Welcome to Thursday Things! If you enjoy this edition, please click the heart icon in the header or at the end of the post to let me know.
Thursday Things is in no way, shape or form associated with, endorsed by, sponsored by, or an any way, real or imagined, affiliated with The Walt Disney Company. Image: Steamboat Willie (1928) Public domain.
Changing the past
My first novel, released in 1989, was the comical fantasy adventure Jason Cosmo (Kindle). It was a paperback that was what we would now call “traditionally published” by NAL, a subsidiary of Penguin Books, now subsumed into Penguin Random House.1
Other authors published by NAL include William Faulkner, James Joyce, Stephen King, Harlan Ellison, Michael Crichton, Flannery O'Connor, George Orwell, Ayn Rand, and Mickey Spillane. Yes, we all had the same publisher, though I’m probably the only one of the old NAL gang who had a talking strawberry in my book.
Anyway, fast forward to the late 90s. Jason Cosmo was at the end of its sales run. I got a royalty check for something like 80 cents (minus my agent’s commission) and the book was soon “out of print”. Which is an industry term meaning the publisher wasn’t printing any more copies and probably sent the remaining supply in their warehouse to the special farm where out of print books go.
Shortly after that — here’s another publishing term — I requested a reversion of rights under my contract. That meant NAL had six months to either put the book back in print (which they obviously weren’t going to do) or release me from the contract and revert all the publishing rights back to me, which they did. I reclaimed the rights to Jason Cosmo and its two sequels.2
There wasn’t much for me to do with those rights at the time, because another publisher was unlikely to pick up an out of print series and I didn’t own a printing press, warehouse, and distribution system to republish the books myself. But I had the rights back. All I needed to do was wait for the future to arrive.
Fast forward again to 2007, 2008. The future was here! Print-on-demand technology had developed to the point that I didn’t need a printing press, warehouse, or distribution system to sell my books. I did a deep dive into the world of self-publishing, set up my own publishing label, and set out to relaunch the Jason Cosmo series.
And here we get closer to the point of my little story.
In the process of editing the Jason Cosmo manuscript to prepare for publication I made a few corrections. At first, it was fixing a few typos here that had crept into the original publication. Then I reworded a few sentences that seemed awkward to me. Before long I was adding new dialogue, new scenes, and entire new chapters. By the time I finished, my “edit” had turned into a revision. So was the book still Jason Cosmo? Or was it something new?
This was a real Ship of Theseus conundrum. It was certainly no longer the original published text. It was 90 percent the same story overall, but definitely different. So what was it? Revised edition? Director’s cut?
I resolved the question by saying it was a new book and gave it a new title, Hero Wanted (Print | Kindle) That’s what I published in 2009. (The Kindle edition, by the way is free! Just saying.)
Which brings me to the real point of this story. There is nothing super special about revising a previously published book. I’m far from the first author to do it.
Nor is there anything wrong with doing so — at least not when it’s original author, in this case me, making the changes. But what about when the current custodians of significant works from the past start making changes? What is gained? What is lost?
Several recent stories got me thinking about this as we begin a new year. Let’s dive in!
Mickey Mouse thrown to the wolves
January 1 brought a new tranche of books, films, art, and other creations into the public domain. Works created in or before 1928 are now in the public domain under U.S. copyright law. The most prominent work to lose copyright protection this year is undoubtedly Steamboat Willie, the 1928 animated short that introduced Mickey Mouse.3
Mickey Mouse Is Now in the Public Domain After 95 Years of Disney Copyright
Disney has fought to keep its copyright of the famous cartoon character as long as possible, lobbying the U.S. government to extend copyright protection before it was originally set to expire in 1984. Many lawmakers agreed, and in 1976 the law was changed to allow owners to retain copyright protections for the duration of the life of the author plus an additional 50 years. In 1998, Disney once again successfully lobbied along with other entertainment companies to extend copyright protections to life of the author plus 70 years for a maximum of 95 years.
This means anyone can display, reuse, remix, revise, and make derivative works using the Steamboat Willie cartoon and that version of Mickey Mouse without infringing Disney’s copyright, because that copyright has expired.
I’m not here to give intellectual property advice — consult a lawyer! — but I would caution anyone wanting to do something gross with Mickey Mouse to tread carefully. Disney’s trademark rights in all things Mickey Mouse has not expired. Nor has their army of lawyers.
Naturally, people are rushing to do gross things with Mickey Mouse. Because they can:
Multiple Mickey Mouse horror movies announced as Steamboat Willie enters public domain
The same thing happened when Winnie the Pooh entered public domain in 2022. Someone made a Pooh slasher film. Because they could.
Speaking of Winnie the Pooh, his friend Tigger joins him in the public domain this year, and has apparently already been dragooned into the sequel of the aforementioned Pooh slasher film:
Tigger, another big name with ties to Disney animation, also bounces into the public domain in 2023. The character was introduced in 1928 in A.A. Milne’s The House At Pooh Corner. Winnie-the-Pooh and other characters from the Hundred Acre Wood have been free of copyright and Disney’s exclusive claim since 2022—that’s how we got Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey last year—but Tigger is a new addition to the pantheon. Blood And Honey 2 is already due next month, with Tigger added into the mix.4
“Welcome to the public domain, Tigger. We’re slasher killers now.” Illustration by E.H. Shepard for“The House at Pooh Corner” (1928). Public domain.
