Wait. No! No you can't do this. Let me go.
Oh but MatPat, I definitely can.
No! No please! I don't want to watch a cinematic universe
full of crappy Disney rip off horror movies!
Well, TOO BAD!! This is the world we're living in
now MatPat. And you only have one person to blame for it.
It’s... It’s you?
You better believe it. Huh huh.
Nooooooooooo
Hello Internet! Welcome to Film Theory, the show that wants you to maul that subscribe button like
a rabid teddy bear that's looking for honey. So, have you guys seen this ridiculous Winnie the
Pooh horror movie that just came out? Winnie the Pooh, Blood and Honey. Yeah. Some indie
filmmakers have decided to take the lovable Pooh Bear from the Hundred Acre Wood and put
a unique spin on the idea, to say the least. Re-imagining the story for Children is a
decidedly adult oriented slasher movie. While the film has been absolutely eviscerated by
both fans and critics, the sheer novelty of the idea of the adorable Pooh Bear and
his pals going on a murderous rampage has earned a respectable $3.8 million so far
off of a budget that was smaller than $100k. It is enough of a profit that the filmmakers
have already announced a sequel, as well as similar horror adaptations for other Disney
classics like Bambi, The Reckoning and Peter Pan's Neverland Nightmare,
all of which will be part of a shared universe because, of course, they will be. Now, there's
probably another theory in here somewhere about how and why these low budget horror movies get
made and how successful they are for the studios. But for today, I just wanted to ask the simple
question of how exactly does this movie exist? Like legally, how did they get away with this
thing? Well, Winnie the Pooh, Blood and Honey exists because the Winnie the Pooh franchise no
longer belongs only to Disney. It actually belongs to you. Yes you, sitting at home without your
pants on, literally you. You see, back in the beginning of 2022, Winnie the Pooh entered the
public domain here in the United States, meaning that it's no longer protected by copyright. So
now anyone can use these characters and stories in practically any way they want. Writing their
own sequels, having Pooh and the friends in their own franchises outside the original work, adapting
them into gratuitously violent horror movies. And Winnie the Pooh is not the only major work
that's on its way to being owned by everyone. You see loyal theorists, the world of entertainment is
about to get very interesting. Things are changing fast on all fronts with a lot of very precious
and iconic stories and characters entering the public domain with way more coming out in the
near future. Along with the lovable Pooh Bear every single Sherlock Holmes story entered the
public domain in 2023. Massive pillars of pop culture like Superman and The Hobbit,
they're set to enter in 2033. And if a decade is too far away for you, the granddaddy of modern
entertainment characters himself, Mickey Mouse, is set to enter the public domain in 2024. Yeah, next
January. That has got to be real uncomfortable for the company that looks at their IP and thinks:
Well, hold on, your horses there friendos. There's a reason Walt's empire ain't too
scared of Mickey's impending release into public ownership. During my research looking into how
exactly these filmmakers got away with making this off brand horror Winnie the Pooh murder movie,
I discovered a horrible truth about the way these sorts of laws work.
And spoiler alert, you will likely never be able to use any of these iconic characters owned by
corporations like Disney and WB and Universal. And I realized all of that just because of this Winnie
the Pooh slasher flick. Blood and Honey is far more than a ridiculous attempt at making money
for shock value. It's a peek into the terrible future for these characters as their corporate
overlords try to keep their claws in their IP. And it all comes down to the scariest
thing of all: legal loopholes. Oh bother. Grab your buckets of honey
and machetes loyal theorists. It's time to carve our way into this mess. Before we get started,
let me just call out. This theory is only going to be looking into and explaining copyright law
for the U.S. That's not to say that other countries and their laws are unimportant.
It's more to say that basically every country on earth has different laws regarding this
sort of thing. And if we tried to hash out every single rule in every single country,
things would get very complex, very long and very boring in a hurry. Additionally, sometimes I feel
like this goes without saying, but we here at team Theorists are not lawyers, this is not
legal advice. We're just a bunch of nerds with a lot of free time on our hands and an obscene
interest in who owns what in the entertainment industry. So to start things off, I feel like we
need to be on the same page here. What even is a copyright anyway? I'm sure you've heard the term,
but it's kind of a weird, nebulous idea that can be slippery and difficult to get a real grip on.
Basically, a copyright is protection granted by law for original works that you make. It
ensures that anything original that you write or make belongs only to you. You don't even have to
publish it. When you make something original it's yours automatically, no matter what. And it covers
a lot of different mediums: books, poetry, movies, music, even computer software and architecture.
