“flat” characters and not to complex, three-dimensional characters such as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. (R. 28, Conan Doyle’s Mem. at 8-10.) Conan Doyle fails to offer a bright line rule or workable legal standard for determining when characters are sufficiently developed to warrant copyright protection through an entire series, nor does it provide any case law that supports its position. Conan Doyle’s proposed distinction runs counter to prevailing case law. See Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 690 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1058-59 (C.D.Cal.2009) (“[T]he copyrightable aspects of a character ... are protected only to the extent the work in which that particular aspect of the character was first delineated remains protected.”); see also Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644, 660 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The effect of adopting Conan Doyle’s position
holding that campaign money laundering was in furtherance of political speech but an invalid exercise of free speech rights because it was illegal holding that once a comic book character was drawn named and given speech it was sufficiently distinctive to be copyrightable recognizing that code is speech holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that exact same speech at issue in keimer the book cover flyleaf and introduction to the book which stated a fact made by the authors in the book itself was not commercial speech because it states a fact made by the authors in the text it is not about the book as a product