Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" controversy

[Guest]

Saw this today. Brings up all kinds of questions in my mind.

Hospital with copyright objects to books

By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 27 minutes ago

LONDON - A London hospital that holds the copyright to "Peter Pan" has questioned the appropriateness of a series of books that portrays the character Wendy exploring her sexuality.

The "Lost Girls" books, by graphic novelist Alan Moore, are about three world-famous characters: Wendy, Dorothy from "The Wizard of Oz" and Alice from "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland." The characters meet one another and have sexual adventures. Wendy not only engages in erotic trysts but also encounters pedophiles.

Moore wrote three separate "Lost Girls" novels in 1995, 1996 and 2005, all featuring Wendy, and some were published by the small U.S. company Kitchen Sink Press. They include drawings by artist Melinda Gebbie of sexual acts that could be considered pornographic, and some of the books were sold in England with an "adults only" warning on their jackets.

Another American publisher, Top Shelf Productions, has said it plans to publish all of three of the books as "Lost Girls Collected."

"We understand this graphic novel involves characters from the story of J.M. Barrie's "Peter Pan & Wendy," which is, of course, in copyright in the U.K. and EU," the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children said in a statement about Moore's book.

The hospital, which was bequeathed the rights to the "Peter Pan" books by Barrie, said: "In order to be published or distributed in these territories, Alan Moore's title would need our permission or license. From press coverage, we understand it deals with sensitive subject matter which does not initially seem appropriate to be associated with the hospital and with J.M. Barrie's legacy to us."

Stephen Cox, the hospital's spokesman, said Friday that it has not taken legal action against Moore and is was waiting to see whether the author will contact the institution to discuss its objections.

The hospital didn't know about the "Lost Girls" books until Moore was recently interviewed about them by the British Broadcasting Corp., Cox said.

Moore, a well known comics writer, has produced works including dark graphic novels such as "Watchmen," about a world on the verge of nuclear annihilation, and "From Hell," an autopsy of Victorian England and the nature of misogyny. He also wrote "V for Vendetta" about a British anarchist who blows up Parliament, which was released in March as a movie starring
Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman.

In the BBC interview, Moore said that "Lost Girls" was inspired by "Peter Pan," but that he doesn't intend to seek permission from the hospital to use the Wendy character.

"I don't really see that you can ban anything in this day and age. It wasn't our intention to try to provoke a ban," Moore was quoted as saying.

The hospital said its copyright to the "Peter Pan" book, play and characters expires in Europe in January 2008, but that it will continue to collect royalties in Britain.

Copyright control over the "Peter Pan" story has been disputed in the United States, where The Walt Disney Co. made a famous movie about it.

I wonder if this would be considered "slash" or "fan fiction"?

 

[FallingToFly]

Saw this today. Brings up all kinds of questions in my mind.



I wonder if this would be considered "slash" or "fan fiction"?

why not both?

 

[Guest]

why not both?

technically, for slash, she's have to be having sex with another well known character, typically of the same gender, and that's not apparent from the article. I've not read the books in question -- didn't even know they existed, actually.

What I find interesting is that yet another well known author was drawn to write stories with existing characters of someone else's creation.

 

[rgraham666]

I love Moore's work. It's always top quality. I think Watchmen is one of the best things I've ever read.

He might be in trouble on this one. Breaking copyright is a pretty big issue in my book.

 

[3113]

technically, for slash, she's have to be having sex with another well known character, typically of the same gender, and that's not apparent from the article. I've not read the books in question -- didn't even know they existed, actually.

What I find interesting is that yet another well known author was drawn to write stories with existing characters of someone else's creation.

I have read the books and yes, I guess on some level it is "slash" but Alan Moore doesn't use it for that purpose. Slash is USUALLY just about the sex--what would happen if this character and this character had sex?

When Alan More explores such a thing, he usually does so to a greater purpose. In this case, yes, the characters of Wendy, Alice and Dorothy are used to explore female childhood fantasies and how they reflect on a girl's coming of age--the hidden sexual messages in such stories, etc.

The sex is graphic and between adults and I believe that the characters do have sex with each other (though it's been a while since I read them)...but seeing the characters have sex with each other is not the point of the story--and so I wouldn't characterize it as "slash" where characters having sex with each other is the entire and often the ONLY point of the story.

Moore has done similar meetings of characters in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" where characters from 19th century supernatural and speculative fiction (like Captain Nemo and the Invisible Man) meet and interact. There were several L.E.G. books and in one of the last he has Mr. Hyde rape the Invisible Man.

Now that's slash for you.

Edited to add: I don't know if he's in copyrite volation or not. Wendy is an adult in his story, and that may make her far enough away from the Wendy in Peter Pan to skirt that issue. References are made to events in "Wizard of Oz," etc, but none of the characters or events in the story, like Peter Pan, are ever actually seen in "Lost Girls."

 

[Guest]

I...When Alan More explores such a thing, he usually does so to a greater purpose. In this case, yes, the characters of Wendy, Alice and Dorothy are used to explore female childhood fantasies and how they reflect on a girl's coming of age--the hidden sexual messages in such stories, etc. ...

Moore has done similar meetings of characters in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" where characters from 19th century supernatural and speculative fiction (like Captain Nemo and the Invisible Man) meet and interact. ...

Edited to add: I don't know if he's in copyrite volation or not. Wendy is an adult in his story, and that may make her far enough away from the Wendy in Peter Pan to skirt that issue. References are made to events in "Wizard of Oz," etc, but none of the characters or events in the story, like Peter Pan, are ever actually seen in "Lost Girls."

What interests me mostly is the whole idea of using characters (and worlds) created by other writers and the issues that arise from it. It seems almost like a tradition, where one writer will adopt and adapt fictional character (or historical ones) for new fiction -- Shakespeare comes to mind first. John Gardner did it with Beowulf and Grendel. The tail of Odysius is well tilled ground. Of course, there's the argument that those stories are myth, that they belong to the world -- in which case what we are really talking about is copyright and the ability to control one's work (and profit by it).

It's interesting to me because of the usual arguments about "create your own" and plaguarism, and the threads of discussion springing from them.

 

[rgraham666]

I think Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen showed just how to take other characters and make them your own.

These two graphic novels were brilliant pieces of work, and couldn't be, in my opinion, considered plagiarism at all.

 

[frozen_north]

I love Moore's work. It's always top quality. I think Watchmen is one of the best things I've ever read.

He might be in trouble on this one. Breaking copyright is a pretty big issue in my book.

It is entirely possible that he was unaware of the fact that the copyright had been bequethed and was still in effect. After a certain period of time (usually 25 years) copyrights expire (unless renewed) and the works become public domain. Inthe case of Peter Pan, the story was written on the order of 100+ years ago, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the work has since passed into the realm of public damain.

 

[Remec]

It is entirely possible that he was unaware of the fact that the copyright had been bequethed and was still in effect. After a certain period of time (usually 25 years) copyrights expire (unless renewed) and the works become public domain. Inthe case of Peter Pan, the story was written on the order of 100+ years ago, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the work has since passed into the realm of public damain.

Also, I seem to recall when we were studying this in a theatre course, that the bequeathal was of the original story and play only. This might be a misremembering that a quick bit of research would clarify easily enough, but if so, than material that was conspiciously different in tone and story might be allowable even if it involved some of the same characters.

 

[Remec]

Also, I seem to recall when we were studying this in a theatre course, that the bequeathal was of the original story and play only. This might be a misremembering that a quick bit of research would clarify easily enough, but if so, than material that was conspiciously different in tone and story might be allowable even if it involved some of the same characters.

And, speaking of easily done research...this is just the first stop I made.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Also, I seem to recall when we were studying this in a theatre course, that the bequeathal was of the original story and play only. This might be a misremembering that a quick bit of research would clarify easily enough, but if so, than material that was conspiciously different in tone and story might be allowable even if it involved some of the same characters.

even if the author didn't check... wouldn't his PUBLISHER!??!

 

[Guest]

According to the entry at Wikipedia. copyright is the lifespan of the author plus 70 years in the US, or for "corporate authorship" between 95 and 120 years. In general, works published before 1923 are considered in the public domain. It's different (and rather complicated) in the UK, which has different kinds of copyrights and allows extensions -- in general, the originator's lifespan plus 70 to 90 years. There are a variety of conditions and so forth to make it complicated.

You can parse your way through the whole thing here or here or here

 

[3113]

According to the entry at Wikipedia. copyright is the lifespan of the author plus 70 years in the US, or for "corporate authorship" between 95 and 120 years. In general, works published before 1923 are considered in the public domain. It's different (and rather complicated) in the UK, which has different kinds of copyrights and allows extensions -- in general, the originator's lifespan plus 70 to 90 years. There are a variety of conditions and so forth to make it complicated.

And from what I'm understanding it's even more complicated--do they own the characters? Or do they just own the play?

If the hospital decides to sue, it's going to be a lawyer fest because only the lawyers are going to be able to makes sense of it--i.e., who owns what.

And even if they do figure it out, they have to prove that the Wendy in "Lost Girls" is absolutely "Wendy" from Peter Pan. They don't, after all, own the name "Wendy."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Alan Moore has no cock.

