From: rhballan@eos.ncsu.edu (ROBERT HAMI BALLANTINE)
Subject: Re: Elementary, Dear Data Question Part II.
Organization: North Carolina State University Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:17:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.152027.59629@cc.usu.edu> sll28@cc.usu.edu (Lorna Payne) writes:
>In article <1bbnvoINN53e@interceptor.ksu.ksu.edu>, tilden@interceptor.ksu.ksu.edu (Jeffery A Bohning) writes:
>> 
>> In article <Bvtq3G.AD@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, rusbasan@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Bob Rusbasan) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct8.112051.10441@umbc3.umbc.edu> cs202144@umbc8.umbc.edu (cs202144) writes:
>>>>Good question, but it has to be no. When they originally made the episode they
>>>>did not get permission to whoever owns the rights to things Sherlock Holmes
>>>>related. They almost got sued! If they want to do another one they have to
>>>>first get permission and they pay money for the right to use it. Since their
>>>>budget per episode is so high as it is they probably won't do it anytime soon.
>>>
>>>Interesting.  This is the second time someone has posted about legal
>>>problems with using Sherlock Holmes characters.  Recently, however, I
>>>read that the copyrights on the characters have expired long ago,
>>>and thus they can be freely used by anyone.  This is why, the story said,
>>>there are many games involving Sherlock Holmes (this was from an article
>>>in a video game magazine).
>>>
>>>So does anyone know the real story?  Was Paramount almost sued, or not?
>
>
>
>Yup.  The Doyle estate is *very* jealous of their characters, esp. Holmes.
>
>Even though the copyrights have expired, the estate is adamant about 
>treating Holmes as if he were a trademark, not a character or a name. 
>Trademarks have an entirely different legal status. And they have a whole
>army of Ferengi lawyers willing to jump on anybody using Holmes, Moriarty,
>or Watson without permission.  
>
>Most people, if they want to use Holmes or one of the other characters, 
>either get permission from the estate beforehand and/or agree to pay the
>Doyle estate royalties.  The producers of TNG decided the grief wasn't
>worth it.
>
>
> 
>> If what you are saying is true, then I want to know why they haven't come out
>> with the follow-up to an originally good episode.  But, back to my question,
>> would my solution work? If they could do the show without a problem, could they
>> put Morriarty in an android body and come up with a new plot complication as
>> he tries to learn how to controll it like was done in another episode (of
>> which the title illudes me) where the elder gentleman took over Data? 
>> 
>
>This could be interesting, and a lot of fan authors have done similar
>stories.
>
>     -------------------------------------------------------------
>               Lorna Payne
>               Certified Math Geek and Grammarian
>     -------------------------------------------------------------
>     The concept is simply staggering.  Pointless, but staggering.
>                         -The Doctor (The Pirate Planet)
>     -------------------------------------------------------------
>

Hey, maybe they should make moriarty a permenant member of the crew.
Not!!

-- 


 _ __              __         _  _                        
' )  )     /      /  )       // //           _/_
 /--' ____/__    /--<  __.  // // __.  ____  /  o ____  _
/  \_(_) /_)    /___/_(_/|_</_</_(_/|_/ / <_<__<_/ / <_</_
**********************************************************
*(Obnoxious sig eh?)* rhballan@eos.ncsu.edu **************
**********************************************************