[HN Gopher] Peter Pan Copyright
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Peter Pan Copyright
        
       Author : thunderbong
       Score  : 41 points
       Date   : 2023-08-15 01:10 UTC (21 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.gosh.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.gosh.org)
        
       | msla wrote:
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Wendy
       | 
       | > Disney was a long-time licensee to the animation rights, and
       | cooperated with the hospital when its copyright claim was clear,
       | but in 2004 Disney published Dave Barry's and Ridley Pearson's
       | Peter and the Starcatchers in the U.S., the first of several
       | sequels, without permission and without making royalty payments.
       | In 2006, Top Shelf Productions published Lost Girls, a sexually
       | explicit graphic novel featuring Wendy Darling, in the U.S., also
       | without permission or royalties.
        
         | swayvil wrote:
         | Hey I read Lost Girls. It's by Alan Moore (Watchmen, Swamp
         | Thing...). It's good.
        
       | Archelaos wrote:
       | That "Peter Pan" is permanently copyrighted in the UK is just an
       | eccentricity. I might even like the Brits precisely because of
       | their eccentricity. The reason I do not like copyright law is not
       | because of its eccentric, but because of its normal rules with
       | far too long protection periods.
        
       | gnfargbl wrote:
       | Surely UK law doesn't carve out a special provision for Great
       | Ormond Street to receive royalties for Peter Pan? Oh hang on, yes
       | it apparently does:
       | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/schedule/6
        
         | masfuerte wrote:
         | There's also a special law for IP related to the Olympics,
         | though I think that's quite common internationally. Not that it
         | makes it any better.
        
       | alberth wrote:
       | I always find it interesting how people want to eliminate (or
       | radically shorten) copyright for books, and forget that copyright
       | also applies to software code.
        
       | version_five wrote:
       | I'm sure someone has already pointed out the irony of a story
       | about a kid that refuses to grow up being granted perpetual
       | copyright.
       | 
       | I would have rather the government (through a third party)
       | estimated the present value of the hypothetical royalties and set
       | up an endowment if they wanted to support this hospital, rather
       | than pervert copyright law for special interests.
        
         | cryptonector wrote:
         | Most of the relevant copyrights are expired everywhere. The
         | last ones expire this coming December.
        
           | boomboomsubban wrote:
           | Except in the UK, where a 1988 act provides special copyright
           | status to "Peter Pan" that gives GOSH royalties for
           | performances and adaptations, publications and broadcasts
           | forever.
        
             | barbazoo wrote:
             | It would really suck if all of a sudden the government
             | would have to make sure the hospital is fully funded. /s
        
             | rvnx wrote:
             | "The various uses of Peter Pan that have given the hospital
             | money throughout most of the years since Barrie's death in
             | 1937,
             | 
             | will continue in the UK at least thanks to former prime
             | minister Jim Callaghan.
             | 
             | Encouraged by his wife Audrey, who was a chairwoman of
             | Great Ormond Street,
             | 
             | Callaghan successfully campaigned to get the UK's 1988
             | copyright act amended
             | 
             | to give the hospital the unique right to royalties from
             | stage performances of Peter Pan and any adaptation of the
             | play forever."
             | 
             | Very convenient.
        
             | cryptonector wrote:
             | Oh, thanks for that correction.
        
       | karaterobot wrote:
       | That does not seem to have stopped them from making endless film
       | adaptations of the book. Feels like there's been a new one every
       | five years for my entire life.
       | 
       | I appreciated the comic book adaptation called _Peter
       | Panzerfaust_ , where the Lost Boys were a resistance cell in
       | WWII, and Captain Hook was a Nazi officer. I assume that doesn't
       | require licensing, because it just uses the ideas without reusing
       | any specific, named elements. It would be better to make
       | something completely original rather than just adapting old
       | material, but that's evidently not possible anymore. So, the next
       | best thing is to recontextualize it and change the idea enough,
       | which not only makes for something novel, but also dodges these
       | ridiculous legacy licensing issues in certain cases.
        
         | RajT88 wrote:
         | Bangarang!
         | 
         | In seriousness, this seems to be due to the risk aversion in
         | the film industry which started in the 2000's:
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter...
         | 
         | Hardly the only casualty (see: spider man).
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-15 23:00 UTC)