Sherlock's transcripts and more

The various writers must love seeing their creative property being disseminated without their permission. I saw one site (possibly the one you've linked) where the "author" posted all these scripts and had the unmitigated gall to warn readers not to post "her" work without her permission. Unbelievable.

For legitimate scripts, check Sherlockology.com. They don't have all of them, but at least the ones they do have have been approved by Hartswood.

https://rycardus.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/sherlock-and-the-sorcerer/

Wait. How is what she's doing a copyright issue? She's transcribed them herself, isn't taking credit for them, isn't charging any money to access them. I'm confused. 🤔

She's posting someone else's copyrighted work without their permission. It doesn't matter whether she photocopied a copy of the script or transcribed the words from her television. And it doesn't matter that she's offering the transcripts for free.

I imagine that Hartswood knows about the transcripts, since she's been doing it for years. If that's true, then they've chosen not to stop her. Nonetheless, she is violating their copyrights.

Polite request: If you take extracts from this transcript for use elsewhere, and especially if you repost my own words, it would be kind if you would acknowledge the source and/or give a link back to this transcript. Thanks.

That is what she says. She just asks to be mentioned.

I don't see the big deal. They are just watching the episodes and writing what they hear and what they see. They are not just transcribing the subtitles. When they write what they see, for instance,
In tight close-up, an eye opens revealing its blue iris. We then see the face of the person. It’s a young girl with brown curly hair, who looks no older than ten years old and possibly younger.
they are writing their own words.

They don't copy directly from the original script from Moffat and Gatiss. But of course I am no expert on copyright infringement and fair use.

Polite request: If you take extracts from this transcript for use elsewhere, and especially if you repost my own words, it would be kind if you would acknowledge the source and/or give a link back to this transcript. Thanks.

That is what she says. She just asks to be mentioned.
To be fair, I'm going by memory and I wasn't even sure the request was on the same site. I glanced at it ages ago and haven't been back.

When she says, "acknowledge the source," does she mean her site? That was my impression. I'll stand corrected if she identifies the screenwriters for these scripts and is asking her readers to identify them, too. But why "especially if you repost my own words"? She's awfully precious about her own work while playing fast and loose with the works of professional writers, IMO. As a professional writer myself, I may be hypersensitive to this issue.

They are just watching the episodes and writing what they hear and what they see. That's part of the problem. From the brief skim I did about a year ago, I spotted several errors. Will the uninitiated assume this woman's interpretation is accurate rather than the actual script as written by the screenwriter? It's a bit like people who make cheap copies of designer bags and clothes and slightly change the name "Guchi" rather than "Gucci," for instance. Is that legal? Moral? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I know how the designers feel about it.

I'm no expert on copyright law, but I did pick this up online: When the writer creates the script they own the copyright. As part of your contract with them, you will need them to pass the copyright onto you and to allow you to pass it on to third parties.
One last point: Some original Sherlock scripts are legally available on the Sherlockology site. If the writers were happy to share all their scripts, why didn't they do so? Anyway, that's my opinion. YMMV.



https://rycardus.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/sherlock-and-the-sorcerer/

Copyright is something that affects my family very much so I am especially interested in it.

Here's a site that might help foster a greater understanding and appreciation for the complexities of copyright laws -

http://ogc.harvard.edu/pages/copyright-and-fair-use

Something interesting to note - it doesn't matter if she isn't making any money on her transcripts, she is still breaking copyright. "Fair use" exceptions are very restrictive and specific. If she has permission from the holders of the copyright for the Sherlock episodes (Hartswood and/or the BBC) then she could reproduce the transcripts, if she doesn't - she can't.

Let's say a few years from now Hartswood wants to publish a book of the transcripts of the show (this has happened in the past for shows like Fraiser - I have several of the book of scripts). Then in theory this fan's site would be undermining the lawful holder of the copyright from making $$$ off off their production.

That's why artist/creatives are usually very protective of copyright. It is a source of income for them. In our family royalty fees are still being paid to us today for books my husband wrote twenty years ago and people who unlawfully breach copyright are actually stealing from us.

Just one perspective to consider.

:-))

"You're going into the water... short-arse!"
- Sherlock

it doesn't matter if she isn't making any money on her transcripts, she is still breaking copyright Yep, there seems to be a widespread belief on the Internet that you can take photos, text, etc. from anyone's website and use them on your own website as long as you don't sell them. Not true. If you want to publish someone else's work, you need their permission.

I dont know how useful this is but I'd like to add my two cents to the copyright debate.

I find that a visual analogy makes any argument clearer for me....so with that in mind imagine this:

-Say Julie Andrews does a topless nude scene in a film,
--say someone takes a screencap of that and posts it on their website for free and doesnt make any money off it,
---then that person says this image is readily available to anyone who watches the movie in which Julie Andrews willingly, deliberately did that scene, so I'm not breaking any laws*.

Would it be difficult to see that this breaks the copyright laws that protect the contents of the film?


*(for a good measure they might even say they are not doing anything morally wrong, but we wont go there, for this discussion.)