BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Andrea Plunket: The woman threatening to take BBC Sherlock off the air

**Posted by Mnemosyne** September 20, 2013 9:39 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2426171/RICHARD-KAY-U-S-threat-kill-BBCs-Sherlock.html

Now I hate the DM at the best of times but every few years this woman rears her ugly mush and each time she does I cry inside (and sometimes on the outside.)

She has claims to the ACD estate in the US (apparently) and is threatening court action against the BBC. I believe in the past she has also threatened to come down hard on anyone even remotely placing 'subtext' in their interpretations (including anything even remotely homosexual... so that convo from ASiP hasn't gone down well with her probably... I pray to god she hasn't found Tumblr, her head would explode.) It doesn't matter if you ship JohnLock or not... in this day and age we should at least be able to pass comment on this interpretation of the canon without some social dinosaur threatening to drag your name through the courts over it.

She is currently threatening to take the BBC show off the air and openly admits to being 'not that enamoured of the BBC.'

But I think we can all relax, according to the BBC there is no issues with copyright with Sherlock in the UK. So it is unlikely that she is going to get very far with the courts over here.

What a greedy old hag though! Andrea: keep your homophobic money grabbing ways out of my fandom!

Last edited by Mnemosyne (September 20, 2013 9:40 am)

**Posted by SusiGo** September 20, 2013 10:23 am

This sounds a bit ridiculous, tbh. Cannot imagine that she has any legal claims over the BBC but it is sad how such people try to make headlines. Let alone any homophobic statements or claims against the series.

However, what struck me was this part:

"Cumberbatch and fellow actor Martin Freeman, who plays Dr Watson, are scheduled to film a further series next year."

Is this just a mix-up with a possible broadcast date for series 3? So far I did not hear any rumours about series 4 to be filmed next year.

**Posted by Mnemosyne** September 20, 2013 10:26 am

Swanpride wrote:
I have no idea how her ownership of US RIGHTS! translates to owning the character in general. But I'm not worried. Because usually, copyrights disputes are decided based on the law of the country in which the adaptation is published, and not on the law of the country in which the claimant lives. I learned that during the Three Investigators disput, which was a matter of the German court, but the rules are pretty clear at least concerning this point. It is one of the reason China can get away with so much.
Either way, I really don't see her winning this dispute.

Agreed, she won't get far. But it's the sheer cheek of this woman that gets to me. Claiming that she can and will take the BBC to court and that she will win... all because she wants to take the BBC show off the air.

You'd have thought that, being such an avid protector of the ACD estate (*eyeroll*) that by now she might have some idea of how avid the fans are. And considering it's the fans that keep the estate ticking over you would think that the last thing this woman would want to do is upset the fanbase. If she gets her way there won't be any money left in it for her. She will have bled it dry... then again I don't suppose the longevity of any estate is at the forefront of your mind when you're in your 70's...

SusiGo wrote:
This sounds a bit ridiculous, tbh. Cannot imagine that she has any legal claims over the BBC but it is sad how such people try to make headlines. Let alone any homophobic statements or claims against the series.

However, what struck me was this part:

"Cumberbatch and fellow actor Martin Freeman, who plays Dr Watson, are scheduled to film a further series next year."

Is this just a mix-up with a possible broadcast date for series 3? So far I did not hear any rumours about series 4 to be filmed next year.

Oh she's done it in the past with the recent films too:

http://bbcsherlockftw.tumblr.com/post/20652956659/the-case-of-andrea-plunket-and-the-sherlock-holmes

I *think* this is the DM getting their wires crossed with the dates there.

Last edited by Mnemosyne (September 20, 2013 10:40 am)

**Posted by tonnaree** September 20, 2013 10:43 am

Poor thing, she's obviously starved for attention.

**Posted by the_dancing_woman** September 20, 2013 10:59 am

God, this is painfully ridiculous. I don't think she will get very far either. Sometimes I wonder what is going on in people's heads. I think it's best to make sure that people like her don't get too much publicity.

