‘A meaningful tax’
Should WarnerMedia give up the copyright to ‘Gone with the Wind’ and put the film into the public domain? What about Disney and ‘Song of the South’?
After pulling “Gone with the Wind” from its HBO Max streaming service, WarnerMedia plans to make the 1939 film available once again in the coming weeks with a new introduction that will examine and reframe the story’s racist depictions of Black people and the glamorization of the white plantation owners who enslaved them. Disney has taken the opposite approach with the equally problematic 1946 movie musical “Song of the South,” all but pretending it doesn’t exist. You won’t find it anywhere on the company’s streaming platform and it has never been released on DVD.
Wouldn’t it be more meaningful — materially meaningful — if Warner and Disney relinquished their copyright on these films and put them into the public domain?
Would either studio even consider this idea? Likely not.
If both Warner and Disney are acknowledging that damaging anti-Black portrayals are embedded in these films — and make no mistake, they are acknowledging that — why aren’t we asking these companies to divest themselves of any potential future profits associated with them? Why should anyone make a dime off these movies ever again?
Kristen Warner is a professor at the University of Alabama whose work focuses on race and representation in Hollywood. She framed the question this way: “What would be a meaningful tax?”
In a way, Disney has already accepted that idea by pulling “Song of the South” from circulation and signaling that it is not looking to make money from the film. So why not formalize that policy and give up the copyright? (As of this writing, the Disney has yet to announce any changes to its “Song of the South”-themed Splash Mountain ride at both of its U.S. parks.)
“Gone with the Wind,” conversely, has made millions for Warner Bros. just in theatrical runs alone. According to Box Office Mojo, the 1989 rerelease brought in $2.4 million. The movie was back in theaters again 10 years later, taking in $6.7 million. Add in another $2.1 million from its 2019 release, when it screened for just two days courtesy of Fathom Events.
There’s more. Factor in broadcast rights (NBC dropped $5 million in 1976; CBS $35 million in 1978) along with home video sales and streaming rentals (at $3.99 a pop) and we’re talking about a substantial source of revenue. And it shows no signs of stopping.
“As a conglomerate, Warner Bros. already has so many other revenue streams — why not let ‘Gone with the Wind’ go?” said University of Alabama’s Warner.
“It would show that this is something they can yield to the public domain so that people can remix it and modify it and get to the nuts and bolts of it and make it into whatever they want it to be. It’s more valuable to let it become part of remix culture, where experimental filmmakers or students can play with it and critique it and see that it’s fungible and malleable. I think that would actually be really remarkable and quite savvy if Warner Bros. let that happen. But we don’t ask for that. And I don’t think it has even occurred to the studio, honestly.”
The argument that Warner and Disney should surrender their copyright claims isn’t without it flaws.
Kellie Carter Jackson is a historian at Wellesley College and the author of “Force and Freedom: Black Abolitionists and the Politics of Violence.” She pointed out that it’s not just WarnerMedia that’s been profiting.
“It’s important to ask, what is the value of something like ‘Gone with the Wind’ economically speaking,” she said, “but also what is the value of ‘Gone with the Wind’ in this cultural moment? It’s become marketing for
... That’s where change lies — in studios investing in Black writers and producers and directors.
the plantation industry, where people go to have their weddings and recreate that experience. It fuels all of that. So it’s not just about who is profiting from the movie, but what the movie compels people to do in other areas of their lives, and what other industries it compels them to support.”
And, she pointed out, “It’s a slippery slope. Where do you stop? Because there are so many movies you could single out. And let’s say they do give up their copyrights to these older films — if Hollywood continues to make movies like ‘Green Book,’ what’s the difference?”
There’s another aspect to consider: Even if the studios make these movies available for “free” in the public domain, there’s still a cost.
Stephanie E. Jones-Rogers is the author of “We Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South” and a professor at UC Berkeley.
“The costs associated with having these films available outside of a teaching context and the damage that these kinds of films do — to Black people and Black people’s lives and their activism now — is far too high to have these films available in any way, whether they’re under copyright or not,” she said.
Even couching the film with an introduction, as HBO Max intends, might not be enough, she said. The movie is fundamentally at odds with reality because it is an account that “erases white women’s complicity and direct involvement in Black people’s enslavement. It whitewashes — no pun intended — the role of white women who were actively and deeply invested in the institution of not just slavery but subsequently the development and sustaining of white supremacy.”
For the viewer who seeks out “Gone with the Wind” because it provides “a sense of comfort for a time long gone, whatever kind of preface HBO Max decides to produce isn’t going to matter,” Jones-Rogers said. “What’s to stop people from fast-forwarding through it? And beyond that, once you get into the first 10 minutes of the film, I don’t think people are going to be thinking about any of it critically.”
As for who is profiting from what, let’s look back even further to the source material for “South of the South.”
“It’s based on Joel Chandler Harris’s Uncle Remus books, and he based his books on enslaved people’s stories that he collected while he was working on a plantation in Georgia,” said JonesRogers. “So there’s a way in which that history is erased, of this white guy who made buckets of money. The first book was a bestseller and for the rest of his life he wrote Uncle Remus stories, basically replicating over and over again the survival stories of Black people without them getting a dime. And then Disney negotiated for years with Harris’ family and finally got permission. So there’s a multilayered exploitation.”
Disney paid $10,000 for the rights in 1939 (or $184,000 in today’s dollars).
Several years back, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an extensive piece about the Uncle Remus legacy. It quotes Walt Disney as saying the film adaptation would be “a monument to the Negro people.”
Here’s what follows: “A black actor and writer hired to consult on the script disagreed. Clarence Muse grew so disenchanted with the screenplay’s treatment of black characters that he resigned in protest.”
Exploitation didn’t start with “Song of the South” and it certainly didn’t end with it.
The most-watching movie on Netflix earlier this month? 2011’s “The Help,” based on the 2009 debut novel by Kathryn Stockett, who is white. Two years after the book came out, she was sued by Ablene Cooper, who is Black and worked as a nanny for Stockett’s brother. The suit claimed Cooper’s first name and likeness were appropriated by Stockett for “commercial advantage, namely to sell more copies of ‘The Help.’ ”
The lawsuit was eventually dismissed because the one-year statute of limitations to bring a case had expired. Outside the courthouse, these were Cooper’s words about Stockett: “She’s a liar. She did it. She knows she did it.”
Interestingly, you’ll find no mention of the suit or Cooper’s allegations if you go back and read through various reviews for the movie. It opened in theaters a week before the judge’s decision.
So what does this all mean going forward?
Because that’s where change lies — in studios investing in Black writers and producers and directors. And greenlighting projects that capture a multitude of contemporary and historical Black stories.
“If we don’t hold them accountable about not only the wealth they’re generating but for the concepts that they are perpetuating, then we’ll continue to see the same incarnations over and over again,” said Wellesley’s Jackson.
“‘Green Book’ won the Oscar just last year. We cannot seem to get off this carousel.”