## Facts

- Dr. David F. Musto, a psychiatrist and historian, wrote a 1968 journal article discussing 19th-century cocaine use, including speculative commentary connecting Sherlock Holmes’s cocaine use with Sigmund Freud.
- Nicholas Meyer wrote *The Seven Per Cent Solution*, a fictional Sherlock Holmes adventure in which Holmes is addicted to cocaine and is treated by Freud; the book acknowledged Musto’s article as an influence on the premise.
- The book was published in hardback and paperback; a motion picture based on the book was later produced.
- Musto alleged that substantial portions of the book and film copied his article and infringed his copyright.
- Defendants conceded access to Musto’s article but denied actionable similarity.
- Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings; the court considered additional submissions identifying alleged copying and addressed the book and film separately.

## Issues

1. Whether the novel *The Seven Per Cent Solution* is substantially similar to Musto’s article in protectable expression such that it infringes Musto’s copyright.
2. Whether, on the then-existing record at the Rule 12(c) stage, the film version could be held noninfringing as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants as to the book, holding that the alleged similarities concerned unprotected ideas and that the works were not substantially similar in protectable expression.
- The court denied the motion as to the film, holding that the record was insufficient at that stage to determine noninfringement as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protects original expression, not ideas, themes, concepts, or historical facts.
- Substantial-similarity analysis focuses on protectable expression, including objective/purpose, plot, character delineation, and style, rather than shared premises.
- Use of public-domain material (including Sherlock Holmes elements originating in Doyle) is not protectable by a later author; overlap attributable to public-domain sources or generic phrasing does not establish infringement.
- Access, even if admitted, is insufficient without substantial similarity in protectable expression.

## Conclusion

The court held that a shared premise—Holmes’s cocaine addiction and Freud’s involvement—was an unprotected idea and that Musto’s historical article and Meyer’s fictional novel differed materially in purpose, plot, characterization, and style, requiring dismissal of the book-based infringement claim, while leaving the film claim unresolved due to an incomplete record.


Musto v. Meyer, 434 F. Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)