[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.