Kyla Krohn*
Disney fans might have been shocked to see their favorite childhood character behaving very differently in the new film, Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey.[1] As the title of the movie lets on, the movie is outside the expected realm of Disney’s family-friendly, fun-loving movies and shows. The movie is not actually produced by Disney at all.[2] If you are wondering how someone was able to slash Pooh’s legacy and turn your beloved bear into a bloodthirsty monster, the answer can be found in copyright law and the public domain.
The film’s announcement drew conflicting reactions due to its story featuring a dark and twisted version of a sweet childhood icon.[3] Many fans were confused as to how Disney could let something like this happen. While the Walt Disney Company has fought for Congress to extend copyright protection for decades, Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honeyis a result of a battle lost in an ongoing war over the public domain.[4]
Copyright law provides protections for a set period of time when an idea is expressed in a fixed medium, whether it be a story, a painting, song lyrics, or something else.[5] During the time the work is protected, the creator is entitled to use their work as they wish and choose who can recreate or republish their work.[6] The length of time a work is protected has been extended frequently since the original Copyright Act of 1790, which granted authors exclusive rights for a period of fourteen years.[7] The most recent, and most controversial, extension was the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, also known as the Sonny Bono Act. The Act extended the period of exclusive rights to the lifetime of the author plus seventy years.[8] For works created by a corporation, the Act extended the period to 120 years after creation or ninety-five years after publication, whichever elapses earlier.[9] The Act also applied retroactively. For all works published before January 1, 1978, the Sonny Bono Act extended the renewal term from forty-seven years to sixty-seven years, granting a total of ninety-five years.[10] This effectively halted works created in 1923 or afterwards from entering the public domain until January 1, 2019, or later.[11] Since the copyright industry accounted for almost six percent of the U.S. gross domestic product at the time of the Act’s passage, retroactive application signified a great deal of revenue copyright holders could continue to expect from royalties and licensing opportunities for an additional twenty years.[12]
One of the biggest supporters of Sonny Bono Act was the Walt Disney Company.[13] Winnie-the-Pooh was set to enter the public domain in 2002, followed by Mickey Mouse in 2004.[14] These two are known to be Disney’s top-selling characters.[15] Disney’s vocal support for extending copyright protection periods prompted some commentators to dub the legislation the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act.”[16]
Small but mighty groups of scholars did not give up in their opposition of the Act, even after its passage.[17] A group of petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Act, but were ultimately unsuccessful.[18] The Supreme Court upheld the Act since the Constitution empowers Congress to allow exclusive rights for “limited Times,” but the length of the period was technically left to Congress’s discretion.[19] Thus, as long as the limit is not forever, it can be deemed constitutional.[20] After the Act was upheld as constitutional, Disney was able to breathe a sigh of relief, but it did not last long.
Despite the public outcry pleading the release be cancelled, director of Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey, Rhys Frake-Waterfield responded: “Not a chance.”[21] Following this, he began expediting the project which he started developing after the original Winnie-the-Pooh books entered the public domain in 2022. The horrific retelling follows Pooh and Piglet, who have gone mad and embark on a ravenous rampage after Christopher Robin left them in the Hundred Acre Wood to go to college. Frake-Waterfield’s Pooh Bear traded his cheery round face for a too-realistic, sinister stare and his small red T-shirt for a lumberjack suit. But if you are brave enough to watch the film, you might be wondering why some of your favorite characters were left out. The answer, once again, lies in copyright law. Some familiar characters, like Tigger, are not to be seen since their copyrights are still active.[22] Features and creatures who were later additions to the series still have a few years left before they enter the public domain. But do not worry—Frake-Waterfield said he is already planning a sequel.[23]
Disney’s reaction to Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey could give us more insight into how it will approach these copyright and public domain conflicts as more of their family-favorite characters slowly enter the public domain. Another famous character, Mickey Mouse, is due to enter the public domain on January 1, 2024.[24] But like with Winnie-the-Pooh, it might not be the Mickey Mouse you have in mind. Only the copyright for the mischievous, beady-eyed, rat-like Mickey seen in “Steamboat Willie” will enter the public domain, as opposed to the version we see most often: a happy-go-lucky Mickey with bright red shorts, big white gloves, and realistic eyes with pupils.[25]
While Frake-Waterfield has not spoken about any plans to create a murderous Mickey Mouse movie anytime soon, that does not mean he is stopping. If you are wanting even more, you can expect Bambi: The Reckoning[26] and Peter Pan’s Neverland Nightmare[27] on a screen near you soon. Only time will tell if other creatives will expand the childhood character-turned-killer genre, or if Disney will find another way, perhaps seeking to use trademark law, to clutch its characters closer.