That being said, a copyright doesn't protect facts, ideas or systems. If you want an example
of what I mean, let's just look at the Theorists channels. We don't own the idea
or the format of a theory about games, film, TV, food, style, whatever. We can't copyright
the concept of a theory. Anyone can make their own theory videos here on YouTube and in fact,
we outright encourage that. It is awesome to see. But we do on a copyright over the stuff
like our exact thumbnail, the scripts that we write, the videos that we edit,
so anyone can go and make their own theories, they can even make theories that spin off of our own,
but they can't outright take our theories and re-upload them as is. To take a look back at
Winnie the Pooh, the name, the characters within Pooh, the art, the designs, the exact writings.
All of them were protected by copyright. But the idea of a child being friends with
a living teddy bear, a pig, rabbit doll, etc., going on adventures out in the woods. That
isn't protected by the copyright. How, then, did these indie filmmakers manage to get the
rights to use Winnie the Pooh in this horror movie that Disney definitely didn't authorize?
Well, a copyright doesn't last forever, and when they expire, the works they protected
enter the public domain, as I mentioned at the top of the episode, that means that this work
now belongs to the public and anyone can do anything they'd like with it. The first
number put on copyright laws in the United States was from the Copyright Act of 1790,
which gave authors 14 years of protection the ability to apply for an additional
14 years after that. That period has since been extended several times throughout the
centuries, most recently in 1998 with the Copyright Term Extension Act. Currently,
a copyright lasts for the entire lifetime of the author, plus an additional 70 years if the work
was created by a person. If it was created by a corporation, the copyright lasts for either 120
years after its creation or 95 years after its publication, whichever one comes first.
Fun fact, that Copyright Term Extension Act from 1998 was actually nicknamed the Mickey
Mouse Protection Act, because Disney was one of the primary companies lobbying hard to get that
thing passed. I'm going to choose to believe that they offered everyone who voted in favor
of it a free trip to Disney World. So is Disney just going to roll into town and
pay off the American government to extend that copyright again like they did before?
Well, no, probably not, and for a few reasons. First of all, with control of the U.S. House,
Senate and White House split between parties, not a whole lot is getting done in Washington
these days. Secondly, one of those major political parties ain't too big of a fan of the mouse these
days. So if you think you're getting any of them to back a bill that would directly
benefit the company, better think again. Lastly, and probably most importantly,
it's not 1998 anymore. The times they are changing. Back then, when the internet was young,
information sometimes took a while to travel. People couldn't easily look up
the entire world's worth of information with a Wikipedia search. Corporations like Disney
putting all this pressure on Congress to extend the copyright? That could be done under the table.
But now, if Disney tried anything shady like that, Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr and TikTok would
be all over them in a heartbeat. We're talking about a company that used to sue daycare centers
for having unauthorized murals of Mickey and friends in the eighties. But nowadays, in 2020,
when an elementary school screened an illegal copy of The Lion King as part of a fundraiser,
Disney tried to fine them for it only for the Internet to blow up in a righteous fury,
forcing the mouse to apologize and CEO Bob Iger to personally donate to that fundraiser instead.
The power dynamic has shifted. So if Disney either won't or can't extend the copyright again. Is that
it? Are we going to be seeing horror movie knock offs of Mickey's and Donald Duck's and Goofy’s
popping up everywhere next year, just like we did with Winnie the Pooh? Is everyone going to own
iconic characters like Mickey Mouse and Superman? Well, not exactly. See when a work enters the public
domain, that doesn't mean that every iteration of everything in that work also enters along with it.
It's only the content in that original work as it existed in that original work. So looking at Pooh
Bear, the only stuff that's entered the public domain right now are the depictions of Pooh,
Piglet, Christopher Robin, and all of their friends from the very original 1926 book by
A.A. Milne as they existed in that 1926 book. And there's some pretty significant stuff
missing from that work. One big one? Pooh’s red shirt. It wasn't added to the character
until 1932 for an RCA picture record, a full six years after the character debuted. That
means you won't be clear to use a cute little red shirt on your public domain
Pooh Bear murder movie until January 1st, 2028. This is actually why the Poo in Blood and Honey
has a red flannel shirt with overalls instead of a red shirt that's three sizes too small.
In fact, if you watched the movie, you might have noticed one of our fuzzy friends missing from the
hundred acre wood. While Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, Rabbit and Owl all make an appearance. Tigger
was nowhere to be found. Because he didn't debut until 1928 in the book, The House at Pooh Corner,
so he won't be in the public domain until January 1st, 2024, just in time for the sequel to Blood
and Honey. It wouldn't even surprise me. Winnie the Pooh 2 The Bloody Bouncing Buddy.
