Think you are right about Betrix Potter, I'm sure that fell into the public domain a while back.
 
Same as some old songs, just because new artist did them does not give them copy write.
 
Some are ancient from Europe where the modern "Music" is copy write, the actual lyrics fall
out of that, they can't be as no one knows their original creators as some are hundreds and
hundreds of years old, old ancient folksongs.
 
So if we had musical cards it would be a nono, but lyrics from these ancient songs are public domain.
 
One thing that is a bit throwing, it's 80 years clear for USA but only 50 years (if its not changed in
the last year) for Uk... so you still have to check, because I guess we will fall into the80 year
cycle creating for the US.

Quote from Susan_142450 on Jan 13^th, 2011, 3:43pm:

Disney is VERY protective of their characters, but they do not own all the characters they depict . . . you don't mess with Mickey Mouse or God forbid try to put pants on Donald Duck!  But Alice (as well as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella) have been illustrated by hundreds of artists over the years and each of their visions of the characters may well be copyright on its own as can any GCU artist's original rendering.
 
Seems to me that the reviewers could use a Review U to make their jobs more efficient and accurate.  Many of the artists here have a lot of knowledge about copyright issues.
 
'e'

Look, I know GCU acts as our agent & shoulders some responsibility for what is sold on their site & they have every right to be picky about what that is.
However, I read the blogs & it really seems as though reviewer's comments or refusals can be - arbitrary. There - I've said it. I've had them question my own copyright when the "body-of-work" makes it fairly obvious that I did it.
That said, after this discussion, I feel less confident that all the reviewers (who no doubt have a never-ending, somewhat thankless job), have a complete understanding of:
a. what has already been approved on their site &  
b. Actually understand, and are confident in making assessments about, copyright law.
 
It's not my intent to be disparaging to the reviewers. They can only be as good as they were trained to be. But it seems that a flaw in their training & in the system needs to be pointed out. The reviewers need not shake in their boots every time a potential copyright conflict arises.  
If that can't be achieved then GCU needs to make a policy regarding such items. No little blonde girls in blue dresses, no one named Alice, no little mermaids, no beautiful princesses sleeping, no princesses with long hair, no pirates with hooks for hands, no glass slippers, no princesses masquerading as scullery maids.  
Ridiculous right? And that's why artists and reviewers should be informed about copyright.
 
I sincerely apologize if anyone is insulted my my words. They are strong - but I feel like they need to be said. The business and laws surrounding art & artists are important to understand. And frankly, I count on a company I work with to know, understand and be able to interpret them correctly and consistently.

I saw Alot of AIW cards actaully useing the name too.
Sooooooo,, I'm goign to submit it and see what happens. Wish me luck guys,, and thanks for all the input also

First, thank you Robin for putting this out for question before investing too much time.  It is a good idea when in doubt.  
 
This topic has brought up quite a few things...
 
Arbitrary:
def: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
 
We may be wrong or off base sometimes but certainly not arbitrary.
 
Although our review team is not trained as copyright experts they, as artists themselves, use their experience and the resources available to them to do cursory due diligence.  We expect all artists to do the same - to research what they can and cannot use and provide the review team with such supporting findings.  From there our team will dig a little deeper if needed, perhaps confer with other reviewers and with GCU's conservative posturing make a decision.  Unfortunately the research, findings and application of is not always so clear and varies case by case.
 
We do keep a reference of lessons learned.  And although our review team members do familiarize themselves with cards approved & declined with GCU pushing 500,000 cards it is not an easy task to catalog or recall.
 
Ok, on to the real topic at hand, AIW.  As many artists have indicated, the rights to the character is ok.  The use or copying of another artists specific work ie: Disney's, is not allowed.  So as best we can tell at this time Robin's original creation and the use of terms "Alice in Wonderland" is permitted.
 
A related article of interest:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/015211.shtml
 
Brought up by Tom Rent's recent research of the review process is has been suggested that perhaps we identify artists who can step in as a specialty review team member and contribute with certain skills ie: 3rd party images, copyright/trademark issues, etc.   This would speed up the overall review process.
 
Would any of you who seem to be well versed in this area be interested?

Quote from Ernestine_131365 on Jan 14^th, 2011, 7:50pm:

 
I agree with Ernestine. Though I have quite a bit of  knowledge on the copyright subject, I am not a copyright lawyer. Ultimately, if there's a question, individuals and GCU should research the subject and get real expert answers. (File under: I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.   )
 
Though I participated in Tom's survey & admire his step-up-to-the-plate attitude, and I'd be be happy to apply for a paid reviewing job, for GCU to hire (or have on retainer) anything less than an absolute expert(s) in the field would be foolish on their part. If something came down & there needed to be a legal defense, the time to get one's ducks-in-a-row is before the item is OK'd not after.  
 
IMO.
S
 
 
IMO

Quote from Mindy on Jan 14^th, 2011, 2:25pm:

 
*UPDATED* - based on these findings, unless our community experts point out differently to us  , the phrase "Alice in Wonderland" is under protection by Disney:
 
This new application submitted (11/23/10) for stationary specifically:
http://www.trademarkia.com/alice-in-wonderland-85184148.html
 
And all related ones:
http://www.trademarkia.com/trademarks-search.aspx?tn=alice+in+wonderland
 
However we will allow the phrase "Alice's Adventure in Wonderland" which is the name of the novel.  You should likely combine with other related terms like: Alice, fantasy world, fable, Lewis Carroll, etc.