In today's Friday Know-It-All, Editor Megan takes us on an adventure into the wonderful world of “Wizard of Oz” copyright law.

This month marks the 85th anniversary of MGM’s masterpiece, “The Wizard of Oz,” so we’re running a theme night all month long! “The Wizard of Oz” and references to it are everywhere, but how can that legally happen? Hop in to my historical hot air balloon and let’s travel to the weird and wonderful (?) world of copyright law.

Let’s just get this out of the way: I’m not a copyright lawyer. Don’t take anything I say as gospel truth, especially if you’re planning on writing a hit musical based on a novel based on a movie based on a book. But more on that later.

“The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” was published by L. Frank Baum in 1900, and he went on to write 13 more Oz stories over the next 20 years. Copyright law was very much a thing at this point in history, and his works would have been covered by the Copyright Act of 1831. This granted protection for 28 years, with a possible 14 more after renewal. When the Copyright Act of 1909 was passed, this retroactively granted his books 28 years with 28 more after renewal, a total of 56 years. This means that the first book in the series, where we meet Dorothy, Glinda, the Wizard, and the Wicked Witch of the West and we’re introduced to the land of Oz and the Emerald City, entered the public domain in 1956.

Early Adaptations

The first adaptation came about in 1901, when Baum teamed up with his composer friend Paul Tietjens (plus some ghostwriters) to write the script and score for a musical. The show opened on Broadway in 1903, and soon after began a national tour. This version featured Dorothy’s pet cow Imogene rather than Toto, and did not have a Wicked Witch of the West.

In 1908, “The Fairylogue and Radio-Plays”, which is now considered lost media, was Baum’s first attempt at a film adaptation. It combined live actors, slides, and film. The production cost so much that even though it consistently had sold-out audiences, it couldn’t turn a profit, and this failure put Baum thousands of dollars in debt. He eventually filed for personal bankruptcy in 1911.

One of the companies that Baum owed money to was the Selig Polyscope Company, who was hired for film aspects of “The Fairylogue.” In order to fulfill contractual obligations associated with his bankruptcy proceedings, the Selig Polyscope Company was allowed to create the silent short film “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” the oldest surviving film adaptation of the story, along with three other short films that have all been lost to time.

Virtually all Oz adaptations until the ‘30s were either Baum’s own projects or sanctioned by his estate, so there wasn’t much of a copyright discussion.

In 1938, MGM bought the rights to the first novel, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.” This is by far, and will forever be, the most famous adaptation of the story. The movie introduced some iconic motifs that were not in previous adaptations. In the book and earlier adaptations Dorothy’s ruby red slippers were silver, but this was altered to show off Technicolor. Disney had to get rights from MGM to use ruby slippers in 1985’s “Return to Oz.” The long, winding depiction of the yellow brick road was also new to this movie. This version is also where the most famous characterization of the Wicked Witch of the West, with her pointed black hat, green skin, and “I’ll get you my pretty” cackle comes from.

The Wicked Witch of the West is one of the major elements that sets “The Wizard of Oz” apart from earlier adaptations, so I want to talk about her for a bit. Remember all of this for later. Pointed witch hats were not invented by the movie, or even by Baum in the book illustrations. No one knows where this headwear originated, but it’s certainly been around for centuries. A green woman in a black dress with a pointed hat isn’t specific enough to copyright. However, Margaret Hamilton’s complete characterization of the Wicked Witch (including her specific shade of green) is. This means that other Oz adaptations cannot completely copy Hamilton’s witch, and they must be unique. So, let’s go through some characterizations of the Wicked Witch in later works.

Evillene

“The Wiz” opened on Broadway in 1975, and won seven Tony Awards that season, including “Best Musical.” It’s a contemporary retelling of Baum’s story and features an all-Black cast. The original production ran for four years, has been revived multiple times, got a movie adaptation, and even one of those live NBC TV specials. So how did “The Wiz” avoid copyright infringement? “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” book had already been in the public domain for 20 years at this point, and the costuming and set pieces were visually unique from the 1939 film. This version of Dorothy’s shoes were a return to their literary silver, and the Wicked Witch of the West was turned into Evillene, who’s depicted more like a fabulous evil queen than the mean, green Margaret Hamilton. The production features a score of all new songs, so there really isn’t much to dispute as far as copyright goes.

Elphaba

Gregory Maguire published “Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West” in 1995. It’s not an adaptation, a retelling, or a sequel. It’s a revisionist origin story, written by an outsider. It explains why the Wicked Witch, named Elphaba (so named for Baum’s initials, LFB) in this story, is green, and establishes relationships between Elphaba, Glinda the Good Witch, and the Wizard. Maguire has spoken about how it was Margaret Hamilton’s Wicked Witch that inspired him to write about the origin of evil. So how is this legal? Well, it’s a bit of a gray — or, green — area. Legally, the “Wicked” book is based on the public domain entity “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.” He brings in some Baum characters and place names that weren’t included in the 1939 film. In the book, Elphaba’s characterization is quite different from Hamilton’s Wicked Witch. She’s not portrayed as the inexplicably evil “I’ll get you my pretty” cackler, but rather through a sympathetic lens with a complicated upbringing and radicalization. Yes, she is green, but there is a plot-driving reason for it. It’s also a book, so Elphaba’s visual representation through illustrations is pretty limited, and therefore legally different (enough) from Hamilton to avoid copyright infringement and royalties.

