I’m surprised no one has thought of making a modern day version of Sherlock before, oh hang on, we have!”
Moving outside of the limited 140-character world of Twitter, Vertue revealed to The Independent that she knew CBS was interested in developing a modern day Sherlock Holmes series, because the network previously approached Sherlock bosses about wanting to remake their series – a series that’s currently on the air and that is co-produced and broadcast by PBS in America:
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.
While Vertue did confirm that CBS assured Sherlock producers at one time, things can change over time, especially as a project is developed further. After what may be a change of executives at the network, changes in writers and showrunners, things that were once assured have the possibility of falling to the wayside.
Thankfully, Vertue (as well as everyone else involved in Sherlock) isn’t going to allow that to happen. In what may be the most indirect (yet direct) warning that any UK television producer has publically given an American television network (though in polite fashion), Vertue elegantly states:
We are very proud of our show and like any proud parent, will protect the interest and wellbeing of our offspring.
While not out-right threatening CBS with legal action, the wording does lend itself to the assumption that if something were to negatively impact Sherlock, BBC’s legal department will be at the ready.
But what exactly could Sherlock make a case about? At what point could the BBC take legal action again CBS’s Elementary? Thankfully, The Independent asked copyright specialist Margaret Tofalides that exact question.
The concept of a new Sherlock Holmes is unprotectable. But if the unusual elements of the BBC series – the modern settings, characters, clothes, plots and distinctive visual style – were closely reproduced in the CBS version, that could form the basis of a potential copyright claim.
And therein lies the problem for CBS. How is a network supposed to develop a pilot that needs to be continuously and extensively vetted by its legal department in order for it to make it to air? While subtle similarities may show up here and there, the sheer amount of work and potential legal battles that may come from attempting to bring about one new series to air isn’t worth it.
-
Sherlock season 2 airs in May on PBS. Expect Sherlock season 3 Summer 2013. Expect CBS to make a decision on Elementary this May.
Follow Anthony on Twitter @anthonyocasio
Source: The Independent [via: Digital Spy]
Around the web:
Loading ...
@ Dim2.0 ~ I for one hope the BBC can hammer CBS over this. Have you ever seen two versions of Superman on TV at the same time, or two Star Treks? I’m talking about stories with established characters, not just something similar within a genre.
The Networks and studios here have been recycling others’ ideas for too long. It’s about time someone slapped them around a bit, whatever the source. We deserve better than the crap they offer up, year in and year out.
PS: I took a cleaver to your handle.
F**k CBS – hacks
“Following the announcement of CBS’s Elementary, Vertue took to Twitter to mock the network’s decision (which has since been removed): “Mmm interesting CBS, I’m surprised no one has thought of making a modern day version of Sherlock before, oh hang on, we have!””
Because CBS didn’t make a modern day Sherlock Holmes back in the 80′s, right? Arrogant ass.
no they didnt Travis because theyre just not cleaver enough!!!!
CLEVER I SAID CLEVER!!!
I forgot about that movie. BBC now sounds like a douche for not doing their research. I still love Sherlock though.
Different concept, though – that was a 19th century Holmes frozen and then thawed out in the modern era.
CBS also own the rights to the Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce series which features Holmes updated to the 1940s fighting Nazi’s and using state of the art modern technology. This is the movie series that inspired the creators of “Sherlock”.
The Sherlock Holmes character is in the public domain. Anyone can do anything with the character. When you look at the cinematic history of the character, setting the films in Victorian/Edwardian England has been the exception to the rule. The Hammer “Hound of the Baskervilles” in 1959 was about the 100th Sherlock Holmes film, but only the 5th set in Victorian England.
I don’t think Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain. If I remember correctly, one branch of the Doyle family gives the BBC permission for its series. Another branch exercises control of some of the domain in the USA.
