Credit: Mark Willard
What happens when beloved childhood characters are dragged out of the storybook and into the world of horror? The core basis of United States intellectual property (IP) law is as follows: once a creator’s work ceases to be protected, it is given to the public domain so that anyone can build upon the work without legal constraint. In the last few years, a few recent arrivals into the public domain have been repurposed for quick cash grabs, such as Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey or Bambi: The Reckoning. There have been plenty of success stories of expiring copyright in the horror genre being expanded upon or given new creative depth, but these are often tied to IPs that already exist in the horror space (such as Dracula). While there have been certain horror success stories that materialize decades after entering into the public domain, low-effort horror adaptations of children’s stories has become the new, strange norm in modern media.
To understand why these works are free for the taking, it is important to grasp the foundation of copyright law. For a work to be copyrighted, four elements must be met: (1) it must be a protected work under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a); (2) the work must be an original with a modicum of creativity; (3) the work must be fixed in a stable physical form; and (4) not fall under the 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) exceptions—such as “scenes a faire” (generic stories), mere ideas merged with expressions, or useful articles without artistic value. Once these elements have been met, a work is protected from public use in order to reward the creator for their innovation and allow the creator to reap the benefits of said creation. The duration of these protections is subject to several factors, such as whether the work was created prior to 1978, whether the work was made for hire, or when the creator died.
One notable legal battle that illustrates the limitations of copyright protection is Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd. In this case, Leslie Klinger, an American attorney and writer, sought to use Sherlock Holmes characters in his own work after the original copyright had expired. The court ruled that: “[t]he writer was free to use material from the stories and novels that were no longer under copyright because copyright protection of a fictional character could not be extended beyond the expiration of the copyright on it even though the original author altered the character in a subsequent work.” Copyright protection of a fictional character cannot be extended beyond the expiration of the copyright of the original material, allowing others to freely use those elements.
This brings us to a giant in the world of IP. The Walt Disney Company does not only own many original characters and stories from the early 20th century, but it also owns Lucasfilm, Marvel Entertainment, Pixar, ABC, ESPN, and 21st Century Fox. Putting it lightly, Disney is an IP juggernaut in the entertainment industry. Ironically, one of the most recognizable original Disney characters, Mickey Mouse, appeared in one of the first synchronized sound cartoons called “Steamboat Willie,” yet the short movie was based on another copyrighted film from the time called “Steamboat Bill.” The Mickey Mouse copyright was extended by 20 years on two separate occasions by the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. The latter of which has been referred to as the “Mickey Mouse Act” by some IP law professors. The Steamboat Willie copyright, and by extension much of Mickey Mouse, expired in the United States on January 1, 2024.
It is difficult to disagree with the idea that creativity should be encouraged. Even parody of currently protected copyrighted works can lead to very fruitful societal discussions and entertainment. Iterative storytelling is one of the hallmarks of being human—stories change as they get passed down from generation to generation and as cultural moments change. The horror movie genre, for example, is filled with movies that reference and comment on prior art. “Scream” is not just a franchise with a comedy-murder-mystery plot, but it also self-contextualizes itself among the history of slasher flicks. Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” (1897) and Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” (1818) have been in the public domain for several decades, with filmmakers and writers being able to explore creatively without legal restriction. This freedom to create is exactly what makes reinterpretation of IP over time important and integral to the values enshrined in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. “Dracula” and “Frankenstein” have both been repurposed countless times since their copyright has expired and have led to thoughtful conclusions and pieces of work.
With an abundance of classical stories coming into the public domain in the next few years, there will be an influx of interesting (and not so interesting) takes on fleshed out narratives and characters. For example, with the copyright for “Steamboat Willie” expiring, the upcoming indie video game “Mouse: P.I. for Hire” featuring Steamboat Willie as a detective wielding a gun will be released in the next few months. Yet, the trend of turning children’s characters into horror icons feels less like adding depth into historical figures and more like a departure from the historical use of public domain works. Horror movies like Peter Pan: Neverland Nightmare and Pinocchio: Unstrung seem more focused on exploiting their familiarity for shock value than contributing to commentary on art. The law does allow for almost limitless creativity, but not every adaptation will resonate to its viewers. It is up to the audience to decide which public domain expansion upon prior work truly offers artistic value.
*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.