Novels made into film adaptations have become the go to means of producing for new films in the entertainment industry. Film adaptations of novels have led to many legal disputes over the years. These disputes are based on if copyrights are still protected or are the works in the public domain, due to the works dating prior to 1923. Adding to this heated dispute lets add some more fuel to the fire by reviewing some of these cases in detail. There are a lot of works out there in the entertainment market related to the character Sherlock Holmes. Works such as feature length films and the TV show Elementary, which is based current day in New York City. What most people don’t know is that the character Sherlock Holmes was first introduced in 1887 and was featured in four short novels and 56 short stories dating from 1887 to 1927. The question that is constantly disputed is whether Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain or not. Based on changes to our US copyright act everything prior to 1923 is in the public domain, which is where most of the confusion stems from with the character Sherlock Holmes. With that being said, the characters Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson’s relationship on what they did and how they worked together were created prior to 1923. However, the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is saying between 1923 and 1927 versions of the Sherlock Holmes story, are being featured in the current book scheduled for publication by random house.

In recent news the court system has been receiving their run of industry court lawsuits. Today lets narrow in on a few of these cases, preferably ones dealing with and affecting the entertainment industry. The European Court of Human Rights has supported the conviction on one of the world's largest sharing torrent file websites, Fredrik Neij, and Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, two of the co-founders of The Pirate Bay. Neij and Kolmisoppi were both charged with Connivance to commit crimes in violation of the Copyright Act. Their sentence was for one years incarceration and a 3.3 million euros (4.3 million US) fine. This sentence was later reduced but the fine was raised to 5 million euros (6.5 million US). Neij and Kolmisoppi then filed an application arguing that under Pirate Bay they received and provided information to Internet users about torrent files, which led them to believe that liability for IP infringement fell on Pirate Bay’s users. They both believed their right to communicate information was protected by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which dictates that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right also includes the right to embrace opinions, receive and convey information and ideas without restriction by public authority, regardless of borderlines. What Neij and Kolmisoppi didn’t take into account is that the same article also states that this shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. The ruling says, (Eriq Gardner, 2013) "Since the Swedish authorities were under an obligation to protect the plaintiffs’ property rights in accordance with the Copyright Act and the Convention, the Court finds that there were weighty reasons for the restriction of the applicants’ freedom of expression."