Mmmm. It’s not as simple as that. In fact, it’s not simple at all. Family members have been squabbling with with each other and with the US and British courts for decades, but it seems clear that the names at least, are in the public domain. So if you wanted to write a Sherlock Holmes book, or make a Sherlock Holmes movie, you wouldn’t have to pay anybody anything, so long as it was original written material.
You want to do a reimagining of “The Hound of the Baskervilles,” that’s a whole different story, and it would almost certainly end up costing you more in legal fees to challenge copyright, than just coughing up some green.
One Ms. Andrea Plunket in Livingston Manor, NY is theoretically the heir to the written materials copyright, but I’m pretty sure the Guy Richie productions didn’t pay her a dime, although they did invite her on set at least once. Ms. Plunket has twice tried to convince a US Federal Court to grant her a trademark for the name,”Sherlock Holmes,” but both times the court refused.
As I said at the beginning, this is a very complex, even convoluted issue, and if anyone else has a better description, I for one am all ears, er eyes.
The way this works is that the writings of Conan Doyle are in the public domain in their country of origin (UK), where copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. Doyles writings and creations (including Holmes, Girard, Challenger and his esoteric writings) are completely in the public domain. In the US, the final 10 stories to be published (from The Creeping Man- ie everythinbg in the Case-Book except Thor Bridge and Mazarin Stone) remain in copyright. But every story and novel published in or before 1922 is in the public domain.
When Doyle died his literary rights were split amongst his children who did not get along at all. Eventually, the rights were split in half between one of his daughters Dame Jean Conan Doyle and Sheldon Reynolds who produced the 1950′s TV series with Ronald Howard and purchased a share of the rights off another Doyle child. Reynold’s share was lost to his wife Andrea Plunkett in a divorce settlement.
Each half estate is able to license the properies (while they were/are under copyright) and the other is not able to interfere with the other’s licenses.
Because the origin novel and stories are in the public domain, it is generally accepted that the character is in the public domain. The Plunket and Doyle Literary Estates have both had orders against them for misrepresenting their “rights” in Sherlock Holmes. Plunket has been refused trademarks and has had orders against her for attempting to restrain the use of Holmes in pastiches. The Doyle estate was ordered to pay the producer of the Ian Richardson Holmes films a multi-million dollar compensation for misrepresenting the copyright status of the Sherlock Holmes works.
The “in coyright” status of 10 of the later stories in a large series ( and only under one countries laws) does not afford the former copyright owners of the previous stories the abilty to control the use of the earlier “public domain” stories. When a character or story is in the public domain anything can be done with it – modernisation included. The concept of modernising a character can’t be copyrighted or trademarked. The idea can’t be copyright but the expression of the idea can.
When CBS first piloted a modern day Sherlock Holmes show (The Return of Sherlock Holmes [1987]) they thought of having Holmes in suspended animation thawed out in 1987 and going to Boston to help solve crimes with Watson’s Grand-daughter Jane. The mystery was based on the “Sign of Four.” The fact that CBS made this show 25 years ago and the show is still in copyright doesn’t stop anyone else coming along and modernising “The Sign of Four” just as long as they don’t infringe the actual screenplay, script and art direction of the original film.
A lot of people still pay money to the two literary estates to use the character. Even though they virtually have no rights (except on those ten stories in the US) people pay because these estates make bogus but pursuasive legal threats. The fees for “non-exclusive” licenses to Sherlock Holmes et al (just a point both estates WILL license to CBS no matter what agreements one or both of them have with the BBC, hence non-exclusive) are seen by most producers and publishers a cheap hush money for the estates to go away, shut up and not interfere.
Fascinating. Can you also explain to us who owns the rights to Ernst Stavro Blofeld upon the death of Kevin McClory?
Spectre Associates, Inc. – the company McClory set up in 1996 to produce Warhead 2000 with Sony. Inherited by his estate. However, there is a settlement between Sony (the then licensee of the film rights to McClory’s Bond properties) and Danjaq/MGM which prevents the use of these properties independently of the official Bond franchise.
