So a British children's hospital which owns the rights to the story of Tinkerbell, Tiger Lily and the evil Captain Hook is searching for an author to write a sequel, to keep the money flowing when the copyright to the evergreen classic runs out.

In 1929, author JM Barrie donated the copyright to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital. The rights run out in Europe in 2007.

complete story

http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=50900&id=2004082312110002643623

"Peter Pan's centenary seems the right time to do this," said hospital chief executive Jane Collins, of the story which
was first published in 1904. "We hope a sequel would bring as much pleasure as the original."

And keep the cash flowing...

Well, I doupt it would work now. Cultural change. If Peter Pan hadn't been written now, no publisher would have touched it.

I did know Peter Pan was copyrighted to the hospital. They have had several disputes with Disney over various rights, the kind of thing thats inevitable when one group owns the copyright to a film but another owns the story and characters. The last of those, a dispute over merchandising money, delayed the release of the latest Peter Pan film.

Wasn't "Hook" the sequel to Peter Pan?

But yeah, like Lachatte said, Peter Pan as a story just won't work now. It's surprising that the movies even work now. Here we have a story about a boy sneaking around and peaking in the windows of other children, ultimately settling on Wendy and her brothers. In an attempt to get them to come with him, he says various things to them and then sprinkles a dust on them and tell them they can fly.

I don't know about you, but this smacks of drugs and child abuse, not to mention violation of various laws against looking in other peoples windows.

"Hook" was a live action portrayal of the original story.

No.

The major Pans, in chronological order according to my memory:

1. Peter Pan, the book.

2. Peter Pan, the Disney animated movie.

3. Hook, the live-action Disney sequel movie in which an adult Peter with amnesia returns to neverland to discover his past and beat up some pirates (through, this being Disney, none of the weapons used are potentially lethal. The pirates are defeated with egg-catapults.)

4. Peter Pan, the new Disney live-action film. I dont know if its out yet, that merchandising dispute delayed it. Disney claims it should have the money, it owns the film. The hospital points out it owns the characters being merchandised, to which Disney responds they own the image of the characters, while the hospitals only owns the descriptions, and it goes on, and on, probably until the hospital runs ouf of cash for lawyers or Disney decides to get a move on and give in before its advertising campaign is wasted.

And various small plays, pantomimes, shortened books for the youger readers, and so on.

Niceguy, it's called a fictional story... just because it has odd content doesn't mean drugs were involved or that the author wanted to brainwash kids into becoming peeping toms.

Although I am sure that I am in the minority on this, I feel that copyrights given by to charities should remain intact to the charities.

The idea that my original creative copyrighted work, donated to a charity, can become anyone's after a set length of time, is disturbing to say the least.

Actually, I think it is ironic that Disney will keep their DRM DVD version of a work that goes into the Public Domain in a couple of years....To lock it safely away in a safe for 25 years and sue anyone who shares it.

Goldenpi: In the U.S. back in the 50's or early 60's, Peter Pan was on TV. The role of Peter Pan was played by a woman, an actress named Mary Martin, I believe. It was a stage play (musical), and even with poor reception, a small screen, and a black and white television, a kid could see the ropes that supported Peter Pan while he (she) went flying.
I think that was on before Disney did the color animation.

What about "Return to Never Land"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280030/