* Kyla Krohn, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Class of 2024, Associate Editor.
[1] Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey (Jagged Edge Productions 2023).
[2] See Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19623240 (last visited Apr. 3, 2023).
[3] See Russ Burlingame, Winnie the Pooh Fans Shocked by Horror Movie Turn, ComicBook.com (Aug. 31, 2022, 12:13 PM), https://comicbook.com/horror/news/winnie-the-pooh-fans-shocked-blood-honey-horror.
[4] See Timothy B. Lee, 15 Years Ago, Congress Kept Mickey Mouse Out of the Public Domain. Will They Do It Again?, Wash. Post: The Switch(Oct. 25, 2013, 9:00 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again.
[6] Id.
[7] Copyright Act of 1790, § 1, 1 Stat. 124 (1790) (current version at 17 U.S.C. § 302).
[8] Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Pub. L. No. 105–298, 112 Stat. 2827 (1998) (amending 17 U.S.C. §§ 302–304).
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Marvin Ammori, The Uneasy Case for Copyright Extension, 16 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 287, 293 (2002).
[13] See Janet Wasko, The Magical-Market World of Disney, Monthly Review, Apr. 2001, at 56 (“Disney waged a campaign . . . to support” the bill “as part of its global strategy.”); see also Linda Greenhouse, Justices to Review Copyright Extension, N.Y. Times (Feb. 20, 2002), https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/20/business/justices-to-review-copyright-extension.html.
[14] See Michael Hiltzik, Column: ‘Winnie-the-Pooh’ (Born 1926) Is Finally in the Public Domain, a Reminder That Our Copyright System Is Absurd, L.A. Times: Business (Jan. 3, 2022, 1:23 PM), https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-01-03/winnie-the-pooh-public-domain.
[15] “‘Mickey and Pooh are our two top sellers in Disney stores, and across all licensing,’ said Chuck Champlin, a spokesman for Disney Consumer Products.” Cory Lancaster, Pooh’s Sweet Profits, Orlando Sentinel (Sept. 12, 1998, 12:00 AM), https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1998-09-13-9809110554-story.html.
[16] See John Frost, Will Disney’s Copyright on Mickey Mouse Ever Expire?, The Disney Blog (Oct. 27, 2013), https://thedisneyblog.com/2013/10/27/will-disneys-copyright-on-mickey-mouse-ever-expire.
[17] Ammori, supra note 12.
[18] Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).
[19] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
[20] Eldred, 537 U.S. at 199.
[21] Bryan Alexander, How Can Winnie the Pooh Be Made a Killer in ‘Blood and Honey’? The Public Domain, Explained, USA TODAY (Sept. 1, 2022, 6:02 PM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2022/09/01/winnie-pooh-blood-and-honey-horror-movie/7961872001.
[22] Tigger will enter the public domain in 2024. Kirk O’Neil, Disney Might Lose the Rights to Two Classic Characters, TheStreet (Jan. 9, 2022, 4:06 PM), https://www.thestreet.com/investing/disney-faces-copyright-expirations-for-mickey-mouse-winnie-the-pooh.
[23] K.J. Yossman, ‘Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey’: Inside the Viral Micro-Budget Slasher Hoping to Slay the Box Office, Variety (Feb. 7, 2023), https://variety.com/2023/film/global/winnie-the-pooh-blood-and-honey-box-office-micro-budget-1235515255.
[24] O’Neil, supra note 22.
[25] Brooks Barnes, Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Creation Will Soon Be Public Property, N.Y. Times (Dec. 27, 2022 5:24 PM), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/27/business/mickey-mouse-disney-public-domain.html.
[26] John Squires, ‘Bambi: The Reckoning’ – Bambi Becomes a “Vicious Killing Machine” in Upcoming Horror Movie, Bloody Disgusting (Dec. 2, 2022), https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3742420/bambi-the-reckoning-bambi-becomes-a-vicious-killing-machine-in-upcoming-horror-movie.
[27] Karl Anthony Simpson Jr., Peter Pan: Neverland Nightmare in Development from Winnie the Pooh Horror Team, Game Rant (Nov. 2, 2022), https://gamerant.com/peter-pan-neverland-nightmare-winnie-the-pooh-horror-team.
University of St. Thomas Law Journal 
Leave a comment