So…
…just between you, me, and that lamp post over there, can I take what you just said as meaning that the new Bond films can now legally include Blofeld and SPECTRE if they were to choose to do so…?
Sorry to all Sherlock fans for getting off topic here.
Sony and Spectre Associates ended up having to settle and admit that they didn’t have the right to begin a rival James Bond franchise. They paid MGM $5 million in settlement.
The license that Sony had on the “Thunderball” properies has since run out, but the settlement prevents Spectre Associates from mounting another Thunderball remake.
Of course, behind all this Sony was doing a back door deal with MGM to marry their other James Bond property, “Casino Royale”, to the main franchise and received a lot more than the settlement money back from MGM to join the James Bond franchise.
So, basically, Spectre Associates own the properties that Kevin McClory, Jack Whittingham and Ian Flemming created in their screen treatments for Thunderball but can’t use them.
Why in God’s name are there two different threads on the same topic? Couldn’t you have merged these topics, or simply updated the original?
What a mess.
Whilst i’m a huge Sherlock and Cumberbatch fan you’ll never beat the old school Basil Rathbone playing Holmes. I grew up watching these on TV and it’s what got me interested in Sherlock Holmes to begin with. Cumberbatch does however kick arse (yes America, that’s how it’s spelt lol). By the way, this is not an us (UK) versus you (USA) argument, it’s purely about the show Sherlock. He’s British, always has been and always will be. He lived at 221b Baker Street, London, not 221b East 86th Street. How will CBS handle this? The address is almost as iconic as the character, it’s a bloody museum for heavens sake. That’s how seriously we take our Sherlock Holmes, we made a museum for a fictional character lol.
By the way, lately I get the feeling that our ‘special relationship’ has long since vanished.
Wow, I am sure that this new series will be “CBS’d” much like any other series they have done. Talk about a network that plays to the lowest common denominator people.
Obviously you’ve never watched Fox or NBC.
This still means that Elementary can go back to the original Canon instead of doing a modern twist. That still could happen. Should the Yes on Prop 8 man become Sherlock Holmes? Should the Yes on Prop 8 man become the new Governor of California instead?
Of Elementary is set in Now York, does that mean that CBS’ Holmes is an American, or an immigrant from the UK [or the child of immigrants from the UK, which would be problematic vis-a-vis Holmes' backstory in any event]?
’cause an American Holmes would be extremely wrong.
D’OH! I meant ‘If Elementary is set in New York… [Auuuuuuugh!]
FWIW, Season 2 Episode 1 was pretty damned good.
I hope they can maintain this standard.
I’m talking about “Sherlock,” of course.
OldRogue – Season 2 episodes 1 & 3 were terrific, episodes 2 in both series were a trifle weaker but by no means not enjoyable.
The production values are head and shoulders above what we have come to expect as the BBC “norm.” I lived in England for 20 years, and I have two British sons to show for it. During that period, I got hooked on the BBC, and to a lesser extent, ITV (is it still called that?). The production values were quite low compared to what I was used to in US television – for example, they used video for interiors and 16mm film for exteriors, which was a bit jarring – but the writing and acting was so freakin good, that one got past that in a hurry.
They have improved enormously in the last few years – for example: Downton Abbey vs. Upstairs, Downstairs, etc. – and I welcome this, as long as they don’t cut back on the writing and acting.
FWIW, I have seen exactly the same things happening in French Cinema; improved production values, while maintaining quality stories and acting.
Lots of British shows have been co-opted by the U.S. (The Office, All In The Family, Queer As Folk, even Three’s Company, I think?), what was CBS’s misstep? (and I don’t want to sound pro-CBS here, something smells totally fishy, I just can’t put my finger on how exactly. )
Well, the examples you state are officialy sanctioned remakes. Elementary isn’t an officialy sanctioned remake of Sherlock, it’s just using the same idea.