I don't think that they will be working on another series of Sherlock next year already. That would mean breaking with the tradition of the two-year wait, I don't think the world is quite ready for this (though I would welcome it very much).
Most certainly they are referring to series 3, which (with cutting and finishing of the filmed episodes still underway) will most likely actually air some time around the beginning of next year.

**Posted by Mnemosyne** September 20, 2013 12:25 pm

Swanpride wrote:
Okay...did I get this right that her claim is based on right she doesn't even own because the courts denied her claim in the past? How the hell does this even go to court?

It won't get that far but the BBC will probably be obliged to look into it anyway to cover their arses. But it will no doubt be expensive and time consuming. In short: an utter waste of time and resources (which we in the UK will likely end up paying for.)

**Posted by sj4iy** September 20, 2013 12:37 pm

Someone else is suing the ACD estate (in England) because he claims that Sherlock Holmes should be in the public domain as most of it was written more than 100 years ago. The estate has been wringing license fees out of everyone who uses the characters, no matter when the versions of the characters would be (as most of SH falls within public domain), and this writer has taken a stand, saying that SH should be free of any copyrights obligations. Personally, I despise copyright laws, as a person can be long dead but their work is still making money for people who had nothing to do with it. Hopefully this lawsuit will offer some clarity about works which span over many years and in which part or most of it is within the public domain.

I don't give any credence to the American woman since, as others have mentioned, copyright laws originate within the country in which the copyright was issued. She has no standing and is just trying to scare people into sending her money. It's a get-rich-quick scheme that many people have used and that many people have fallen for.

**Posted by Mnemosyne** September 20, 2013 1:51 pm

I always think that writers and artists of any kind should always get correctly rewarded for the work they do and should not have to face being ripped off, copied etc whilst they are alive. But the thought of any work I do being squabbled over like this in 100 years time really makes my blood run cold. I think if you're not a blood relation and you were not mentioned in a will somewhere, forget it, you're not entitled to it. (I just wish there was a way to stop these hangers on who married someone to lay claim to their intellectual property.)

**Posted by sj4iy** September 20, 2013 3:51 pm

Here is the article:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/15093722002/arthur-conan-doyle-estate-sued-to-show-that-sherlock-holmes-is-public-domain.shtml

The hilarious thing is that the estate's defense is as follows:

""Plaintiff’s position would create multiple personalities out of Sherlock Holmes: a 'public domain' version of his character attempting to only use only public domain traits, next to the true character Sir Arthur created. But there are not sixty versions of Sherlock Holmes in the sixty stories; there is one complex Sherlock Holmes. To attempt to dismantle Holmes’s character is not only impossible as a practical matter, but would ignore the reality that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created a single complex character complete in sixty stories."

That's right...Sherlock Holmes wasn't completely "psychologically formed" by 1923, so his character must stay under copyright. I couldn't make this up if I tried. So good luck to Klinger...let's get Sherlock Holmes completely in the public domain so that the leeches can stop sucking money out of everybody who wants to use the characters.

**Posted by Davina** September 20, 2013 10:04 pm

Even on a brief read, her claim to the copywright on the ACD estate is tenuous. Only through the acquisition by her husband in the 1950s who made a TV series, in the US. Her claims have been repeatedly thrown out of the US courts and I cannot see that it will be any different on this occasion. I am sure, however, that her lawyers have been rubbing their hands together for years whilst she pursues these ridiculous claims. With 5 minutes work (I.e. research, i know, a dirty word to this particular rag and its 'journalists') the Daily Mail would have discovered that there is , actually, no realistic likelihood of Sherlock being stopped due to this woman's delusional behaviour! It resembles a story from Dickens!

**Posted by sj4iy** September 20, 2013 10:26 pm

Also keep in mind that the article is from the Daily Fail...where journalistic standards are almost non-existant and articles are required to be sensational. Here are a couple of articles that are on today's front page:

"Super slim Alyson Hannigan reveals her razor sharp rib cage in a bikini as she frolics on the beach with her husband"

"Make up free Julia Roberts' pretty blonde mini-me daughter Hazel snuggles into her famous mother as they step out hand-in-hand"

I would be shocked if they ever researched their articles.

