What is the deal with Peter Pan & open domain

xXFireSpiritXx · Jul 2, 2009

My new manuscript incorporates various fairy tale characters. All the ones used I have checked and are in open domain. BUT Peter Pan still remains elusive. I have read every scrap of information and most sources cite that the Peter Pan copyright is very muddled in the US.

Now I do not use the character full out, but make reference to the character. I don't even call him Peter Pan, just Peter and reference he can fly. He appears for only a page and half before being brutally murdered by my MC.

I have read that the original novel, Peter Pan and Wendy, since it was published in 1911 is considered to have been in the open domain before our wonderful author decided to set up that "royalties go to orphanage crap" for use of the characters.

I am just looking for some clarity. I am hoping since he is used so obscurely it will not matter, since I am not writing a direct sequel or using the Peter Pan universe at all.

KTC · Jul 2, 2009

JasonRobert said:
My new manuscript incorporates various fairy tale characters. All the ones used I have checked and are in open domain. BUT Peter Pan still remains elusive. I have read every scrap of information and most sources cite that the Peter Pan copyright is very muddled in the US.

Now I do not use the character full out, but make reference to the character. I don't even call him Peter Pan, just Peter and reference he can fly. He appears for only a page and half before being brutally murdered by my MC.

I have read that the original novel, Peter Pan and Wendy, since it was published in 1911 is considered to have been in the open domain before our wonderful author decided to set up that "royalties go to orphanage crap" for use of the characters.

I am just looking for some clarity. I am hoping since he is used so obscurely it will not matter, since I am not writing a direct sequel or using the Peter Pan universe at all.

Check out this link about it.

The copyright in the works featuring Peter Pan has been revived in a number of jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom, the Parliament granted a perpetual copyright on the works of the Peter Pan cycle. Section 301 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK) provides:

The provisions of Schedule 6 have effect for conferring on trustees for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, a right to a royalty in respect of the public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the play 'Peter Pan' by Sir James Matthew Barrie, or of any adaptation of that work, notwithstanding that copyright in the work expired on 31 December 1987.
Furthermore, in other jurisdictions, the copyright in the works of Peter Pan was revived. In 1996, the European Union retrospectively extended the term of copyright protection for natural authors for life plus 70 years. Similarly, the United States Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act 1998 (US), and retrospectively extended the term of copyright protection to natural authors for life plus 70 years. The key question seems to be whether the Peter Pan works are eligible for this copyright term extension in the United States.

xXFireSpiritXx · Jul 2, 2009

I have read that and it still isn't very clear if you ask me. No one says you can't and no one says you can. I have seen some recent works which reference the characters. So, I am guessing if I keep it obscure enough it won't be a problem.

Thanks for the information though

KTC · Jul 2, 2009

I'm not sure the extent you can go before it infringes. I'm sure others here will know, though...you'll get your answer.

ChaosTitan · Jul 2, 2009

I don't think referencing the character is necessarily an infringement, but you can't actually use the character. He can't appear, he can't speak, he can't be described as he's described in Barrie's work.

From what I understand, Barrie gave the rights to Peter Pan to the Great Ormond Street Hospital. They own the copyright and the rights to the works and characters.

This was discussed recently in a RoundTable thread about copyright....hmm....

Cyia · Jul 2, 2009

You can say someone has a Peter Pan complex or that they (figuratively) live in Neverland (Never-Neverland is probably safe, since it's not quite Neverland).

You can riff on Tinkerbell and call someone Stinkerbell or Tinkersmell.

You can tell a (figurative) Lost Boy to grow up.

You can have a pirate with a hook hand (or better yet, make it a frying pan hand and take him back to being James Cook as opposed to James Hook)

But you can't have a flying eternal boy named Peter with a wayward shadow who has a crush on Wendy and a pocket sized sidekick with her own crush whose nemesis is a hook handed pirate.

If I were you, I'd put an extra buffer in there and call him "Pete" rather than "Peter".

CaroGirl · Jul 2, 2009

Cyia said:
But you can't have a flying eternal boy named Peter with a wayward shadow who has a crush on Wendy and a pocket sized sidekick with her own crush whose nemesis is a hook handed pirate.

How did Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson manage to write the series of children's books that begin with Peter and the Starcatchers then? Do you think they had to pay for the rights or did they do it in such a way as it didn't infringe on copyright? The books sound like they're pretty blatantly riffed off the Peter Pan myth.

ChaosTitan · Jul 2, 2009

I'm pretty sure they got permission to write those. Same as Peter Pan and the Only Children (author escapes me).

CaroGirl · Jul 2, 2009

ChaosTitan said:
I'm pretty sure they got permission to write those. Same as Peter Pan and the Only Children (author escapes me).

Maybe the number of books written around the Pan myth means it isn't so difficult to get permission to publish them.

ChaosTitan · Jul 2, 2009

Dunno. I've never tried.

But you definitely need permission.

Cyia · Jul 2, 2009

CaroGirl said:
How did Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson manage to write the series of children's books that begin with Peter and the Starcatchers then? Do you think they had to pay for the rights or did they do it in such a way as it didn't infringe on copyright? The books sound like they're pretty blatantly riffed off the Peter Pan myth.

Peter and the Starcatchers was published by Hyperion, which is a subsidiary of Disney. Since Disney has rights to Peter Pan for the purpose of the film and its derivatives, they most likely have the rights to derivative books as well.

CaroGirl · Jul 2, 2009

Cyia said:
Peter and the Starcatchers was published by Hyperion, which is a subsidiary of Disney. Since Disney has rights to Peter Pan for the purpose of the film and its derivatives, they most likely have the rights to derivative books as well.

