NPR84%

The cultural works becoming public domain in 2026, from Betty Boop to Nancy Drew87%

By Rachel Treisman0%

12/26/2025, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 43.1% saturation with 472 hits. Analysis detected 1,870 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,096 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.6% and a BS Rank of 87% (2,893 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.80% of the article peer group.

The original version of Betty Boop  as seen in this "Dizzy Dishes" cartoon  is one of many works from 1930 entering the public domain in 2026. 
A new year means a new parade of classic characters and works entering the public domain. 
Under U.S. law, the copyright on thousands of creations from 1930  including films, books, musical compositions and more  will expire at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, 2026, meaning they will be free to use, share and adapt after nearly a century. 
"I think this is my favorite crop of works yet, which is saying a lot," says Jennifer Jenkins, the director of Duke University Law School's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, who has compiled an annual list of public domain entrants for over a decade. 
This year's treasure trove features famous faces like the original Betty Boop  whose iconic hoop earrings originally took the form of floppy dog ears  and the initial version of Disney's Pluto, who first went by the name Rover. 
"That's not only exciting in itself, but it's really an opportunity to look back at the history of these two incredible animation studios, Fleischer and Disney, and how their styles are imprinted in the DNA of today's cartoons," Jenkins says. "That's just a fun rabbit hole." 
Literary highlights include William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, the full version of Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon, Watty Piper's The Little Engine that Could, the first four books of the Nancy Drew detective series and The Murder at the Vicarage, Agatha Christie's first Miss Marple mystery. 
The movie selection spans war stories, musicals, thrillers, Westerns, comedies and more, coming from directors including Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hughes and Salvador Dalí. 
Among them are All Quiet on the Western Front, Animal Crackers starring the Marx Brothers, 1931 best picture winner Cimarron, and two Marlene Dietrich films, Morocco and The Blue Angel. 
Several movies on the list feature future stars in their early days: Bing Crosby's first feature-film appearance in King of Jazz, Greta Garbo's first talkie Anna Christie and The Big Trail, John Wayne's first leading role. 
Notably, Jenkins says, the films on this year's list all predate the Hays Code, a set of self-imposed studio guidelines that banned subjects from profanity, violence and nudity to interracial relationships and "lustful kissing" in movies from 1934 to 1968. 
The musical compositions include "Georgia on my Mind," "Dream a Little Dream of Me" and four songs by Ira and George Gershwin: "I Got Rhythm," "I've Got a Crush on You," "But Not for Me" and "Embraceable You." 
Among the artworks are Piet Mondrian's "Composition with Red, Blue and Yellow" and the Jules Rimet Cup by Abel Lafleur  the original trophy of the FIFA World Cup from 1930 to 1970. 
Jenkins says her four-person team spent well over 80 hours poring through the archives to compile this year's list. 
Writing the online summary was another feat, one she says kept her busy from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. over the course of two weeks. 
But she thinks the crick in her neck is a small price to pay for shining a light on the value of public domain in "nurturing creativity and enabling access." 
"What's really fun is that people are excited about it  people well beyond our world of copyright lawyers  especially when they start recognizing these works," she says. 
"And for me, one of the most exciting things is when you revisit a work that you loved in a different period of your life and get to look at it again." 
The public domain unleashes new possibilities 
You may be wondering: Isn't there already a pretty famous Nancy Drew movie from 2007, and a cult-favorite Betty Boop musical on Broadway now? 
Yes. 
But those productions had to get permission and pay money to adapt those characters at the time, Jenkins explains. 
"What's different now is if you and me are really good at choreographing dance moves and writing lyrics for songs, we could make our own musical featuring Betty Boop 1.0 and we can go in whatever crazy directions we want," she says. 
As a matter of fact, a Betty Boop horror movie is already in the works, following a string of 2025 scary movies starring villainous versions of the freshly non-copyrighted Peter Pan, Bambi and Popeye. 
Also, a Minnie Mouse slasher is due for release in 2026. 
Not all adaptations have to be dark: Think West Side Story drawn from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, Percival Everett's reimagining of Huckleberry Finn in the 2024 book James and, of course, the Wizard of Oz–inspired Wicked movies. 
And public domain isn't just good news for those who want to create art, but also for those who simply want to consume it. 
"It goes well beyond creativity to availability, to preservation, to being able to use things freely in school," Jenkins explains. 
For example, Jenkins says, books tend to become cheaper  and available in more editions  once they enter the public domain. 
A lot of creative works from the 1930s haven't been in print for decades, and ownership questions have kept many from being available online at all  at least while they were under copyright. 
"Publishing houses go out of business, people die, ownership changes hands," Jenkins adds. "I mean, who on Earth owns the copyright to those random works from  almost a century ago? And when they go into the public domain, you don't have to worry about that." 
Another benefit is that third parties can now digitize old films and sound recordings that have physically deteriorated over the decades  allowing for their preservation and wider distribution. 
Jenkins says that's especially exciting for teachers, who can make use of these resources for free at a time when school budgets are shrinking. 
And even those who are not regularly in a classroom can learn a lot from this sampling of works. 
"Now we're all having these conversations with our chatbots and wondering what it means that we're reacting to artistic work or to words that are generated by a machine, it was just really striking to feel the humanity behind all these works from 1930," Jenkins says, explaining that they were all created by people living in the shadow of World War I. 
While there are many unresolved questions around AI and intellectual property, Jenkins says one thing is clear: "Human authorship is a requisite for copyright." 
So if a bot writes your Boop musical, don't expect it to be protected. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Rachel Treisman: 3.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic7.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Rachel Treisman: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 43.1%Rachel Treisman: 9.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect43.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.3%Rachel Treisman: 4.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Rachel Treisman: 1.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.8%Rachel Treisman: 11.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias8.8%This article: 36.2%Rachel Treisman: 3.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias36.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 1.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 3.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 2.0%Rachel Treisman: 2.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal2.0%This article: 35.9%Rachel Treisman: 5.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority35.9%This article: 10.5%Rachel Treisman: 5.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion10.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.6%Rachel Treisman: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon2.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Rachel Treisman: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma2.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.3%Rachel Treisman: 3.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization1.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Rachel Treisman: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity4.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.3%Rachel Treisman: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope1.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Treisman: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%

1096 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.