The other day I was called by a church that had questions about the status of the copyright in Peter Pan. The church hoped to include Peter Pan as a character in its holiday production. They were concerned, however, that Peter Pan may still be under copyright protection... at least they heard it was.
I explained that the Peter Pan characters (Peter, Tinker Bell, Wendy, Hook, etc.) and the story as embodied in the books and play published in 1902, 1905 and 1911 are all in the public domain. Afterall, that's what our Somma v. GOSH case is all about. Nevertheless, my impression at the conclusion of the call was that the church felt it would be prudent to exclude Peter Pan from its play, absent explicit permission from GOSH (the Great Ormond Street Hospital). The caller's sentiment was a simple and practical one: "why take the risk?"
To me, this is a prime example of the real-life chilling impact of over zealous copyright enforcement. Based on what I heard, this church is free to include Peter Pan in its play. But, because there is this erroneous perception in the public that the Peter Pan story (and it's characters) is protected under copyright in the US, the creative inclusion of Peter Pan in a new production is roundly thwarted. Under our current system, my feeling is that a copyright owner can easily ensure the propogation of a mistaken belief about its IP rights. Indeed, just a few weeks ago GOSH did just this by announcing a "contest" for an "authorised" sequel to the Peter Pan stories, and erroneously claiming that the US copyright is valid through 2023. Authors should know that permission from GOSH is not necessary to write a sequel to the 1902, 1905 and 1911 J.M. Barrie works. The copyright in these works expired many years ago.
(UPDATE: 17 USC section 110(3) provides that it is not an infringement of copyright to perform "a nondramatic literary or musical work or [] a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature, or display [a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly". This is an exception to copyright infringement that may impact the church described in the blog. Moreover, 17 USC section 110(4) provides additional protection for performances of certain types of works that have no commercial advangage if (a) there is no admission charge and (b) the proceeds are exclusively for educational, religious, or charitable purposes, unless the copyright owner has objected under the specific provisions of section110(4).)