Ah! That certainly explains it. Thanks Cyia!! (My 11 yo son loves this series, btw.)

MsGneiss · Jul 2, 2009

That would explain why Bill Willingham never used Peter Pan in his Fables series.

mscelina · Jul 2, 2009

I have read that the original novel, Peter Pan and Wendy, since it was published in 1911 is considered to have been in the open domain before our wonderful author decided to set up that "royalties go to orphanage crap" for use of the characters.

Since when is it crap for an author to set up royalties for a charitable organization? Since when is it crap for an author to make a determination about what will or will not be done with his work? Barrie's wishes may interfere with your manuscript a century later, but it seems to me that he should have had the right to dispose of his intellectual property in any way he saw fit.

You are a writer. Barrie had no obligation to you to keep his copyright free and clear so that you could use his characters a hundred years after his death.

Just sayin'...

Kitty Pryde · Jul 2, 2009

I found this on wikipedia:

* After the Rain: A New Adventure for Peter Pan by J. E. Somma (1999), an unauthorized sequel novel. Set in modern times, telling of Peter's reaction to a world that has grown to neglect him, and his rescue by three children who teach him that it's OK to grow up. It was published without incident in Canada, where the copyright to Peter Pan was generally agreed to have expired, but Somma and GOSH were in legal dispute when it was published in the U.S. in 2002, where GOSH claimed their copyrights were still valid. They eventually settled out of court.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_based_on_Peter_Pan#Books

It seems to me that all the sequels/prequels/retells were either done in the UK in the brief window that the characters were uncopyrighted, or in Canada where copyright's expired, or done by a Disney subsidiary as mentioned above, OR done without infringing copyright (like a book about a surly teenager who will later grow up to be captain hook, or a book about Wendy's kids, which doesn't use any of the identifying features of the characters). Plus the one actual authorized sequel.

willietheshakes · Jul 2, 2009

sleepsheep said:
That would explain why Bill Willingham never used Peter Pan in his Fables series.

That, and the fact that Peter Pan isn't a fairy-tale character...

Kathleen42 · Jul 2, 2009

I personally wouldn't use him because it's a gray area BUT you may be able to publish in jurisdictions other than the UK. I believe Moore only had issues with using Wendy Darling in Lost Girls when it came to the question of whether or not to publish it in the UK.

I'm a fan of public domain and I do take issue with the rights to Peter Pan are handled but I also feel that Barrie was well intentioned and discussions regarding his wishes should be treated with some respect - even if one disagrees.

Shadow_Ferret · Jul 2, 2009

Disney is scary, but just using the name in reference should be fine. In fact, the book I"m reading has this dialog:

"A forest sprite? That some kind of fairy? Like Tinkerbell?"

"I never cared for her sense of fashion." She wore a wooly red sweather and loose jeans with the cuffs bunched over suede clogs. "Too frou frou for me. I don't have the hips for it."*

So if all you're doing is mentioning the first name, Peter, and that he can fly, I think you're safe.

*The Nymphos of Rocky Flats by Mario Acevedo

gothicangel · Jul 2, 2009

I'm quite disturbed that you call the millions raised through the rights to Peter Pan. If there is no PP, there is no Great Ormond Street.

If I write something that successful, then I would give the rights to a favourite charity just like Barrie.

Thump · Jul 2, 2009

Mentioning the character is fine, just like you can have brand names like Coke or Colgate in your ms.
The copyright though belongs to Great Ormond Street Hospital (as copyright is life+70 and an institution can't really _die_ it's pretty much theirs forever) which is good because it's a great hospital that does a lot of good.

MsGneiss · Jul 2, 2009

willietheshakes said:
That, and the fact that Peter Pan isn't a fairy-tale character...

Hmm... I think Willingham uses a more broad definition of fairy tales. That's why the series is called FABLES not FAIRY TALES. Peter Pan can be considered an American fable.

For example, Bufkin (the monkey from Oz) isn't a fairy tale character, and neither is Edmond Dantes (from The Count of Monte Cristo) or Shylock (from the Merchant of Venice), yet Willingham uses those characters. In fact, none of the nursery rhyme fables (Jack and Jill, Little Miss Muffett) are technical fairy tale characters either.

Not sure why I insist on arguing this off-topic point, but I do.

gothicangel · Jul 2, 2009

sleepsheep said:
Hmm... I think Willingham uses a more broad definition of fairy tales. That's why the series is called FABLES not FAIRY TALES. Peter Pan can be considered an American fable

Eh? JM Barrie was Scottish. This is Scottish Literature; nowt American about it.

Kitty Pryde · Jul 2, 2009

gothicangel said:
Eh? JM Barrie was Scottish. This is Scottish Literature; nowt American about it.

And Peter and his friends are from London, so might it be an English fable?

Kathleen42 · Jul 2, 2009

Kitty Pryde said:
And Peter and his friends are from London, so might it be an English fable?

But it was also further popularized by American movies and stage productions. I think there's a valuable lesson here for all of us: Peter Pan is global.

gothicangel · Jul 2, 2009

How about we compromise and say British Literature?

Peter Pan was already popular before Disney got their hands on it. Disney's film isn't the true story JM Barrie wrote - it's too sentimental. Peter Pan is actually very dark.

What is the deal with Peter Pan & open domain

Killing my darlings...

Stand in the Place Where You Live

Killing my darlings...

Stand in the Place Where You Live

Around

Rewriting My Destiny

Living the dream

Around

Living the dream

Around

Rewriting My Destiny

Living the dream

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

i luv you giant bear statue

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.

crushing on fictional characters

Court Jester

Toughen up.

defying grabbity

Toughen up.

i luv you giant bear statue

crushing on fictional characters

Toughen up.