Tuesday, January 24, 2006

More on Peter Pan

M'learned friend C.E. Petit Esq. has, as usual, some pertinent things to say about the Peter Pan/J.M. Barrie copyright/intellectual property/perpetual motion/whatever fiasco -- nip over to Scrivener's Error to take a look. I'm sure he's right, in the sense that it's all way beyond my understanding, or most of yours, and is best avoided.

And over on Bookslut Michael Schaub tells us that the now-announced title of the new sequel to Peter Pan is Peter Pan in Scarlet. And he also adds that, if you're going to write a sequel to a beloved children's book, 'the first thing you want to do is make sure the title can't be interpreted in any sexual, obscene way.' Which is also a mystery to me, but then I have led a very sheltered life.

Should you wish to study the exact wording of the British Government's generosity towards the Great Ormond Street Hospital, you can find it in section 301 of the Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988. And gripping stuff it is too. A classic example of a bit of special pleading and last-minute fudge, tacked on to the Act because Uncle Jim (Callaghan) was an old softie.

No comments: