winnie the pooh in the public domain

[soda bottle]

Hi there

It appears the text from the original AA Milne book Winnie-the-Pooh is now in the public domain.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/ ... lic-domain

I'm just double checking that I can quote from the book (not later Disney script text) now in a children's book? Thanks for your help.

S.

[AndyJ]

Hi soda bottle,

If you are based in the USA, then, yes, you can consider the original Winnie the Pooh book (published in 1926 in both the UK and USA) to be in the public domain there and you can use the text however you wish.

However in the UK, all the works of AA Milne remain in copyright until 1 January 2027, because Milne did not die unitl 1956 and copyright continues to run for 70 years after an author's death. That said, if you are based in the UK, you may still quote from any of the books, provided that you credit the author and only use a sufficient amount of the original work for your purpose and no more than that. The bit of the law which allows you to do this is section 30 (1ZA) of the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

[AnthonyY]

Hi AndyJ
Thanks for posting this, the link to S30 of the Act is very helpful.
I'm writing an essay about a quite obscure Milne book, nothing to do with Winnie the Pooh.
It's for publication in a society journal, distributed free to the members, no money involved.
The quotations I'd like to use are quite extensive (thousands of words), but nevertheless, at least in my opinion, satisfy the condition:
"the extent of the quotation is no more than is required by the specific purpose for which it is used"
i.e., the book is quite rare and very few of my readers has any access to the text.
So the only way they can compare any given passage to other authors' treatment of the same subject is if I give them the full Milne text.
But I'm wondering what the normal practice is here.
Is it normal to give Curtis Brown Ltd advance sight of your proposed text and ask whether they agree it's not an infringement?
Or do people just go ahead and proceed on the basis of their own opinion as to "no more than is required"?
many thanks

[AndyJ]

Hi Anthony, and welcome to the forum.

It sounds as if you intend to rely on the exception for criticism or review (section 30(1)), rather than the less specific Section 30(1ZA). This is a point in your favour since a more disciplined, academic approach is what the original fair dealing exceptions were intended to cater for.
Normally I would say that 1000 words might be excessive within the context of fair dealing, unless it was broken up into several dozen smaller snippets. The only time when much larger single quotes might be justified is when, as you mention, the original work is so obscure that a typical member of the public to whom your essay is aimed could not reasonably access Milne's book for themself, for instance if it had been out of print for many years and was not stocked in a typical public library. One of the tests used by the courts to assess whether there has been fair dealing is to consider the probable economic damage to the author from using an extensive part of their work. Clearly if the book is not in print, there can be no immediate economic damage through lost sales, although a court might also take into account the possibility of Milne's estate or his publishers exercising their option to republish the book at some future point.

So if you take a cautious approach, use relatively short individual passages, and employ paraphrasing as much as is practicable, then you will reduce the likelihood of any potential problems later on. But if you are not entirely confident that section 30 covers your needs, by all means approach the publishers for permission to use rather longer passages since their blessing will remove any potential for litigation. However, do not expect them to tell you whether or not they consider your use fair dealing. By and large publishers dislike the fair daling exceptions and tend to set their own arbitrary standards for what is or isn't 'acceptable', frequently based of some percentage or word count. That is not how the fair dealing exception is supposed to work, since it is based on a qualitative rather than quantitative approach.

[AnthonyY]

Thanks very much Andy. This is extremely helpful, albeit bad news.
I must say though, that it seems to highlight a shortcoming in S30, as what I propose to do is by no means a damaging infringement of copyright, and indeed would benefit the rights holder - yet your advice is that it’s nowhere near provided for.
For context, the work in question is the script of Milne’s 1936 play ‘Miss Elizabeth Bennet’ (i.e., his adaptation of Pride and Prejudice for the stage), which was also published as a book.
It is long out of print and almost forgotten, certainly unavailable in libraries - even though some academic critics consider it the best adaptation of any Austen novel.
Milne’s rendition of the famous scene in which Elizabeth rejects Darcy’s proposal is just over 2,000 words. His version can be judged in relation to the original, or to subsequent adaptations, only if you can see it - short extracts plus my humble attempts at commentary would be no good at all.
Perhaps the best approach would be to put a final draft to the rights holder. They can only say no. And if they did, I need only wait two years and publish after the copyright expires.
An alternative, though, might be to quote from the only source material on the web - a recording, preserved on Youtube, of a broadcast of the play on BBC Radio on Christmas Day, 1967. I believe copyright in that abridged BBC text remains with the Milne Trust, but would the fact that it’s on Youtube give me any protection against objections of theirs to my quoting from it?
Many thanks

[AndyJ]

Hi Anthony,

In view of what you would like to do, in comparing and contrasting Milne's version to Austen's original, I can see the strong justification for fairly lengthy quotation. Nonetheless, I think it would be sensible to approach the publishers for permission. Given, as you say, that the copyright in Milne's work ends on 31 December 2026, I think they would have to be extemely petty to refuse you permission. Once given permission, you would have greater certainty.

Turning to the BBC production of the play, I think you are right that the copyright in the adapted script will probably remain with Milne's estate, which would have had to agree to the BBC making the necessary changes. However copyright in the broadcast itself would have been owned by the BBC and only lasted for 50 years from the end of the year of first broadcasting, so the BBC no longer have any rights in their production. This may account for why it is available on Youtube. There is a small possibility that if the BBC version involved fairly major additions (as opposed to excisions) of Milne's text, then the writer of that extra dialogue may have gained copyright in their contribution. This would obviously complicate matters. However I assume that you are less interested in the BBC's version than in Milne's.

I am moderately certain that Curtis Brown still retain the rights to this particular play. But even if they don't they should be able to direct you to the current rightsholders. The person to contact at Curtis Brown is Becky Brown (becky.brown@curtisbrown.co.uk) in the Heritage department. As you are probably aware the original manuscript for the play is held in the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas.