Essays Fall 2018

The MPub program at Simon Fraser University is the only publishing masters program in Canada. Although there are some courses in Canada and the US where one can study publishing during their undergraduate studies or receive a certificate in publishing, it is interesting that SFU is one of the only masters program on the continent. This is especially shocking when compared to the number of publishing programs in the UK and Europe, despite their smaller landmass and population. This raises the question of why there seems to be a lack of focus on the academic side of publishing in North America. In this essay, I will argue the issue lies, in part, with inconsistent perceptions of publishing, the vilification and feminization of the book industry in North America, the perceived decrease in reading and the publishing market in general by the public, and the wider disruption in the industry and education as a whole.

Firstly, I think it is important to focus on the North American public perception of the industry portrayed by the media in movies or portrayed by famous writers. A clear example is the film The Devil Wears Prada, in which the antagonist Miranda Priestly is editor-in-chief of Runway magazine. The character is a rich, harsh woman, who lives in New York and is out to destroy those around her in order to maintain her status. Although this film is more critical of the fashion industry and the ways that a woman must fight to succeed in the workplace, it also gives the publishing industry a problematic reputation. It doesn’t help that sources like Bustle write “If you work in magazine or newspaper publishing, chances are you’ve compared your work experience to The Devil Wears Prada at least once” (Jarema 2017). Writers also speak about editors, and while some of the discourse is positive, a lot has to do with their status as gatekeepers. George R.R. Martin’s Guest of Honor Speech for Coastcon 1979 focuses on this fact (even if it is done partially in jest). He states, “Editors crush fledgling writers in their nest with heavy rejection slips, and they clip the wings of more experienced writers and tell them in which direction to fly — usually the wrong direction — and generally bruise their egos often enough so writers grow bitter and disillusioned and turn to drink. You all know what alcoholics writers are, and it’s all because of editors” (Martin). Who would be interested in becoming an editor, with a reputation like that and no other understanding of the industry? 

Secondly, on top of this public perception, the vilification and feminization of the book industry play a big factor in publishing not being taken seriously as a subject. Publishing is also now a highly female profession, with a growing portion of the industry consisting of women (Roy 2018). Although this is fantastic for the purposes of equality, it gives the misogynistic system of Western society the chance to start defunding and infantilizing it. Most studies citing educated, middle age women as the prime readership of books. particularly for fiction, with men primarily reading books written by male authors about male characters with more non-fiction driven market base (Roy 2018). This could possibly lead to a gendered understanding of the industry, where, because women are doing the work it is seen as less difficult than other Masters programs in the sciences or business. To make matters even more unappealing for potential students, there is still a gender salary gap, with women still paid substantially less than men across all aspects of the industry (Milliot 2017).

For many years, people have claimed that reading is on a decline, and there is evidence proving that this may be the case. In his article Why We Don’t Read, Revisited, Caleb Crain discusses this decline. He states that “… between 2003 and 2016, the amount of time that the average American devoted to reading for personal interest on a daily basis dropped from 0.36 hours to 0.29 hour” and that, regardless of employment, ethnicity, and age, all time spent reading has been in a steady decline (Crain 2018). Crain states older generations are more likely to read, which also points to a possible lack of interest in the younger generations, where reader’s attention can be spread more easily across so many entertainment mediums. Appendix 1 also displays a decrease in overall book consumption, with 79% in 2011 steadily shifting to 74% in 2018, according to statista.com (“Book Consumption”). Crain argues this may also be due to the rise in other forms of entertainment, like the internet and television. However, he goes on to state, “The long march to secondary orality seems well underway. The nation, after all, is now led by a man who doesn’t read” (Crain 2018). This points to a darker side of American culture, where intellectualism is vilified as arrogance and smugness.

In his essay Publishing Education in the 21st Century and the Role of the University, John Maxwell argues the disparity of publishing programs are due to the disruption within the publishing landscape itself. He also argues post-secondary school is also in a disruptive phase and it is unclear where either institution in headed (Maxwell 2014). Maxwell writes of the rise of modern publishing education from 1950 to the 1990s, stating “This industry-driven approach, which emerged in a period of relative stability in the publishing industries, served until well until the beginning of the 21st century, when disruptive transitions began to affect publishing […] Today, markets are disrupted; distribution and sales channels are in flux; production is a quagmire of emerging and yet unstable technologies” (Maxwell 2014). These unstable technologies create jobs that have a shelf life, as the newest thing will make training in one program obsolete. In this manner, it might be argued that it is better for new employees to learn “on the job or […] in short in-service training workshops” (Maxwell 2014).  The perception these skills can be learned in such short time periods might contribute to the lack of publishing programs in North America. 

It isn’t all doom and gloom, however. Maxwell argues obtaining a graduate degree in publishing will make one more adaptable and prepared for the changes that will inevitably come. Crain points out thedata he uses might be skewed in different ways which make the situation seem worse than it is, as there is not an entirely accurate way to track ebook/online reading through his data source.

It is interesting there are very few graduate-level course on publishing in North America and there are many factors which may pool into the situation. This essay is too short to explore the entirety of these issues. Lack of understanding of the true nature of the industry contributes to the scarcity of programs, as well as the feminization of the industry at large. It seems like the problems that affect the academic side of publishing closely resemble those that affect the industry as a whole. Perhaps as they are addressed within the industry the academic elements will improve as well. However, many times these changes begin at the academic level, as the “Girls in STEM” movement has for science and technology. Only time will tell. 

 

Appendix 1 

Statistics from Statista

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/222754/book-format-used-by-readers-in-the-us/

Work Cited

Image

“Book Consumption in the U.S. by Format 2018 | Statistic.” Statista. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/222754/book-format-used-by-readers-in-the-us/.

Print

Crain, Caleb. “Why We Don’t Read, Revisited.” The New Yorker. June 14, 2018. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/why-we- dont-read-revisited.

Jarema, Kerri. “Dream Of Working At A Magazine? Read These 9 Books.” Bustle. February 15, 2017. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://www.bustle.com/p/9-books-about-working- in-magazines-that-arent-the-devil-wears-prada-38328.

Martin, George R.R. “Editors: The Writer’s Natural Enemy.” George R.R. Martin Website. Accessed November 11, 2018. http://www.georgerrmartin.com/about-george/speeches/ editors-the-writers-natural-enemy/.

Maxwell, John W. “Publishing Education in the 21st Century and the Role of the University.” The Journal of Electronic Publishing 17, no. 2 (Spring 2014). Accessed November 10, 2018. doi:10.3998/3336451.0017.205.

Milliot, Jim. “The PW Publishing Industry Salary Survey 2017.” PublishersWeekly.com. November 3, 2017. Accessed November 13, 2018. https://www.publishersweekly.com/ pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/75298-the-pw-publishing-industry- salary-survey-2017.html.

Roy, Nilanjana. “Publishing’s Gender Gap Is Still Selling Women Short.” Financial Times. September 21, 2018. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://www.ft.com/content/ d7d83f6e-bb56-11e8-94b2-17176fbf93f5.

Many books today, particularly fringe art and comic books, are published through support gathered through crowdfunding websites like Kickstarter, gofundme, and Indigogo. While crowdfunding appears to be a modern phenomenon, it has roots in the 18th and 19th century. This essay will explore those roots and will emphasize that, despite appearances, crowdfunding campaigns are steeped in a history of support and patronage that spans back to a much earlier era and brings with it the age-old debate of merit vs. nepotism and, in some ways, limits the author’s freedom of expression.

Current crowdfunding encourages creators to share their project ideas with the public in order to generate funds for the projects before they are created. By raising funds before committing to the project, creators can get a good idea of the size of their audience and will also have the financial support they need to complete it. A good portion of crowdfunding projects are in the realm of publishing, and, as Avvai Ketheeswaran mentions in her essay, there is an entire section of Kickstarter dedicated to publishing.1 In her article Kickstarting a books revolution, Marta Bausells sites that Kickstarter has raised $70m in pledges to publishing projects.2 Kickstarter’s campaign for Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls— 100 Tales to Dream Big raised $675,614,3 while its sequel raised $866,193.4

  However, this fundraising is not achieved in a vacuum, as the creators of these works not only must create the projects but must ‘get out into the world, get people talking about it, sharing it’.5 Ketheeswaran writes, “it can be extremely challenging for new authors without a pre-existing fanbase to reach their target goal” even in companies that specialize in crowdfunding endeavors.6 This fan element of crowdfunding is very reminiscent of the system in the eighteenth century, where backers would mitigate risk by providing for the upfront costs of a project but the support hinged on the author’s popularity and their loyalty to their patrons.

In the eighteenth century, patronage was a very large financial factor in all of the arts, including literature. In his article Types of Eighteenth-Century Literary Patronage, Paul J. Korshin explains how literary patronage complicated the publishing world of the eighteenth-century. He writes that patronage took on many forms; the more classic ideas of direct patronage but also, “the support of a publisher, the interest of a subscription-buying public, or the approbation of an audience”.7 The patron system rose to prominence in the 1700s, when the Enlightenment period was in full bloom but when funding was still limited to the elite. Book publishing was not an established industry yet, and Korshin states that authors didn’t enter into a relationship with book publishers until the mid-eighteenth century.8 Before this point, projects were either funded by the Crown, the church, or by rich patrons.9 Korshin states “few writers had been wealthy unless they were born that way, inherited wealth, somehow acquired a lucrative place in the government, or obtained substantial patronage” and thus few could fund their literary endeavors.10  

Having a wealthy patron meant backing and safety for one’s artistic endeavors, but it also meant the artist’s creative licenses were limited by the will of the artist’s patron.11 It also meant the author was tied to the patron’s wishes as long as they wanted their work to stay in circulation. This is similar to the restrictions that Ketheeswaran mentions in crowdfunding through the Unbound crowdfunding publisher, where contributors are allowed a voice in creative choices that would usually be left to the publisher, agent, and author.12 Although the crowdfunding example is not as extreme, it limits the author’s expression in favor of financial gain.

Although it may be a bit controversial, it can also be said that crowdfunding, much like patronage, does not necessarily test the strength of the artist’s work. Rather, it tests their marketing skills and ability to entice their supporter’s curiosity through perks and a strong sales pitch. Ketheeswaran writes, in many cases, crowdfunding is more about the author platform than the book being published.13 Because of this, it is difficult to tell if a book will measure up to what is presented by the crowdfunding page. This disparity is part of the reason that crowdfunding does not hold the prestige of traditional publishing, for whatever it’s worth. This is very similar to the stigma that Korshin argues surrounded patronage. Korshin writes that, historically, “the support of a patron has frequently been interpreted pejoratively, as an unfair external influence responsible, in whole or in part, for the success of a person whose merit is slight”.14 In a very biting critique on patronage, Edmond Rostand exemplifies this dislike of untalented and scheming artists in his play Cyrano de Bergerac, 

“What would you have me do?

Seek for the patronage of some great man,

 And like a creeping vine on a tall tree

Crawl upward, where I cannot stand alone?

No thank you! […] 

Be a buffoon

In the vile hope of teasing out a smile

On some cold face? No thank you! […]

I am too proud to be a parasite […]”15

This small passage gives one a fairly good idea of the contempt in which Rostand, born in 1868, held patronage. Rostand’s beliefs might be mirrored by those who dismiss crowdfunding for publishing projects, where only a small percentage of books achieve full funding and go on to become financial successes, usually due at least in part to author popularity and online engagement. It would be interesting to see what Rostand would think of the crowdfunding movement, which seems to blend the world of patronage with that of literary creativity and stretches the bounds of ‘gate-kept’ publishing through publishing houses. 

Of course, in the modern face of crowdfunding there isn’t as much of a fear that an unhappy patron will ruin an author’s career, but unhappy customers are unlikely to support further projects, thus limiting author’s creative output. The internet is also a problem here, as projects that do not meet backer’s expectations might receive bad press online. Another difference between crowdfunding and eighteenth-century literary patronage is the number of people contributing to a literary endeavor. In the eighteenth-century patron system, one patron usually supported an artist. This later grew into the subscription-buying public, with a wider but still limited outreach due to the schism of wealth in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Finally crowdfunding emerged, where a global audience from all kinds of financial and social backgrounds can be reached at the click of a button and can donate as much (or as little) as they want to support the work. However, some crowdfunding perks harken back to the original patron scheme where those who donate the most money have the most say in the production of the publication. This can have negative effects, as it both limits the author’s creative freedom and it also marginalizes those who cannot afford to donate big sums of wealth to a project. In the patronage system, creators would be backed entirely by the elite, meaning that nearly all of the population was marginalized in the creative process. It was clear who held the power in the relationship, with patrons holding creators on a leash tied to their coin purse.

Crowdfunding is seen as a fairly modern addition to the publishing world. In some ways it is, because of the massive audience it can gain through the internet. However, the roots of crowdfunding are in patronage, with all of its negative connotations. For crowdfunding to truly work as a tool for marginalized communities creators must be aware of these connotations and work to combat them. 

 1 Ketheeswaran, Avvai. “Unbound: A Crowdfunding Publisher.” PUB800. October 02, 2018. Accessed October 21, 2018. https://tkbr.publishing.sfu.ca/pub800/2018/10/unbound-a- crowdfunding-publisher/.

2 Bausells, Marta. “Kickstarting a Books Revolution: The Literary Crowdfunding Boom.” The Guardian. June 05, 2015. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/ books/2015/jun/05/the-literary-crowdfunding-boom.

3 “Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls – 100 Tales to Dream BIG.” Kickstarter. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/timbuktu/good-night-stories-for-rebel-girls-100-tales-to-dr?ref=discovery.

4 “Kickstarter Gold: Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls 2.” Kickstarter. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/timbuktu/kickstarter-gold-good-night-stories- for-rebel-girl?ref=discovery.

5 McEvilly, Brendan. “Crowdfunding.” Books Ireland, no. 368 (2016): 20-21. http:// www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/stable/booksireland.368.20. p. 20

6 Ketheeswaran, “Unbound”

7 Korshin, Paul J. “Types of Eighteenth-Century Literary Patronage.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 7, no. 4 (1974): 453-73. doi:10.2307/3031599. p. 454

8 Ibid. p.456

9 Ibid. p.456

10 Ibid. p.456

11 Ibid. p.455

12 Ketheeswaran, “Unbound”

13 Ibid.

14 Korshin,“Types” p. 453

15 Rostand, Edmond. “A Quote from Cyrano De Bergerac.” Goodreads. Accessed October 21, 2018. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/703731-what-would-you-have-me-do-seek-for- the-patronage.

 

Bibliography

Bausells, Marta. “Kickstarting a Books Revolution: The Literary Crowdfunding Boom.” The Guardian. June 05, 2015. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/ books/2015/jun/05/the-literary-crowdfunding-boom.

“Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls – 100 Tales to Dream BIG.” Kickstarter. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/timbuktu/good-night-stories-for-rebel- girls-100-tales-to-dr?ref=discovery.

Ketheeswaran, Avvai. “Unbound: A Crowdfunding Publisher.” PUB800. October 02, 2018. Accessed October 21, 2018. https://tkbr.publishing.sfu.ca/pub800/2018/10/unbound-a- crowdfunding-publisher/.

“Kickstarter Gold: Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls 2.” Kickstarter. Accessed October 20, 2018. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/timbuktu/kickstarter-gold-good-night-stories- for-rebel-girl?ref=discovery.

Korshin, Paul J. “Types of Eighteenth-Century Literary Patronage.” Eighteenth-Century Studies 7, no. 4 (1974): 453-73. doi:10.2307/3031599.

McEvilly, Brendan. “Crowdfunding.” Books Ireland, no. 368 (2016): 20-21. http:// www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/stable/booksireland.368.20.

Rostand, Edmond. “A Quote from Cyrano De Bergerac.” Goodreads. Accessed October 21, 2018. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/703731-what-would-you-have-me-do-seek-for- the-patronage.

The Curious Case of the Rights to J M Barrie’s Peter Pan
Everyone knows the story of Peter Pan, a child untouched by time. It is somewhat fitting that the rights surrounding the story also perpetual, although the issue is a bit more complicated than thinking happy thoughts and sprinkling pixie dust. Peter Pan is a unique example that calls into question the morality of both changing copyright law and of copyright itself.

Play-write and author J M Barrie gave the rights to Peter Pan, his most famous and long-lasting work, to the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in 1929.1 For more than fifty years, these rights helped pay for the hospital’s up-keep. Any time the play was produced, a licensing fee was paid to the hospital and any time an edition of the book came out the hospital would receive the royalties. GOSH also had the right to refuse permission to Peter Pan, which granted them some creative control over how the characters and story were represented.2 For example, a pornographic graphic novel retelling of the story was postponed for publication from 2007 to 2008 when the copyright officially ended because GOSH refused permission. According to the GOSH charity website, “Walt Disney Corporation were licensed exclusive animation rights by Great Ormond Street Hospital in 1939 and the animated film came out in 1953”.3 However, GOSH’s copyright was nearing its terminations in 1987, fifty years after Barrie’s death. This would traditionally have marked the end of GOSH’s rights over the work, allowing Peter Pan to enter the public domain. However, the story for GOSH changed dramatically thanks to the administrative power of Lord James Callaghan, former Prime Minister and MP in the House of Lords. This essay will discuss the motivations behind this change and the implications this amendment had for copyright in the future.

According to the GOSH charity site, in 1987 Lord Callaghan proposed an amendment to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) of 1988.4 This amendment did not grant GOSH its copyright back but it did extend the hospital’s royalties for productions of the play and editions of the novel (including ebooks and audiobooks) in perpetuity.5 Effectively, this meant that although GOSH could no longer refuse permission, the hospital would still be entitled to royalties for any production or edition, leaving the text balancing in limbo between the public domain and copyrighted material. There were limitations to the extended royalties, meaning that the new royalty extension;

1) was only applicable within the UK— those outside the UK do not have to pay royalties unless the work not in the public domain
2) was for royalties only— it did not extend to other aspects of the copyright like the refusal of permission

3) did not extend to Barrie’s work The Little White Bird, which features the characters from Peter Pan 6

Lord Callaghan’s sponsorship of the amendment is controversial. In her book The Case of Peter Pan: The Impossibility of Children’s Fiction, Jacqueline Rose states “The amendment […] was not without its ironies since the only reason the Hospital was in such dire need of money was the systematic assault on the National Health Service which started with the defeat of [Lord Callaghan’s] government by the Conservatives in 1979”7. It is somewhat implied that Lord Callaghan’s decision to support this amendment was not just motivated by philanthropy, but by a political desire to undermine his political opposition and subtly point out their inhumanity at denying a children’s hospital funds. Lord Callaghan’s wife, Audrey Callaghan, was the Chairman of the hospital’s Special Trustees, which further complicates the matter.8 Although the money would go to a charitable institution, it is clear that Lord Callaghan had some personal stake in the amendment, adding to its controversy.

Even at the time the amendment was introduced, questions were asked about what this exception meant for future copyright law. Rose recounts that “Peter Pan […] always provokes a crisis of precedence […] Hence one refrain of the debate: […] ‘it is only Peter Pan who never grows up and only rights in Peter Pan that we are prepared to see continue indefinitely’”.9 She goes on to argue that this extreme iteration of GOSH existing as the exception that proves the rule stems from the knowledge that there actually were many instances when copyright limitations could have been extended but were not during this time.10

Callaghan saved GOSH in the 80s and in 1996 copyright law changed, extending the copyright term from 50 years after the author’s death to 70 years.11 GOSH’s copyright claim was revived and they enjoyed copyright benefits until 2007 when the text entered the public domain again everywhere but in the US and Spain.12

These facts, paired with the benefits the hospital has received, makes one question if non-profits like GOSH should be given exception to copyright laws in the future. It is a bit of a taboo subject– after all, who wants to oppose helping sick children. However, the events following the Copyright Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) of 1988 reiterate that such exceptions are difficult to navigate and have negative repercussions.

Callaghan did not know the full extent of his actions in 1987. He was unaware that copyright laws would be extended another 20 years after an author’s death, giving GOSH the right to refuse permission for another eleven years after 1996. In the period between 1987 and 1996 several Peter Pan adaptions and sequels were made. Would law require these films to obtain permission for Peter Pan retroactively, despite paying royalty fees to GOSH in their original production? Due to the unique copyright situation, these details are unclear. Undoubtedly these issues had to be settled on a case by case basis. The Steven Spielberg classic Hook released in 1991 mentions GOSH in the film 13 and on the hospital’s charity website it mentions that permission was granted but it unclear if this permission was granted in 1991 or five years later when the copyright returned to the hospital.14

GOSH lost its the copyright to Peter Pan again in 2007, but not before the hospital commissioned Geraldine McCuaghrean to write a sequel entitled Peter Pan in Scarlett. It was printed in hopes to raise money for the hospital in a new way while still taking advantage of their connections with Peter Pan. The GOSH charity page claims that the royalties from Peter Pan are not their “main source of charitable income”15 and a member of the charity stated in 2007, “People who talk about millions a year have a strange idea of what a character is worth […] On the whole, it’s been significant but I wouldn’t call it huge. I am on my own doing the Peter Pan administration, but I am part of a charity that has 100 people.”16 When Barrie bequeathed the rights 1920 the estimated revenue Peter Pan would generate for the hospital each year was £2,000 (approximately £90,000 today).17 The general public will likely never know precisely how much the hospital makes off royalties a year, as J M Barrie asked that the figures never be released to the public.18

 

The hospital has benefited greatly from Barrie’s gift of the Peter Pan copyright and Callaghan’s amendment but there is a question of if this kind of copyright extension should exist.Peter Pan is one of the only cases where a text exists in the public domain but still requires royalty fees. Peter Pan may exist on its own plane in the copyright world and may do a lot of good there but the emphasis on it being the exception is important. There should not be more extensions of copyright. These instances create messy negotiations and controversies that would not exist otherwise. This is evident in the case of Emily Somma, a Canadian author who took GOSH to court over the question of the copyright status of Peter Pan. Somma argued that Peter Pan was in the public domain, so she did not have to pay royalty rates to GOSH. In a way, Somma was correct, as the royalty rights only apply within the UK, while Somma’s work was published in initially in Canada, where the copyright expired. When she went to publish in the US, however, there was a problem— the copyright still remained and she had to seek permission.19 In his essay on the subject, Matthew Rimmer argues that “It is inappropriate that Peter Pan should have perpetual copyright protection […] There should be freedom for creative artists to use, adapt, and transform stories, plots and characters that are derived from the public domain”.20

The case of Peter Pan emphasizes the importance of clear copyright laws and the limitation of exceptions. It was a good thing that the House of Lords emphasized the exceptional circumstances surrounding Peter Pan to discourage other exceptions being made because they unnecessarily complicate an incredibly intricate system of checks and balances that reimburse the author’s hard work while also allowing others to use the characters in fair use once copyright has expired.

 

1 “The Most Generous Gift: Peter Pan, J. M. Barrie, and Great Ormond Street Hospital,” Library News: Newsletter For UCL Library Services, December 1, 2015, Accessed September 28, 2018, https:// blogs.ucl.ac.uk/library-news/2015/12/the-most-generous-gift/#.W62zyC-ZPOQ.

2 Rose, Jacqueline, “The Return of Peter Pan,” In The Case of Peter Pan: Or The Impossibility of Children’s Fiction, ix-xviii. London: The Macmillan Press LTD, 1992, GoogleBooks, Accessed September 27, 2018, p ix.

3 “FAQs,” Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity, Accessed September 28, 2018, https:// www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-pan/faqs#What was the deal with Disney.

4 “Copyright,” Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity, Accessed September 28, 2018, https://www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-pan/copyright.

5 Ibid.

6 Bailey, Jonathan, ”Peter Pan and the Copyright That Never Grew Up,” Plagiarism Today, April 13, 2016, Accessed September 28, 2018, https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/10/21/ peter-pan-and-the-copyright-that-never-grew-up/.

7 Rose, p x.

8 “The Most Generous Gift: Peter Pan, J. M. Barrie, and Great Ormond Street Hospital.”

9 Rose, p x.

10 Ibid.
11 “Copyright.”

12 Ibid.

13 Burrell, Louise, “Is Hook Really A Bad Steven Spielberg Film?” One Room With A View, January 10, 2017, Accessed September 28, 2018, https://oneroomwithaview.com/ 2016/12/11/second-chance-hook/.

14 “FAQs.”

15 Ibid.

16 Allen, Katie, “Never Ends for Peter Pan: Children’s Hospital Set to Lose Rights to Peter Pan,” The Guardian, December 28, 2007, Accessed September 28, 2018, https:// www.theguardian.com/business/2007/dec/28/gtormondst.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Rimmer, Matthew, Dr. “Never Neverland: Peter Pan and Perpetual Copyright.” News Magazine of the Australian Library and Information Association 8 (December 2004): 8-9. Accessed September 28, 2018. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/inCiteALIA/ 2004/273.html?context=1;query=Never Neverland;mask_path=#. p.8

20 Ibid. p. 9

 

Work Cited

Allen, Katie. “Never Ends for Peter Pan: Children’s Hospital Set to Lose Rights to Peter Pan.” The Guardian. December 28, 2007. Accessed September 28, 2018. https:// www.theguardian.com/business/2007/dec/28/gtormondst.

Bailey, Jonathan. “Peter Pan and the Copyright That Never Grew Up.” Plagiarism Today. April 13, 2016. Accessed September 28, 2018. https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/10/21/ peter-pan-and-the-copyright-that-never-grew-up/.

Burrell, Louise. “Is Hook Really A Bad Steven Spielberg Film?” One Room With A View. January 10, 2017. Accessed September 28, 2018. https://oneroomwithaview.com/ 2016/12/11/second-chance-hook/.

“Copyright.” Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. Accessed September 28, 2018. https://www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-pan/copyright.

“FAQs.” Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity. Accessed September 28, 2018. https:// www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-pan/faqs#What was the deal with Disney.

Rimmer, Matthew, Dr. “Never Neverland: Peter Pan and Perpetual Copyright.” News Magazine of the Australian Library and Information Association 8 (December 2004): 8-9. Accessed September 28, 2018. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/inCiteALIA/ 2004/273.html?context=1;query=Never Neverland;mask_path=#.

Rose, Jacqueline. “The Return of Peter Pan.” In The Case of Peter Pan: Or The Impossibility of Children’s Fiction, ix-xviii. London: The Macmillan Press LTD, 1992.
GoogleBooks. Accessed September 27, 2018.

“The Most Generous Gift: Peter Pan, J. M. Barrie, and Great Ormond Street Hospital.” Library News: Newsletter For UCL Library Services. December 1, 2015. Accessed September 28, 2018. https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/library-news/2015/12/the-most-generous-gift/#.W62zyC- ZPOQ.