And This goes for everything else that we've talked about so far. Sure,
when stuff like The Hobbit hits public domain, you can use Bilbo and Gandalf and Smaug and
Middle-Earth in the official Hobbit fan fiction that you've been chipping away at or anything
else you want to write, for that matter. But you can't reference any of the stuff
from Lord of the Rings or use any of that iconic Middle-Earth art beyond what was published in
1937. For Superman: You can include the character in your stories, his origins from Krypton,
as well as his dual life as Clark Kent. But the only powers that he can have are super strength,
being faster than a speeding train, and the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
All of the stuff that he had when he debuted in 1938. No flight, no heat vision, no ice breath,
no X-ray vision. You know, all those things that make Superman a Super Man. Mickey Mouse might be
the character that's actually changed the most here though. The original Mickey from Steamboat
Willie was exclusively black and white, he had a long tail, His eyes were just small pupils,
he was a troublemaking boat pilot. Everything we associate with Mickey today, the red pants,
the modern smiley face, the friendly personality, the edgy leather hoodie,
all of that came later. And anyone trying to use that stuff starting next January, when
Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, they're sticking their fingers into a legal mouse trap.
But even with all that aside, things are entering the public domain. It might just
be slower than everyone expects. Over the next decade or so we'll still be able to use
some version of iconic characters like Winnie the Pooh and Gandalf and Superman and Mickey
Mouse himself in all of our own stuff, just with a few limitations. And eventually we'll
be able to use all of the iconic parts of these characters and their stories for ourselves, right?
Well, in theory. IN COPYRIGHT THEORY! Yes, eventually. But you best hold onto your horses
before we get too excited there, friendos. You see, there's another side to this legal coin that
I don't see anyone addressing. While the copyright that these companies hold for these older books
and cartoons and comics are expiring soon. Their trademarks aren't. And likely never will.
Wait, I hear you asking, what's the difference between copyright and trademark? Well, trademarks
and copyrights are very similar things. Enough so that I wouldn't be surprised if you got them
confused. But they have very different purposes. While the copyright is meant to protect someone's
original creative work, like I explained above. A trademark is meant to protect their brand.
They're designed to help a consumer identify the origin of a product or service so they
know exactly what they're spending their money on. Think of it like a seal of quality. For instance,
if you see that iconic Disney logo on something, the one that looks like a signature with the
D that kind of looks like a G. You know, immediately that this is a product that's
created and approved by the Walt Disney Company. That isn't just some knockoff.
But the big twist here for trademarks is that they don't expire. As long as someone is using
their trademarks, submits the proper paperwork to renew them and defend the trademark against anyone
trying to use them, then they keep that trademark forever. And trademarks can cover a huge variety
of things, including names, words, phrases, logos, symbols, designs, but also things that
you wouldn't expect, like colors, smells, sounds. And you best believe that companies are trying
to take advantage of that as much as they can. If you look up the word Superman on the United
States Patent and Trademark Office database, you'll be given a ton of results showing that
DC Comics owns the trademark for Superman spelled this way and just about everything
you can imagine. Most of it makes sense, like comic magazines, books concerning memorabilia,
motion pictures and television programs, toy doll figures, etc. But they also grabbed it
for things like lunchboxes, toothbrushes, towels and blankets, advertising and candy.
Remember, that means that they're the only ones who can release comics and books and movies and
toys just labeled as Superman. So if you want to use Superman in the title of your product after it
enters the public domain, you're going to have to get real creative with how you use Superman in the
title of pretty much anything that you make ever. Maybe get your hyphens ready and witness the rise
of Super-Man. But see, now that just looks weird. Something else you'd probably never be able to
use? the recognizable iconography of Superman, specifically his S shield crest on his chest,
and the Superman logo. Both of those things are trademarked by DC and you can bet that they are
defending them vigorously. Because those are key parts of the Superman IP that they outright
own and that connects the brand to DC. When you see the shield, DC wants you to
know that this is the official DC product. So yeah, once Superman enters the public domain,
you might be able to use Superman in your story. But if you have to be that careful about the name,
logo and crest of the character in any of the products and marketing,
is it even worth using him at that point? The same goes for all the other heavy hitters
that I've been talking about today. Middle Earth Enterprises and their parent company owns the
trademark for basically any combination of the words “The” and “Hobbit" that you can think of,
covering everything from toys to tea to cardboard cut outs and drinking steins. So sure,
once The Hobbit hits public domain, maybe Dungeons & Dragons can call their
halflings hobbits again without getting sued. But good luck to anyone wanting to start up
their afternoon tea company themed around and named after Hobbits. Likewise, Disney owns the
trademark for Winnie the Pooh regarding basically everything that you can imagine, as well as some
things you probably can't imagine, like gloves and hosiery. That one is so oddly specific. So
anyone wanting to use Pooh in their public domain horror film is going to have to get creative and
or specific with their names and portrayals. And you see, that's exactly what happened
with blood and honey. There is a trademark registered for the logo of “Winnie-the-Pooh:
Blood and Honey” specifically for the production and distribution of film and television and for
T-shirts. Because you got to get that merch game on, baby. I'm assuming that the people behind this
film wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be any knockoff merch available in Hot Topic.
