Submitted by [deleted] t3_126e6pb in todayilearned
It's kinda cool, like he'll never grow old enough for his copyright to expire.
That's a lovely way to put it.
[removed]
[removed]
Fearless_Stab is a Bot account. stole the comment from here: https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/126e6pb/til_a_special_law_in_the_uk_was_created_to_ensure/je8v0ra/
bot accounts farm karma and are then sold and/or used for astroturfing and other scams
report -> spam -> harmful bots and it might get banned eventually
Are you telling me that I can actually make money off my karma?!?!
maybe. accounts like yours are advertised for a few hundred bucks or more. no idea if people buy at that price or not.
more often than not though it's a coordinated scam or astroturfing network without direct person-to-person sales, i would imagine
Beautiful thought….
and a large proportion of the money they receive comes in via Peter Pan.
I mean, most would be NHS.
The NHS directly funds the day to day operations, but the hospital also carries out a lot of research in the Biomedical Research Centre some of this is funded by the National Institute for Health Research and some via donations.
GOSH is the only hospital I ever worked in in the UK that felt adequately staffed. Incredible place.
Disney be rubbing their hands together trying to figure out how to get on this gravy train
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Disney already do that?
They pulled out of a Peter Pan movie like 20 years ago because they refused to share profits with GOSH.
Disney is a dispicable company.
Don't they have a "Peter Pan & Wendy" movie coming up?
Probably. I don't know. Haven't really kept up with them.
Perpetual copyright is not legitimate.This is the State vastly overreaching. No one should owe royalties for it.
>Perpetual copyright is not legitimate.
It is if the law says it is.
>This is the State vastly overreaching.
Cool opinion
>No one should owe royalties for it.
Because you said so?
Pretty much, lobbied to have copyright terms extended. It's not in perpetuity yet though.
They gave up on that, their earliest Mickey Mouse shorts have entered the public domain while the mouse himself is still a trademark.
Not quite true. Steamboat Willie isn't set to enter public domain until Jan 2024.
Disney has been using the likeness of Mickey in Steamboat Willie as the logo for Walt Disney Animation since Tangled in 2010 with the goal of establishing trademark for that version of Mickey.
They have been using red-pants Mickey as part of the logo of The Walt Disney Company since (I think) the 50's so their case there is stronger.
They are hoping between the two that any other style of depicting Mickey Mouse will be close enough to create 'brand confusion' with one of the versions and hence be able to be litigated against.
Not guaranteed to work but Disney has one of the best legal teams.
How do you know they have one of the best legal teams?
I would of thought he meant probably one of the better funded legal teams in corporate America, as well as one that seems to be on top of their stuff for how quickly they act on potential copyright infringement.
Examples like this whole current thing with desantis vs Disney world in Florida if you look at some of the details, their legal team knows their stuff. At the very least anecdotally.
As said it is one of the better funded legal teams in the world and is very proactive in intervening v.quickly. Disney is infamously trigger-happy with litigation when it comes to copyright and knows the rules regarding it better than probably anyone else. In 1989 they sued the Academy of Motion Pictures for use of the Snow White character at the Oscars! If they can't win in court they also have a huge team of lobbyists to change the law to ensure they still get what they want.
Disney is so large and encompasses so much that they need experts in almost every field who can all call on each other for advice. They are also one of the largest possible potential targets for lawsuits. They have loads of money and an image to protect. The best way to save themselves constant lawsuits or settling to protect their image was to repeatedly demonstrate you never beat the Mouse in court.
They also have a corporate culture of perfect realisation of vision dating back to Walt Disney himself. If Walt wanted something you couldn't tell him no - you were expected to find out how you could achieve EXACTLY what he wanted. Naturally this often requires very specific legal knowledge to circumvent whatever restriction you face and historically they have made some outstanding wins in court. If Disney wants non-regulation yellow lifeboats for their cruise line then they will prove that that shade of yellow matches international standards for visibility and lobby for exclusive rights to use that colour. So Disney gets Mickey-Mouse shoe colour lifeboats, a tiny detail few will care for or notice but Disney took the effort to get their way.
The cases I'm most familiar with regard the theme parks. Just acquiring the land for Walt Disney World and the rights over it they did is enough for them to sit on their laurels but the parks have also won a myriad of personal injury suits - some of which they probably shouldn't have. If they genuinely think they will lose it gets settled out of court with an NDA. Most recently they curb-stomped DeSantis regarding land management in Florida.
> It's not in perpetuity yet though.
Well, it would be against the US Constitution.
They don’t have to. The law doesn’t affect US copyright
They meant trying to get a law passed to extend copy right indefinitely in America as well, obviously for their own properties.