 

[English Lady]

Alan Moore has no cock.

And how, may I ask, do you know?


*pricks up ears for juicy gossip*

 

[TheEarl]

And even if they do figure it out, they have to prove that the Wendy in "Lost Girls" is absolutely "Wendy" from Peter Pan. They don't, after all, own the name "Wendy."

Technically speaking, they could make a good case that they do own the name Wendy, since the name was actually invented by JM Barrie for Peter Pan and he bequeathed them all the rights. I doubt they'd win, but it sounds like an interesting lawyer trick to obfuscate the point.

The Earl

 

[AchtungNight]

This is why I don't publish my stories for money. {shakes head}

 

[3113]

Technically speaking, they could make a good case that they do own the name Wendy, since the name was actually invented by JM Barrie for Peter Pan and he bequeathed them all the rights. I doubt they'd win, but it sounds like an interesting lawyer trick to obfuscate the point.

Interesting point. Moves the whole thing into the Kleenex/Xerox argument. If the word becomes part of the culture, is it still owned by whoever came up with it in the first place?

 

[3113]

What interests me mostly is the whole idea of using characters (and worlds) created by other writers and the issues that arise from it. It seems almost like a tradition, where one writer will adopt and adapt fictional character (or historical ones) for new fiction...

It's interesting to me because of the usual arguments about "create your own" and plaguarism, and the threads of discussion springing from them.

Getting back to this original point....

There is something solipsistic about it. Literature about literature. An author writes "Gone with the Wind" from the p.o.v. of Mammy's black daughter in order to explore the plantation romance and other myths of the South. Mary Riley, the maid who works for Dr. Jekyll, is an exploration of abuse of women. Wicked, which explores the Wizard of Oz from the p.o.v. of the Wicked Witch takes a story about the outsider who, along with her misfit friends, becomes a hero (Dorothy) and uses it to explore the misfit insider who was made an outsider and villian for being a rebel and non-conformist (the witch of the west).

The question you're really asking is why use the literature to explore such themes rather than an original work? And what separates this from fan fiction? I think there's a very slim line that separates the use of literature to explore a theme vs. fan fiction--which is also out there.

Fan fiction is just about any book uses established characters in their established universe. So, Sherlock Holmes stories not written by A.C. Doyle, but they are, nevertheless, Sherlock Holmes stories first and foremost--even if they star Sherlock's daughter. A recent detective series star Mr. & Mrs. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice. Very much fan fiction! Even books featuring historical figures--Queen Elizabeth or Jane Austen as the main characters. For all intents and purposes, these are fan fiction--a love of these characters or real people and a desire to see more of them.

This contrasts with a "twist" on an established piece of literature, like Wicked or Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead, which not only creates a new story, but to highlights a theme or message different (or tangential) to the original. In this case, something established in the literary world and culture is being used almost as a familiar background or stage to explore something else. So instead of focusing on the white girl in the big house, we focus on the slave girl in the shack. The familiar background is a cheat--it's a familiar universe and gets the author readers--but it's an effective cheat because that universe comes with certain assumptions that the author can question and explore.

Thus, instead of having to establish those assumptions in a new story, the author can use the established assumptions and, thereby, question them, counter them, debate them, and present a new thesis. It's an easy way to do it, yes, but it's also brilliantly effective.

It's the difference between Godspell/ The Passion (fan fiction) and Jesus Christ Superstar/The Last Temptation of Christ (Twist). The first two celebrate a beloved...er...character, the second two use that character to explore certain themes relating to the original story, humanity, etc.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Did Speilberg seek copyright permission before he produced "Hook"?
That would establish precident.

 

[3113]

Did Speilberg seek copyright permission before he produced "Hook"?
That would establish precident.

Oh, nice point! Was that Disney, however? From what I understand, they have some sort of right to do Peter Pan already....

P.S. Trust you to think of the pirate movie. And why was it named "Hook" when it really wasn't about Captain Hook? I do so like him so much more than I like Peter (little narssistic shit).

 

[Stella_Omega]

Pirates? well, natch!

The production company is Amblin Entertainment, I doubt the Hospital objected to that- but the erotic content of Moore's work might have ruffled a feather or two...

And it definitely seems as if they DO have copyright till 2007.

Why Hook? I guess it was named after the object, not the subject?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

And why was it named "Hook" when it really wasn't about Captain Hook? I do so like him so much more than I like Peter (little narssistic shit).

'Cause it was the signature focus of all of Peter's fears? The movie, as well, was about Peter's lack of courage?