Only The Real Deal... Knock off merch. But you notice anything else funky about this registration
as compared to that mountain of Disney owned trademarks? The registration for Blood and Honey
is super specific, claiming, quote, the colors red and light orange and the quote, blood red, orange
lettering of the title of motion picture. They're only trademarking the logo and its color palette.
Nothing generic like the entire phrase Winnie the Pooh across all children's
media or whatever. What's more, notice any other differences in the names? I mean, sure,
the Blood and Honey Mark has that subtitle, but unlike all of the Disney marks, it also
has dashes between Winnie-The-Pooh. That makes it just different enough, just stylized enough to
help them stand out from anything Disney related. Honestly, if the purpose of trademarks is to help
customers identify the origin of a product, the fact that Blood and Honey is so stupidly
violent and so obviously not something Disney would authorize probably protected
these filmmakers more than anything else. Now, normally I think that this is where
we could wrap things up. We've done the whole, “Hey, this thing you think you know,
actually isn't that way and there's this other thing that'll change your perspective on it”
Schtick. But there is an extra twist here loyal theorists. A fact I uncovered that transforms this
conversation about the quirks of copyright law into a conspiracy about these megacorporations
twisting the rules to benefit them. And it all comes back to the Mouse. Literally. Throughout
this entire theory, we've touched on how Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public
domain, how Disney's delayed the inevitable for decades, how they won't be able to do it again.
And all of that is still true. Likewise, everything we've said about Superman and
The Hobbit and Winnie the Pooh also applies here. Disney owns a ton of trademarks around
Mickey Mouse, which makes a lot of sense. He's an integral part of their brand,
so much so that they've started incorporating him into all sorts of branding within their company.
But you see what I just said right there. That right there is the genius 4-D chess 1 billion
IQ move that these companies are starting to make. These companies understand how trademarks work and
they're starting to weaponize them in an effort to shut down public domain as we know it today. When
I started looking into all this for the theory, the fact that Disney appeared to not be fighting
to keep their golden goose protected by the law honestly shocked me more than anything else.
Mickey Mouse is Disney and they want everyone else to think so too. So what have they done? Well,
in 2007, they redesigned their logo for their flagship animation company,
Walt Disney Animation Studios. These are the people who make stuff like Frozen, Encanto,
Tangled, all the Disney fairy tale heavy hitters. And what was that redesigned logo? The literal
frames of animation from the most iconic part of Steamboat Willie, whistle and all.
That logo? You betcha it's trademarked. Disney found a way to get true permanent control over
the most important parts of the first release of their most popular character. All of it
while playing within the bounds of the law. So sure, when Steamboat, Willie and Mickey
sail down the river into the public domain in January of next year, maybe you can navigate
your way through all of this legal minefield. Maybe you could figure out a way to use Mickey
as he first appeared here in Steamboat Willie without using the exact iconic frames from this
trademark logo while transforming it all enough to be distinct from Disney's brand. Maybe you
could have yourself a black and white movie with a mischievous, monochromatic mouse set
on a boat whistling as he gets up to no good. You know, when you put it that way, it actually
sounds a whole lot like the perfect setup for a horror movie. And thus everything circles
back around to Blood and Honey. I wasn't kidding at the top of this theory when I said that the
true horror of this movie was the copyright laws surrounding it. Because I believe that this horror
remake of Winnie the Pooh is setting the precedent for how we're going to see many of these beloved
characters interpreted by other artists as they enter the public domain, especially for characters
like Pooh and Mickey and Superman. Seriously, these guys are going to look so different from
what we're used to seeing that they might as well all be low budget b-horror movies. Or,
you know, you could just take your ideas and turn them into original IP so that way you can
own those things for yourself. Then again, looking at the box office performance for Blood and Honey.
Yeah, no one's going to do that. Feed me the nostalgia berries.
But hey! If you want even more insight into shady legal shenanigans, you should
go check out our brand new Style Theory talking about the strange world of clothing copyright.
If a company has been accused of stealing a copyrighted clothing design multiple times over,
how are they still in business? How are they still able to get away with it? Link
to that video is onscreen right now. I could not believe some of the stuff I
learned from that one. I hope you enjoy that video. And as always, my friends,
I'll see you next week. Until then, remember, it's all just a theory A FILM THEORY! aaaaaaaaaand cut.