AH
They wouldn't be able to release Peter Pan in the UK though.
Then they would need to deal with the negative publicity that comes from explaining why they refused to release Peter Pan in the UK.
Other works in the UK have a perpetual copyright include the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer.
King James Bible isn't copyrighted, but protected by the Crown. Same with Book of Common Prayer.
Both are protected by the Monarch, not any copyright laws.
> protected by the Crown
Bah Gawd it's King Charles with the steel throne!
Puppies!
Well here's my TIL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright
Those books predate the concept of copyright.
Well that's wholesome AF
So you're saying.... Peter pan will be a boy forever?
There was controversy when Alan Moore wrote The Lost Girls - a photographic version of Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz and Peter Pan.
I still feel likeichael Jackson owes them
Which is extraordinarily bad law.
Carving out exceptions for favoritism violates the spirit and intent of the law: specifically, an even playing field.
But IMHO it's no surprise that a Constitutional Monarchy elected (pun intended) to illegally bypass prior constitutional law in order to favor a tiny minority. Par for the course in UK history and politics: Fuck the public good to serve an entitlement which should have died off centuries ago.
The entitlement of a children's hospital?
Your sentiment on this is unbelievably baffling.
Can you explain how the monarchy (who had nothing to do with the amendment to the act) or the Prime Minister who proposed it had anything to gain by suggesting the changes?
"what? The government is supporting a children's hospital with a patent to a children's story!? ARGH DAMN YOU BIG GOVERNMENT! WHEN WILL YOUR TYRANNY END?!" /s
shit man, I hope you missed an /s in your comment lol. The spirit of the law is to be Just (something that laws so often fail to be), and you know what, I consider this to be a pretty Just result.
Guaranteeing permanent income for a children's hospital is absolutely in the public good.
You're really triggered by the thought of sick children getting hospital care.
"Carving out exceptions for favoritism violates the spirit and intent of the law"
Imagine saying this about Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital, and thinking you are right.
Oh brother.
Another related interesting thing: London cabbies traditionally don't charge for journeys to or from Great Ormond Street
https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeMeSmile/comments/r4qt0g/londons_black_cab_drivers_amazing_tradition/
Working in an office next to Great Ormond St has saved me literally thousands in cab fares.
It's not your fault they don't accept fares despite your insistence
That's so fucking awesome. I know there's that whole thing about why he is recording to show he's doing charity. But that was such a touching video.
Long standing tradition, and they have a charity you can donate to: https://www.ltcfc.org.uk/
Til
As long as it helps children I won’t copy infringe it
The royalties bit only actually applies to the UK performances, so when I directed a production here in Australia we donated what would have been the royalties to the Perth Childrens' Hospital as a thank you and to show respect to the author's wishes.
And rightly so. Great Ormand Street Hospital do such fantastic work.
My mum was a sick kid who spent a lot of time there. When she was 4 or 5 she decided to be a nurse because they were heroes to her. She's still a nurse now.
Your mum is a hero!
Seems there is a 1 year gap where pan was in the public domain. Could I make a Peter pan story based on the characters in the gap and be in the clear or was the law retroactively applied?
Could you have done? Do you have a time machine that you're going to go back and publish it in 1987?
Or do you just think it's okay to publish an unauthorized Mickey Mouse cartoon today, as long as it is set before 1928?
I don't get what you think the loophole is, here.
You can just do what people like Dave Barry did with Peter and the Starcatchers and declare your work a "reinterpretation" and then you don't have to pay any royalties to Great Ormond Street
The gap wasn't that small.
The law in question, the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 has a provision which applies to specifically;
"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."
Not any derivative work. Not its predecessor, Little White Bird. Not even the 1924 novel "Peter Pan , or, the Boy who wouldn't grow up". Only the 1928 play.
Edit: It's also worth calling out that GOSH has no claim to title, it's royalties only. The hospital cannot grant or refuse any exhibition.
[deleted]
GOSH!
If only they did that for Mickey Mouse in the States instead of screwing up copyright for everyone.
Why not just let mickey enter the public domain?
🤑
GOSH is a fantastic hospital, they deserve it.
One of the big Pantomime companies in the UK now only does "the further adventures of Peter Pan" rather than adapt the original story to avoid paying GOSH.
Smart
Iirc it's just for performances of the stage play, so you don't have to seek GOSH's permission if you want to, for example, publish a book.
Although there is also an "official" sequel to Peter Pan which was authorised by GOSH, called Peter Pan in Scarlet.