**Posted by dark_feileacan** September 21, 2013 3:50 pm

According to this http://www.conandoyleestate.co.uk/index.php/copyright/ she's failed every other time she's tried to pursue and litigate. I can do some more research on it later, I have a paper to right for school that I should be doing, but I saw the dailymail article and freaked out.

**Posted by dark_feileacan** September 21, 2013 3:53 pm

and I also found this http://www.sherlockian.net/acd/copyright.html

**Posted by nicbooful** September 21, 2013 7:07 pm

I've never heard of any copyright issues before but have just read the articles posted above. This Plunket woman sounds like an absolute nutter. She has no rights at all and ends up losing financially every time she goes back to court. I find it disgusting that she would make a claim after the death of ACD last surviving child even after the rights then passed to the ACD estate.

Stupid, stupid woman.

**Posted by Mnemosyne** September 21, 2013 10:16 pm

sj4iy wrote:
Also keep in mind that the article is from the Daily Fail.

Daily Fail... ahaha I am definitely going to refer to them like that from now on.

**Posted by kittykat** September 22, 2013 12:24 am

Ugh, attention seeker...and a homophobic one to boot! Waste of time!

**Posted by Sherlock Holmes** September 23, 2013 2:08 pm

I wouldn't worry too much about this....

**Posted by Jacco111** September 24, 2013 6:25 am

kittykat wrote:
Ugh, attention seeker...and a homophobic one to boot! Waste of time!

I really hate it when the word homophobe is overused like this. As it happens, you can dislike the 'Johnlock' thing, and not be against LBGT rights.

Like the PM you send me after I spoke my mind about the oversexualization of Holmes.

**Posted by Davina** September 24, 2013 5:35 pm

Love your avatar by-the-way Jacco.

**Posted by sj4iy** September 24, 2013 7:06 pm

From the NYT:

"As Holmes has endured, so have challenges over his ownership. In court cases that started in the late 1990s, Andrea Plunket, the ex-wife of Mr. Reynolds, the producer, filed suits against the Conan Doyle estate and other companies, saying they violated her rights to the characters. Her family had financed the purchase of the Conan Doyle properties from the Royal Bank of Scotland, and after she divorced her husband (and became the companion of the socialite Claus von Bülow), she said those rights were hers.

Federal courts have repeatedly ruled against Ms. Plunket, and her attempt to trademark the Sherlock Holmes name was denied. But in a telephone interview, she said she was the administrator of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate, and that when Jean Conan Doyle’s advisers served Ms. Plunket’s family with a notice of copyright termination, they sent it to a non-existent address.

Ms. Plunket, who now operates a bed-and-breakfast in Livingston Manor, N.Y., said that Mr. Lellenberg and his colleagues were the aggressors. “He has one huge advantage,” she said, “which is the name Conan Doyle, which he brandishes, of course.”

Ms. Plunket said that she had a limited involvement in the making of Mr. Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” film, and that she spoke frequently with its producers and visited its set. “Nobody asked me for my advice,” she said “They didn’t say, ‘Oh, well, Mrs. Plunket, tell us who you want to play Sherlock Holmes.’ I had no legal right.”

Pointing to the legal judgments against Ms. Plunket, Mr. Lellenberg vigorously disputed her arguments. “We’re really tired of her,” he said.

Mr. Lellenberg said Ms. Plunket may still own derivative properties created by Mr. Reynolds, like a Sherlock Holmes series for Polish television. Also, he said, “The studios are vulnerable to harassment, to nuisances, and some people they pay off just to get them out of their way. I don’t know if they did that in this case.”

(A spokeswoman for Warner Brothers, which released Mr. Ritchie’s film, said it had entered into agreements with Mr. Lellenberg’s clients and Ms. Plunket for the movie, but declined to specify the details.)"