We truly live in an era of the absolute best television shows ever made and the worst television shows ever made existing side by side.
I hadn’t thought of this before, but there is always the possibility that CBS could pass off the production and airing of “Elementary” to their offspring Showtime company.
If that were the case, we might see a substantially different result than that which we feared might come from CBS.
If only Americans spoke the same language then they could just show the BBC version on their channel.
We already have “Sherlock” on our “channel.”
It was produced by the BBC, but WGBH in Boston (one of the larger Public Broadcast Service stations) was/is a co-producer. That means that “Sherlock” is distributed to all PBS stations in the USA as a part of their “Masterpiece” series.
Another interesting point. Re-doing modern day Sherlock, would be like NBC redoing CBS’ “The Mentalist” while it’s still on. I wonder how often using the same branding happens on rival stations when both versions of a show are running.
“The Mentalist” was “inspired” by “Psych” focusing more on the drama part of it
…this is why I stick to Robert Downey jr and Jude law. Avoid this craziness
Like numerous fans have already said… the cast:
Nicholas Cage as Sherlock
Matt Damon as John Watson
A stupid, busty blond of your choice as Mrs Hudson (imagine the sexual tension!)
Mycroft as Morgan Freeman
The Rock as Jim Moriarty
Every episode will end with Sherlock saying “because here in America we have justice, that’s why!”
Jokes apart, the problem is the inappropriate timing, the annoying (and fairly inaccurate and surely predictable) title and the fact that when an idea is just born to milk the cow it’s probably a bad idea. Also, CBS. C-B-S. Just saying.
Sorry– The problem is the title being “annoying” and “inaccurate”? Annoying, I’ll grant you your opinion, but ‘inaccurate’? Holmes said “Elementary” numerous times in the books, so it seems very accurate. Maybe if the series title was “Elementary, My Dear Watson” you could call it inaccurate, but really, what a silly reason for casting down a show that’s merely in the idea stage.
Most of you are aware that “Sherlock” aired after the 2009 Richie movie to coast along their fame. There was another low budget film that did the same exact thing. CBS may be a little late with the new trend, but they by no means shouldn’t be allowed to participate. Just let them make their show. If it bombs, it bombs, and if it’s a success, then hey, now you have two great SH shows to satisfy your inner fan.
Ritchie’s ‘Sherlock Holmes’ was set in the period in which the Conan Doyle stories were set; ‘Sherlock’ is set in the present.
The only thing they have in common is that they depict Holmes and Watson as closer to their ages in the Conan Doyle canon than any other version [including the BBC series starring Jeremy Brett].
The TV series was being planned before Ritchie’s film was completed and released, so it certainly wasn’t released to capitalize on the success of the movie. Besides, as a depiction of Holmes and Watson, it is even closer to Conan doyle’s stories [which is saying something, as Ritchie's movie is much closer to canon than most people are willing to give it credit for.
In any event, 'Sherlock' has better writing and at least equal casting and performance, so it's not really riding anyone's coattails in that regarded [in terms of critical response, it is even more highly regarded, so that can't be it, either...].
Besides, the problem isn’t that CBS is doing a contemporary Holmes series – that wouldn’t bother Ms. Vertue. The problem is that they’re doing so very shortly after having had their efforts to purchase the rights to adapt the Moffatt/Gatiss format [of which Ms. Vertue is a producer] for America. That rings all kinds of alarm bells [surely, it would take considerably longer to develop their own entirely independent take from scratch].
“Elementary, my dear Watson” is never actually said by Holmes in any of the sixty Holmes stories written by Conan Doyle.
Just sayin…
“Johnny is a very fine actor, who I saw recently in the theatre when he and Benedict played alternating roles in Frankenstein. Let’s hope their pilot script has stayed further away from our Sherlock than their casting choice We have been in touch with CBS and informed them that we will be looking at their finished pilot very closely for any infringement of our rights.”
— Sue Vertue, producer of Sherlock talking to Digital Spy