The book was adapted into the smash hit Broadway musical “Wicked” in 2003. Composer and lyricist Stephen Schwartz had learned of Maguire’s book in 1996, and immediately wanted to bring it to the stage. Maguire had already sold the film rights to Universal, so Schwartz begged Maguire to release the stage rights. Marc Platt, father to eventual Broadway star Ben Platt and Universal Producer, was so taken with Schwartz that he joined the musical’s production team. This adaptation is a more simplistic, family-friendly story than the “Wicked” book. Even so, it wrestles with the themes of public perception and what it means to be “good” and “evil.” In bringing Elphaba to life, her costuming had to make audiences immediately know that she was the Wicked Witch but be visually distinct enough that Warner Bros. (who purchased rights to the 1939 movie from MGM in the mid-’90s) couldn’t claim infringement. Her shade of green isn’t identical to Hamilton’s, and her costume, though black, is not the same. Legally, “Wicked” is an adaptation of the book, for which they purchased the rights, and Baum’s public domain works. Of course the audience takes this as being a prequel to the 1939 movie, but they are two independent canons… legally. Again, a bit of a green area. And the slippers? They’re there, but they aren’t ruby. (Spoiler-free: the “jeweled” shoes, as they’re described, briefly turn red on stage for plot reasons, and then return to their original silver color.)

I’m looking forward to testing the limits of my AMC A-List membership and seeing the upcoming “Wicked” movie in theaters as many times as humanly possible. Again, Cynthia Erivo’s depiction of Elphaba, with her kooky frames and micro braids, is visually different from Hamilton’s. Not so much that she’s indistinguishable, but enough that she’s unique. I’m sure the makeup department had countless trials to get her the correct close-but-not-too-close shade of green.

Other Wicked Witches

As you’ve probably gathered, each unique iteration of the Wicked Witch of the West has her own name. “The Wiz” has Evillene, and “Wicked” has “Elphaba.” I’ll just give you a brief overview of some of her other names in the more famous adaptations.

“The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz” (2005): A certified classic that I used to watch on a recorded-from-TV VHS as a kid. A Disney property that’s officially based on the 1900 book, “not the MGM movie.” Sure, Jan. Ashanti stars as a red gingham-wearing Dorothy with the literary silver slippers. Miss Piggy stars as the Wicked Witch, and plays her as a biker babe. It’s not easy being green, so she’s not.
“Tin Man” (2007): Remember this Syfy Zooey Deschanel miniseries? This interpretation is Azkadellia, who’s not even green. The whole series is a unique and loose adaptation of Oz, no legal loopholes needed there.
“Oz the Great and Powerful” (2013): A Walt Disney Studios origin story (totally separate from “Wicked”). Mila Kunis plays Theodora, a good witch who is betrayed and transforms into the mean, green witch. Disney had to take precautions to not use the same shade of green or costuming as Hamilton. Theodora also could not have a mole on her chin, as Hamilton’s characterization does, and the Emerald City could not resemble the 1939 film too closely. It’s not legally a prequel, but like “Wicked” it’s a spiritual prequel.
“Once Upon a Time” (2014): When an Oz storyline was introduced in this series, the Wicked Witch was given the name Zelena. Her green makeup was, uh, interesting. Safe to say there’s no copyright infringement there.

“The Wizard of Oz” is so ubiquitous that it’s practically American folklore at this point, but somebody still owns it. The 1939 film is scheduled to enter public domain in 2035, but for now it is owned by Warner Bros. Until then, those creating new adaptations and interpretations that are meant to evoke imagery from the film must continue to be mindful of how the protected elements of the story are being portrayed, and must follow the winding yellow brick road of legal loopholes, or pay up. According to David Born, who worked on Warner Bros.’ licensing team for years, “The Wizard of Oz” is “one of its most commonly requested properties for use in advertising campaigns.”

Oz copyright is such a complicated topic that it even has its own Wikipedia page. There’s much more to the story than I’m capable of understanding. If you’re interested in this topic and want to dive deeper, I love the content that Tori Calamito is putting out on her TikTok account, The Oz Vlog. She’s an Oz historian who’s probably touched on everything I’ve had to say and so much more.

One final tangent: treat yourself this fine Friday morning and watch the “Wicked” Tiny Desk Concert from this past September. Stephen Schwartz provides an interesting look into how he composed the music, and it just makes me very happy.

Make sure you join us for “The Wizard of Oz” theme nights all August.