Sounds sexy
This is absolutely great
[deleted]
I imagine the new movie is going to take funds from the hospital then.
There was a contest to see who could write a follow up to Peter Pan where the proceeds would also go to that same hospital. I believe it's called Peter Pan in Scarlett or something like that.
Does the "etc" include Disney?
A wonderful and worthy cause, but a terrible law.
I just disagree with this even if it is for a good cause.
Yeah, we really shouldn't have to resort to abusing copyright laws to fund essential services. That's not really the feel good story they are trying to make it out to be.
It isn’t to fund it, it’s a UK hospital so it’s funded by the NHS. It just helps build profits for additional services, research, etc.
Again, it would be nice to have all that without resorting to misusing copyright law. I'm sure there are other children's charities who would benefit from being able to perform a classic children's tale as well, as intended by copyright laws being limited in the first place.
That said, it would still certainly be a great tradition for those who can afford to donate, to continue to do so when they do use Peter Pan. I just don't like government misusing it's powers to fund things it should be properly looking after in the first place.
Thats worse.
It's literally a world-class hospital that has pioneered many treatments, including operating on a baby with spina bifida in the womb and curing a child of Leukaemia using gene edited T-cells.
The amount of good this hospital does, on a global scale, is unparalleled.
And if my profession was charities, i might agree, but its not. I deal with the long-reaching ramifications of IP on a day to day basis. The government shouldn't be carving out the public domain, regardless of how well-intentioned..All copyright should pass, without exception.
Then you should get a proper job. One that doesn't involve being a cunt.
One day one of your loved ones might need their help or benefit from their research, but you do you.
This is an emotional argument, not a logical one. If the State is so concerned with funding the hospital, they should do it with tax money, not steal from the Public Domain.
It's not stealing from the public domain, it is following the author's wish for an exceptional good cause that benefits the entire world by pioneering treatment for sick children.
Dont try and impose your every man for himself selfish culture on everyone else, it's not even your government. The rest of the world doesnt follow Republican politics and it benefits greatly from it.
[deleted]
All i will say is you are dead wrong about my politics.
The author's wish does not override their duty to the public domain. Copyright is a social bargain, its not fair to break it, no matter how noble the cause. They had their copyright, its over.
I'd agree with you if this was the patent for insulin or something but it's the rights to a story about lost children. There is room in this world to maintain a little nuance and keep hold of a kind hearted tradition for a good cause. No one is going to die or starve because it's not in the public domain.
Lol "authors duty"
Copyright itself is government interfering with the rights for people to do certain things which are in themselves harmless. What IS unfair is carving out the law to benefit a specific charity.
Why ?
because I don't think infinite copyright is a good thing. If there was an infinite copyright on shakespear to fund something that would suck because shakepear couldn't be used and entwined throughout our culture the way that his work currently is.
Are You perchance trying to irritate us by intentionally mimicking Shakespeare as you creatively misspell the name into 'Shakespear'? This whole storm in a teacup with perpetual copyright exception perhaps irks you as this misspelling would to some of us.
Quite the jab.
The funny thing is Shakespeare himself even spelled it differently every time
The man (if he did exist) took quite the liberty with his spellings. Pedents left and right still fume over such whim and foppery today!
you are deflecting.
You can thank Disney for this - but not for good reason. Traditionally any versions of Peter Pan should pay a fee to GOSH but Disney being Disney argued that because JM Barrie didn't explicitly state that GOSH should benefit from media types that didn't exists at the time that they didn't have to pay.
You just pulled that out of your arse, but people are upvoting you anyway. It's odd.
Pulled from my arse
https://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/books/10/13/peter.pan/
Even on GOSH own website they distinguished that the copyright applies in the UK only.
Disney got a lot of bad press for not honoring the tradition - it's a childrens hospital for crying out loud maybe it occurred prior to the new partnership in 2008 but I remember reading that despite owning Peter Pan that GOSH didn't get royalties on DVD sales or merchandise since these concepts didn't exist at the time. - A wide held belief at the time was this is why there was such a push on Tinkerbell and the fairies since they were somewhat original IPs created by Disney
I would be curious if Disney intend to pay anything for the new Peter Pan and Wendy film. Pan is out of copyright but you can't argue that GOSH shouldn't get something
So it wasn't extended because of Disney. The part you DID pull out of your arse.
Cheers.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted] OP t1_je8sev5 wrote
This is because JM Barrie gifted Peter Pan's rights to Great Ormond Street Hospital.
The copyright expired in 1987, and a new law was introduced in 1988 to ensure that the rights to Peter Pan can never expire in the UK. Basically, Peter Pan will never enter the public domain in the UK.