"These are from 'Grimm's Fairy Tales', right?" said attorney Jon Steinsapir. Take Cinderella, Snow White or Rapunzel, for example. SEE MORE: Streaming Is Changing How Companies Make Money, For Better Or Worse But what "Blood and Honey" is doing - building upon characters from the public domain - is what allowed Disney to build its own creative empire. Recognizing those little differences can help artists avoid incurring the wrath of the notably litigious House of Mouse. Other characters, like Tigger, weren't introduced until 1928, and any story that Disney created itself for its own movies or children's shows are still copyright protected. So, what's the difference?įor starters, there is Winnie the Pooh's iconic red shirt, which didn't appear until the 1930s. In 1961, Disney acquired the rights to Milne's characters and stories, and that adaptation is not in the public domain. "Whatever Disney has done to that, they continue to own that." "What has come into the public domain is just the original story, the original elements, original characters," said attorney Tre Lovell.
The trailer for the horror flick garnered more than 2 million views since it came out in August, but adapting characters from the public domain is no easy legal task. That means horror movies like "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" can now wade through some obscure legal waters to ruin your childhood memories. Milne entered the public domain this year, which happens 95 years after the original publication of a piece of art. The 1926 children's book "Winnie-the-Pooh" by author A.A.