The copyright in Peter Pan expired at the end of 2007. So Disney was in violation for 54 years. In that time, according to Wikipedia, the film has grossed over $87 million. Not one cent for the sick children.
From wikipedia (not always a great source, but for stuff like this, they are pretty accurate. I think the claim by the hospital that they have copyright until 1928 is wrong. Our insane copyright terms may give them rights to the specific version used in the play, but not to the story itself. (See bold below).
Now, I agree that disney should have honored the authors wishes by contributing to the hospital, but even an evil company like disney shouldn't be compelled to do so outside of the law.
Many of the Peter Pan books are available for free download from Project Gutenberg. Were they still under copyright, that would not be the case.
=snip from wikipedia=
United States
Great Ormond Street Hospital claim that U.S. legislation effective in 1978 and again in 1998, which extended the copyright of the play script published in 1928, gives them copyright over "Peter Pan" in generUnited States
Great Ormond Street Hospital claim that U.S. legislation effective in 1978 and again in 1998, which extended the copyright of the play script published in 1928, gives them copyright over "Peter Pan" in general until 2023, although they acknowledge that the copyright of the novel version, published in 1911, has expired in the United States.[18]
Previously, GOSH's claim of U.S. copyright had been contested by various parties. J. E. Somma sued GOSH to permit the U.S. publication of her sequel After the Rain, A New Adventure for Peter Pan. GOSH and Somma settled out of court in March 2005, issuing a joint statement which characterised her novel – which she had argued was a commentary on the original work rather than a mere derivative of it – as "fair use" of the hospital's "U.S. intellectual property rights". Their confidential settlement did not set any legal precedent, however.[19] Disney was a long-time licensee to the animation rights, and cooperated with the hospital when its copyright claim was clear, but in 2004 Disney published Dave Barry's and Ridley Pearson's Peter and the Starcatchers in the U.S., the first of several sequels, without permission and without making royalty payments. In 2006, Top Shelf Productions published in the U.S. Lost Girls, a pornographic graphic novel featuring Wendy Darling, also without permission or royalties.al until 2023, although they acknowledge that the copyright of the novel version, published in 1911, has expired in the United States.[18]
Previously, GOSH's claim of U.S. copyright had been contested by various parties. J. E. Somma sued GOSH to permit the U.S. publication of her sequel After the Rain, A New Adventure for Peter Pan. GOSH and Somma settled out of court in March 2005, issuing a joint statement which characterised her novel – which she had argued was a commentary on the original work rather than a mere derivative of it – as "fair use" of the hospital's "U.S. intellectual property rights". Their confidential settlement did not set any legal precedent, however.[19] Disney was a long-time licensee to the animation rights, and cooperated with the hospital when its copyright claim was clear, but in 2004 Disney published Dave Barry's and Ridley Pearson's Peter and the Starcatchers in the U.S., the first of several sequels, without permission and without making royalty payments. In 2006, Top Shelf Productions published in the U.S. Lost Girls, a pornographic graphic novel featuring Wendy Darling, also without permission or royalties.