[gjsman-1000]

I don't know if this would work. Right now, Winnie the Pooh has gone public domain, and if you've seen the reaction to "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" or a new video game called "Winnie's Hole"... most people really, really do not like that Winnie the Pooh is being expanded in the horror direction. Some are even calling for copyright to be eternal because the public is showing that it cannot handle public domain responsibly. There's even a growing argument that copyright actually prevents unoriginal ripoffs and shock content more than it stifles creativity.

Emotionally, I do understand the sentiment. Especially when more content like Mickey Mouse or The Hobbit (in Canada, just the books, next year) go public domain - I wouldn't be shocked if we get calls to just abandon the concept of public domain from how companies are using it.

Let me be clear: I still support Public Domain. I also think people who make slasher films using childhood characters are the most perfect method you could devise, if you were a corporation, to make people mad at Public Domain's existence. If I were Disney and somehow capable of sending money anonymously, I'd pay for the creation of as much awful Winnie the Pooh content as possible; then send a letter to a local senator asking for Congress to investigate restrictions.

[frostiness]

Is that really the fault of the public domain or a reaction to the fact that Winnie the Pooh was copyrighted for so long? The appeal of horror Winnie the Pooh in almost every single instance has been due to the novelty that it's even possible to do legally, and somewhat as an act of rebellion against the company arguably responsible for holding it hostage for so long.

[gjsman-1000]

I don't think so. The appeal is in spoiling childhood innocence and not getting sued for it. Case in point: Peppa the Pig had problems with exploitative knockoff videos being uploaded for years, that were deliberately designed to be offensive and shocking.

If Mario went public domain tomorrow, I absolutely guarantee you that 90% of what goes online or gets made will be content intended to shock, traumatize, or offend. And that, for better or worse, can and will make people increasingly skeptical about the merits of public domain and copyright expiration.

[bentley]

You’re extrapolating a huge amount of shock content from just one or two examples, but no strong evidence. Sure, I’ve heard of Blood and Honey, but that’s the only nasty Pooh derivative that’s made its way to my consciousness. Comparing to other public domain properties is instructive: I also remember when Pride and Prejudice and Zombies came out, but I don’t remember any other gory Jane Austen adaptations, and Zombies is rather low‐profile compared to the more popular adaptations such as the BBC series, the 2005 film, or Bridget Jones’s Diary. Or compare to Sherlock Holmes, which despite the Doyle estate desperately holding onto every shred of copyright to the last, has had many good “unauthorized” adaptations in recent years.

And even if 90% of public domain adaptations were crap (a reasonable number for copyrighted content as well, if we believe Sturgeon†), I think a single unconstrained Mari0 (https://stabyourself.net/mari0/) is worth ten gross Mario fanfics that I’ll never see without looking for them.

† Sturgeon’s Law: “90% of everything is crap.”

[derstander]

> The appeal is in spoiling childhood innocence and not getting sued for it.

Unfortunately this happens under the current system. See E.g., Star Wars. I’m not super invested in the franchise but entries after the original trilogy have been polarizing, as probably the vast majority of us here have been made aware.

[gjsman-1000]

True. But the reason why we talk about Public Domain so positively is that we view it as there being so much creativity that is contained for 70+ years for no reason.

It's starting to turn out, and I fear the perception is getting set, that almost all of that creativity is garbage, or at least perceived as such by a growing percentage of people.

Seriously though, if I was Disney, I'd bankroll secretly as much garbage public domain content about Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse as possible. I'd then lobby Congress for infinitely renewable copyright. I then get to frame every Senator opposed as supporting horror content for kids. Fun.

[kelnos]

> almost all of that creativity is garbage

Almost all creativity -- regardless of its source -- is garbage[0]. This sort of creativity that you don't like -- Winnie the Pooh horror and porn -- is prominent because the media has seized upon it. And the reason they've done that is precisely because of how unusual it is for big media properties to have their copyrights expire.

I just don't see the problem here. If you don't want to read Winnie the Pooh horror stories, then don't read them.

[0] Someone else here mentioned Sturgeon's Law, "90% of everything is crap", and I think that applies quite well here.

[smoldesu]

> It's starting to turn out, and I fear the perception is getting set, that almost all of that creativity is garbage,

I'd argue the bar for releasing and consuming creative work just got lowered to non-existence. If you spend your life scrolling the "Latest" feed of TikTok or Twitter, your faith in humanity will rapidly approach rock-bottom. There is no limit to how hollow, vapid or disgusting that content can get.

The diametric opposite of that feed is not official, commercial content though. It's a misconception that I don't think even a jaded congress member would fall for. Disgusting fan-works and vapid original content is likely protected under Fair Use. Throwing your fanbase under the bus as a scapegoat for better copyright protections would never work, oh ye of little faith in the US Justice System...

[derstander]

> It's starting to turn out, and I fear the perception is getting set, that almost all of that creativity is garbage, or at least perceived as such by a growing percentage of people.

I think this might be an accurate perception of creativity that we need to accept instead of fear.

Yes, the majority of creative works are not going to be like Beethoven’s 9th, for example. The majority of them are going to be much closer to my attempt at writing a symphony (not very good, to be clear).

But if just one work out of a million that wouldn’t otherwise exist is great, isn’t that enough? I mean, we’re not forcing people, Clockwork Orange-style, to consume all this bad media!

And that is leaving aside the subjectivity of value in media. Some people even enjoy “bad” media (“so bad it’s good”).

[smoldesu]

Copyright be damned, I have many photos of Mario that would shock, traumatize and potentially offend you. Please email me if you'd like a copy.

[makapuf]

Uh ... I don't like what Disney made of Cinderella, pinocchio or pocahontas. Commercial reuse handle copyright miserably.

Anyway, people having fun with Winnie ? Who will care in 2 years? Do you often see shock content of cinderella ? Or xxx content of beauty and the beast?

[kelnos]

> Do you often see shock content of cinderella ? Or xxx content of beauty and the beast

And I guarantee you that, if you want to find this stuff, you can find it, regardless of the copyright status. Rule 34 exists for a reason.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> Some are even calling for copyright to be eternal because the public is showing that it cannot handle public domain responsibly.

If someone is saying "public domain is bad because the people who want to control works they don't and can't really own can no longer control these works they absolutely do not own"... They're really missing the point.

[wnoise]

> most people really, really do not like that Winnie the Pooh is being expanded in the horror direction.

Fascinating. I have not actually seen that reaction in my filter bubble. Much the opposite, actually.

[otikik]

One of the most physical jobs I have ever taken as a student involved emptying a Warehouse full to the brim with Winnie the Pooh VHS tapes.

We had to put the things in boxes, then pallets, wrap the pallets in plastic, label them, and then someone would come with a machine and take them away. It was more than a week of dusk-to-dawn physical work, lost a lot of weight.

In my mind, turning Winnie the Pooh into an horror story makes a lot of sense.

[fennecfoxy]

I mean Disney has blatantly started using the "steamboat Mickey" as their "logo" for a while now as they KNOW the copyright is going to expire soon, so I believe they're going to try to pursue it as "but it's our trademark, see?" now.

[omgmajk]

Not that Blood and Honey was particularly good as a movie but you do miss the fact that even if "most people really, really do not like" it, some people, including me really, really do. The concept of it. And this for me personally is winning and I wish it was done more.

I would Love to see more horror on weird stuff, especially Disney stuff.

[autoexec]

> most people really, really do not like that Winnie the Pooh is being expanded in the horror direction.

Those people can make the choice not to buy or consume those kinds of works. That's their right, but it does not and must not infringe on the rights of others who don't share their delicate sensibilities.

> Some are even calling for copyright to be eternal because the public is showing that it cannot handle public domain responsibly.

There is nothing at all irresponsible about artistic works that appeal to some people but not others. Outside of legal constraints, there is no one person or group dictating to the world which art is or isn't responsible and I'm so glad the decision of where those lines are drawn and when they should be crossed is largely left up to the artists when creating and to the audience when consuming. Artists and audiences self-censor all the time and it isn't a problem.

By way of example, when Gaiman was writing Neverwhere he thought it originally made running away and joining a underworld society of homeless people seem fun and magical, and he worried that making homelessness a bit too cool might inspire young readers to make poor choices. He made changes to his story until he felt comfortable with what he was putting out into the world. I think I'd have liked to read his original version, but I fully respect that he felt it would be irresponsible. Not every writer would have made that choice, and certainly not every writer should be forced to.

Every author should be free to decide for themselves if they're comfortable or not with their own words. Audiences should be free to walk away from things that make them too uncomfortable, and free to stay and enjoy what the artist created otherwise. The absolute worst case scenario would be one where the only art we ever have access to is a bunch of watered down, homogenized, G-rated content that doesn't confront or challenge anyone at all.

> There's even a growing argument that copyright actually prevents unoriginal ripoffs and shock content more than it stifles creativity.

I have no doubt that it does, at times, prevent some "ripoffs" or shock content, but I fail to see how censoring art to avoid those things is in any way preferable. The harm to society caused by censorship far outweighs the harm caused by "things exist that I don't like". It simply isn't worth the loss of our freedom to prevent "bad" art.

Worse, even perpetual copyright wouldn't eliminate those things entirely. Shock content, especially those created based on 'wholesome' artistic works has always been with us, and not even copyright has been able to stop it. For just about every franchise you can imagine illegal artistic works created to satisfy 'Rule 34' exist and illegal fan fiction can be found filled with sex and gore. None of it has caused society to collapse. It won't destroy society when that art can be legally made and sold either.