Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 23 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 13 C 1226.,13 C 1226. |
| Citation | 988 F.Supp.2d 879 |
| Parties | Leslie S. KLINGER, Plaintiff, v. CONAN DOYLE ESTATE, LTD., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Scott M. Gilbert, John A. Leja, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Benjamin Allison, Sutin Thayer & Browne, A Professional Corporation, Santa Fe, NM, Lynn E. Mostoller, Sutin, Thayer & Browne, APC, Albuquerque, NM, William Frederick Zieske, Zieske Law, Woodstock, IL, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Leslie S. Klinger (“Klinger”) brings this copyright action against Defendant Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd. (“Conan Doyle”), seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Specifically, Klinger seeks a declaration that various characters, character traits and other story elements from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories are free for the public to copy without infringing Conan Doyle's rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Presently before the Court is Klinger's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grant's Klinger's motion in part and denies it in part.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle authored four novels and fifty-six short stories (collectively, “the Canon”) featuring the fictional characters of detective Sherlock Holmes and his friend and colleague Dr. John H. Watson. (Conan Doyle's Rule 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 1, 8.) Sir Arthur Conan Doyle first introduced these characters in “A Study in Scarlet,” which was first published in Beeton's Christmas Annual in 1887 and first released in the United States in 1890. The four novels and forty-six of the fifty-six short stories were first published in the United States on various dates prior to January 1, 1923.2 The ten short stories remaining under copyright protection (the “Ten Stories”) are set forth in Exhibit B to the complaint. (R. 1–2, Ex. B, Ten Stories.)
Conan Doyle is a company owned by members of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's family. Conan Doyle licenses its intellectual property, including copyrights, in the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to third parties through its exclusive authorized licensing agents in the United States. Klinger is the author and editor of twenty-seven books and dozens of articles in the mystery and thriller literature genre, including two dozen books and numerous articles on Sherlock Holmes and the Canon.
Klinger is the co-editor, along with Laurie R. King, of A Study in Sherlock, an anthology of new and original short stories by contemporary authors. The stories in A Study in Sherlock were inspired by the Canon and feature various characters and story elements from the Canon. Klinger and King entered into a contract with Random House to publish the anthology. Before Random House published A Study in Sherlock, Conan Doyle intervened to assert its exclusive copyright over the use of the characters Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Conan Doyle informed Random House that it must enter into a licensing agreement with it in order to publish the anthology. ( Id.) Although Klinger and King believed that the law did not require them to obtain a license, Random House disagreed and entered into a licensing agreement with Conan Doyle. ( Id.)
Klinger and King are also the co-editors of a sequel to A Study in Sherlock, currently titled In the Company of Sherlock Holmes, which is another collection of new and original short stories featuring various characters and story elements from the Canon. Klinger and King are currently preparing In the Company of Sherlock Holmes for publication by Pegasus Books and distribution by W.W. Norton & Company. ( Id.) At Klinger's insistence, literary critic and historian Michael Dirda, a contributing author to the new anthology, informed Conan Doyle of his intention to use Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character Langdale Pike in his new story. The character originated in the short story “The Three Gables,” published in the 1926 Case–Book, which is currently under copyright protection. ( Id.)
An agent acting on behalf of Conan Doyle contacted Pegasus Books and insisted that the publisher obtain a license from Conan Doyle in order to publish In the Company of Sherlock Holmes. (Klinger's Facts ¶ 21 (citing R. 13–4, Klinger's Decl. ¶ 3).) Conan Doyle further informed Pegasus Books that it works with retailers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble to weed out unlicensed uses of Sherlock Holmes and “[would] not hesitate to do so with your book as well.” (Klinger's Facts ¶ 21 .) Out of fear of litigation, Pegasus Books refused to finalize its contract with Klinger and King to publish In the Company of Sherlock Holmes. Klinger believes that a license is unnecessary to use the Sherlock Holmes Story Elements in the new anthology, (Klinger's Facts ¶ 21 ), whereas Conan Doyle asserts that using the characters of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in the anthology requires a license, . In order to proceed with the publication of In the Company of Sherlock Holmes, Klinger seeks to have this Court determine the copyright status of a list of specific characters, character traits, dialogue, settings, artifacts, and other story elements in the Canon (the “Sherlock Holmes Story Elements”) . (Klinger's Facts ¶ 21 .)
Klinger initiated this action on February 14, 2013. (R. 1, Compl.) In Count I, the sole count of the complaint, Klinger seeks a declaratory judgment establishing that the public is entitled to copy the expression embodied in the Ten Stories set forth in Exhibit B, (R. 1–2, Ex. B, Ten Stories), and as to the Sherlock Holmes Story Elements set forth in Exhibit A, . On June 25, 2013, the Court entered a default against Conan Doyle for failure to timely appear, answer, or otherwise plead to the complaint.3 (R. 10, Min. Entry.) The Court permitted Klinger to proceed with filing either a motion for summary judgment or a motion for default judgment. ( Id.) On July 29, 2013, Klinger filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (R. 11, Klinger's Mot. Summ. J.) This fully briefed motion is presently before the Court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court does not evaluate the weight of the evidence, judge the credibility of the witnesses, or determine the ultimate truth of the matter; instead, the Court's role is simply to ascertain whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). “A disputed fact is ‘material’ if it might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.” Hampton v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir.2009) (citing id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505;see Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 629 F.3d 697, 704 (7th Cir.2011) ()
The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to summary judgment. Wheeler v. Lawson, 539 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir.2008). The moving party “can prevail just by showing that the other party has no evidence on an issue on which that party has the burden of proof.” Brazinski v. Amoco Petroleum Additives Co., 6 F.3d 1176, 1183 (7th Cir.1993) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). Once the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving party must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322 n. 3, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (1987)). The non-moving party may not rely on “mere conclusions and allegations” to create a genuine issue of material fact. Balderston v. Fairbanks Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Indus., 328 F.3d 309, 320 (7th Cir.2003) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505). In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party “must make a showing sufficient to establish any essential element of her cause of action for which she will bear the burden of persuasion at trial.” Smith ex rel. Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 427 (7th Cir.1997). The Court's inquiry is essentially “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
On summary judgment, the Court limits its analysis of the facts to the evidence that is presented in the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements of material facts. See Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Turentine
...to 'declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.'" Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd.,988 F. Supp. 2d 879, 886 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a)). The remedy is discretionary. Tempco Elec. Heater Corp. v. Omega Eng'g, Inc., 819 ......
-
Foodworks United States, Inc. v. Foodworks of Arlington Heights, LLC
...must first assure itself that the complaint supports the right to relief.") (unpublished order); see also Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd., 988 F. Supp. 2d 879, 884 (N.D. Ill. 2013), aff'd, 755 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2014) ("The entry of a default order does not, however, preclude a party fr......