So right now I'm doing lots and lots of work with copyright, permissions, et cetera. Most of the authors I'm trying to get reprint permissions for are quite dead
( Read more... )
GOSH was given Peter Pan by Barrie after the play was published, and they retain those rights as long as the title is protected by copyright law. They have sold two licenses for film adaptations: One to Disney for animated features, and one to Sony/Columbia for live-action features.
The play itself is still wholly owned by GOSH, as was the will of the author. That copyright expired in 2007 in the EU, and in 2023 in the US.
Meanwhile, the US copyright for the novel (which was published in the US well before the play was officially published here) has expired, putting the novel in the public domain.
As a result, the characters themselves are in the public domain in all mediums, so NEW works using those characters are fair game for anyone. The story itself is still under copyright. And Disney shoveling out a new Peter Pan direct-to-DVD title doesn't reset the clock on the older content. It only establishes the copyright on NEW content. Tinkerbell, as drawn by Disney, still enters the public domain in 2048 -- no matter how many shitty movies Disney puts out with her in it before then.
Names and logos are a different matter. Titling a story "Peter Pan" touches on GOSH's copyright of the story, and Disney's trademark on their media franchise. But writing a novel about Peter Pan, and featuring the character, is fair game.
Pooh's....murky, to say the least. From the research I've done, it definitely looks like Disney's being a bit crooked when it comes to the franchise and resulting royalties. But the amount of control they actually have over Peter Pan is very small.
GOSH was given Peter Pan by Barrie after the play was published, and they retain those rights as long as the title is protected by copyright law. They have sold two licenses for film adaptations: One to Disney for animated features, and one to Sony/Columbia for live-action features.
The play itself is still wholly owned by GOSH, as was the will of the author. That copyright expired in 2007 in the EU, and in 2023 in the US.
Meanwhile, the US copyright for the novel (which was published in the US well before the play was officially published here) has expired, putting the novel in the public domain.
As a result, the characters themselves are in the public domain in all mediums, so NEW works using those characters are fair game for anyone. The story itself is still under copyright. And Disney shoveling out a new Peter Pan direct-to-DVD title doesn't reset the clock on the older content. It only establishes the copyright on NEW content. Tinkerbell, as drawn by Disney, still enters the public domain in 2048 -- no matter how many shitty movies Disney puts out with her in it before then.
Names and logos are a different matter. Titling a story "Peter Pan" touches on GOSH's copyright of the story, and Disney's trademark on their media franchise. But writing a novel about Peter Pan, and featuring the character, is fair game.
Pooh's....murky, to say the least. From the research I've done, it definitely looks like Disney's being a bit crooked when it comes to the franchise and resulting royalties. But the amount of control they actually have over Peter Pan is very small.
Reply
Leave a comment