Here are a few more articles about Steamboat Willie entering the public domain:
Everything You Need to Know About Mickey Mouse's Public Domain Debut Today
What Happens When ‘Steamboat Willie’ Hits The Public Domain In 2024?
Mickey Mouse Hits The Public Domain, But Don’t Expect To Get A Free Ride On ‘Steamboat Willie’
Beyond Mickey Mouse
Other literary and artistic works entered the public domain this year beyond Mickey and Tigger.
As always, the go-to source is the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke University, which produces an annual Public Domain Day roundup. Go there for the full list, as well as excellent background on what the public domain is. Here are some highlights:
Books
D.H Lawrence, Lady Chatterley's Lover
Bertolt Brecht, The Threepenny Opera (in the original German, Die Dreigroschenoper)
Virginia Woolf, Orlando
Erich Maria Remarque, All Quiet on the Western Front (in the original German, Im Westen nichts Neues)
Films
Lights of New York (directed by Bryan Foy; billed as “the first ‘all-talking’ picture”)
The Circus (directed by Charlie Chaplin)
The Singing Fool (directed by Lloyd Bacon; follow-up to The Jazz Singer)
Speedy (directed by Ted Wilde; Harold Lloyd’s last silent theatrical release)
In Old Arizona (“100% all talking” film featuring singing cowboys)
The Man Who Laughs (directed by Paul Leni; features a character who inspired the appearance of the Joker from Batman)
Musical Compositions
Mack the Knife (original German lyrics by Bertolt Brecht and music by Kurt Weill; from The Threepenny Opera)
Let’s Do It (Let’s Fall in Love) (Cole Porter; from the musical Paris)
When You're Smiling (lyrics by Mark Fisher and Joe Goodwin and music by Larry Shay)
These and other songs in the public domain can now be covered without paying royalties. ASCAP take note!
This article features other entries to the public domain: Everything entering the public domain this year besides Steamboat Willie
In some cases, arrival in the public domain may generate interest in works that have never been adapted before, including notable books from the Harlem Renaissance like Dark Princess by W.E.B. Du Bois and Home To Harlem by Claude McKay, both published in 1928. This year also marks the entry of poetry collections by Robert Frost, Dorothy Parker, Edna St. Vincent Millay, E. E. Cummings, and Carl Sandberg into the public domain.
And we’ll round out with a slide show of art that entered the public domain this year, including works by Henri Matisse, Georgia O’Keeffe, M. C. Escher, Edward Hopper, and more. Let the t-shirts, wall prints, and coffee mugs begin!
He’s my favorite MC! Image: M. C. Escher, Tower of Babel (1928) Public domain.
Changing the past, digital edition
This edition of Thursday Things is getting longer than usual, so I’ll bring it in for a landing.
All of the public domain works above are now free to be used creatively without anyone’s permission. And that’s fantastic! Idiotic Mickey and Pooh slasher films aside, in the years to we’ll get some inspired and amazing works building off and reimagining the works of the past. We’ll also get a lot of dreck. But that’s fine too.
But there is another lens by which to look at making changes to past works of art:
This is a long article. I’ll give you the basic premise and send you to read it in full if you’re interested. The author discusses how Peter Jackson used cutting edge digital technology to clean up, colorize and otherwise alter the presentation of archival footage from World War I in the making of his 2018 documentary on WWI, "They Shall Not Grow Old."
A more recent similar effort focused on World War II went even further in altering the source material:
World War II: From the Front Lines" takes wartime footage that was much more competently shot than footage from the previous war, and massively overcooks the processing, often to absurdly surrealistic ends, with shots that seem almost psychedelic in the end result. Even more so than Peter Jackson’s reworking of WWI footage, it might make this material more palatable to 21st century audiences, but at the cost of diluting the original footage that’s somewhere at the base of the producers’ digital processing.
The article also discuses Jackson’s use of footage the 1970 Beatles film “Let It Be” to produce the miniseries “Get Back", the changes George Lucas made to the original Star Wars trilogy when he released the “Special Editions” in 1997, the digital insertion of digitally-recreated dead actors into films, and many other examples.
The article concludes with this:
In 2024, digitally processing film and video images, and digitally demixing and remixing audio are each a technology that is in its infancy. Both technologies will only become exponentially more powerful. Going forward, they each have the potential to make 20th century film and audio much more accessible to each generation of audiences. But as we move further and further away from their underlying source material, how much will we be giving up of their original authenticity, often unknowingly? How will future audiences take the postmodern trickery for granted? Will future audiences eventually rebel against what they’re being offered for something more authentic and honest? (I’d like to be wrong, but who am I kidding with that last question?)
And we’ll leave it there, simply because this is an unusually long edition of Thursday Things to start the year. But we will pick up this discussion next week, because I think it’s important. So do your homework, read the article, and come back next Thursday!
Thank you for reading!
Please click the hearts, leave a comment, and use the share feature to send this issue to a friend who might enjoy it. See you next Thursday!
Note: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
I assume Penguin Random House will eventually be part of Stark-FujikawaAppleAmazonDisneyExxonUmbrellaCorp, but that’s in a future timeline.
Royal Chaos (1990) and Dirty Work (1993)
And Minnie Mouse. Let’s not forget Minnie.
That digital trickery article reminded me of a podcast I listened to where they discussed the idea of video game remakes and remasters.
The waters get muddy when quality of life or accessibility options (both good, usually) start altering the game's DNA, all in the name of preservation.
I know those aren't the same as visual or stylistic changes, but it just made me think about the "authenticity" of it.
I wonder what others think when it comes to different mediums?