MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738564324

Never Neverland: Peter Pan and perpetual copyright

2004· article· en· W2738564324 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Rimmer

Bibliographic record

VenueQUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite (mutation)Context (archaeology)AdventureArt historyArtSick childHistoryPerformance artLiteratureMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the case of Emily Somma v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, there has been much debate over whether Peter Pan has passed into the public domain. In 1902, JM Barrie first invented the puckish, fictional character of Peter Pan in his book The little white bird. In 1904, JM Barrie adapted his story into a stage play called Peter Pan, or The boy who wouldn't grow up. The play was a great success, and was adapted into a silent movie by Paramount pictures in 1923. In 1929, JM Barrie assigned the copyright in the cycle of Peter Pan works to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children - a children's hospital and medical charity. He confirmed the Hospital's ownership of this copyright in his last will and testament in 1937. In 1939, the Hospital licensed the animated film rights to Disney. In 1953, Disney released an animated film version of Peter Pan. It has released the film at regular intervals since that first production. In 1990, Steven Spielberg released an adaptation of the Peter Pan story called Hook. In 2002, Disney released the film Return to Neverland. In 2002, the Canadian children's novelist J Emily Somma published the novel After the rain: a new adventure for Peter Pan. She sought to explore the themes of the classic story in a modern context: Of all of the famous children's stories coming from British authors in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Peter Pan is the one that jumps out as very clearly having been written for adults: On these magic shores children at play are forever beaching their coracles. We too have been there; we can still hear the sound of the surf, though we shall land no more. Somma's book concerns a 21st century girl, called Crystal McFarland, who rescues Peter Pan from perpetual childhood in Neverland. Her novel takes a much more positive attitude to the opportunities of adulthood than the original texts. Somma published the novel After the rain: a new adventure for Peter Pan with Daisy Books in Canada, a jurisdiction in which the copyright in the Peter Pan works had expired. She sought permission from the Great Ormond Hospital to publish the novel in the United States and the European Union. However, the Hospital refused her request to publish the book in the United Kingdom, the European Community, and the United States. The trustees asserted: 'The play by JM Barrie is in full copyright in the United States until 2023.' Furthermore, the trustees maintained: 'Unauthorised works, which contain the Peter Pan characters and elements from the original work, are not adaptable in the United States, without the permission of the Hospital, being protected by the laws of trademark and unfair competition.' With the help of the Stanford Center for Law and the Internet, Emily Somma filed a pre-emptive lawsuit in the Federal Court of California against the Hospital to protect her derivative work, After the rain. She sought a declaration that copyright had expired in JM Barrie's books in the United States, and the characters of Peter Pan, Tinker Bell, Captain Hook, and Wendy were in the public domain.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.039
Scholarly communication0.0160.015
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology)Same topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207