From Brontë to Fennell: Public Domain and the Reinvention of Literary Classics

Written by Shaina Wolkenberg | March 26, 2026

Pop culture has been engaged in a heated discussion over the boundaries of reinterpreting classic literary works, especially since the release of Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights adaptation. Many audience members have left the theater wondering what it is that allows Fennell to utterly reimagine Emily Brontë’s magnum opus, but the answer is simple: Wuthering Heights is in the public domain. This means that the copyright on Brontë’s novel has expired, so anyone is free to adapt, reinterpret, or build upon her story without anyone’s permission. The legal question at the center of this debate is whether—and if so, how closely—a new work needs to be faithful to its public domain source material. 

United States copyright law protects original works of literature, music, drama, pantomimes, choreography, picture, graphics, sculpture, motion picture, sound recordings, and architecture by granting autonomic legal protection to their creator. All copyright holders maintain the exclusive right to reproduce, derive, distribute, publicly perform, and display their creation (USC 17 §106). The instinctive nature of these protections supports the government in its goal to maximize creativity and incentivize the creation of intellectual goods. People are more likely to create if there is personal gain (i.e., economic incentive) and they know they will have control over what happens to their creation. 

To receive copyright protections upon creation, a work must be “an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression,” display at least a minimal degree of creativity, and be an independent creation of its author (USC 17 §102). A tangible medium of expression is any form in which a creation can be reproduced, perceived, or otherwise communicated. Additionally, the threshold for “creativity” is remarkably low and was established in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991), in which the Supreme Court maintained that originality requires only a “modicum” of creativity.

However, copyright protections do not last forever. Under §302 of Title 17, copyright holders assume protections that remain for the duration of the owner’s lifetime plus seventy years, unless the work was made for hire. Once that time expires, the work enters the public domain, which indicates that the work belongs to the public as a whole and is not subject to copyright law (USC 17 §302). There are a variety of reasons why a work might be in the public domain, nevertheless, the most common reason for the source material of a film adaptation to be in the public domain is time. 

All works published before 1931 in the U.S., as well as works first published outside the U.S. by U.S. citizens or foreign nationals, are currently in the public domain (U.S. Copyright Office, n.d.). Furthermore, the United States is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Work. Originally signed in 1886, this convention ensures international copyright protections, so foreign authors’ work is guaranteed the same rights as works by US authors (Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886). This includes works by authors like Emily Brontë and Jane Austen who were both from the United Kingdom. That said, their work is now in the public domain, as evidenced by the many (often controversial) adaptations of their writing. 

Most recently, Emerald Fennell’s big-screen “reinterpretation” of Wuthering Heights has caused major controversy on the internet because, although the project shares a name with the classic novel, it tells a wildly different story. Primary examples of this include the entire second half of the 300-page book that is missing from the film and the condensation of multiple main characters (Mr. Earnshaw and his son Hindley) into one character. The film also dramatically varies thematically from the book by including much steamier depictions of Catherine’s and Heathcliff’s love than Brontë wrote in her novel (Lang, 2026). Reinterpretations like this prompt a larger question about adaptation: how far can a work depart from its public-domain source while still presenting itself as meaningfully connected to that original text? Legally, the answer is fairly permissive and straightforward. Because the work is in the public domain, any new work is not required to closely resemble the original in order to use elements of the plot, title, or characters. Copyright law does not impose fidelity to the source material once a work enters the public domain, so any portion of the fictional work may be altered, condensed, reused, or completely reimagined by the creator of a new work. The real constraints on reinterpretations like Fennell’s are cultural and commercial, as opposed to legal. 

Moreover, works in the public domain can be reinterpreted by as many people who wish to adapt them. Thus, particularly popular and well-loved novels can be adapted for the screen repeatedly, which is why there are about 15 feature films and television movies based on Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, in addition to the many TV series and miniseries that have been released based on the novel. Most recently, Netflix announced that they will be releasing a new Pride and Prejudice six-part miniseries in late 2026 (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2026). To many fans—especially fans of the original work—this feels like beating a dead horse, but there is nothing to legally prohibit film creatives from making as many adaptations of this novel as they would like. As was true for the constraints on Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights adaptation, the only real limits on these Austen reinterpretations are purely cultural.   

Ultimately, debates over adaptations of literary works in the public domain highlight a disconnect between the legal reality and audience desires and expectations. Viewers go to the movies in search of a faithful representation of the original writing, but that is rarely what they receive. Copyright law imposes no such requirements, allowing creatives to reimagine stories over and over again, borrowing various elements from the original work and sometimes completely transforming the adaptation’s source material. In the public domain, the law is permissive—it is the audience that film creators have to look out for.

References

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. (1886, September 9). 

https://www.wipo.int/en/web/treaties/ip/berne

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

How many Pride and Prejudice movies are there? (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved March 15, 2026, from https://www.britannica.com/question/How-many-Pride-and-Prejudice-movies-are-there

Office, U. S. C. (n.d.). What is Copyright? U.S. Copyright Office. Retrieved March 15, 2026, from https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

Shafer, E. (2026, February 13). Variety. Variety. https://variety.com/2026/film/news/wuthering-heights-movie-changes-bronte-novel-emerald-fennell-1236660758/

United States Code. (2018). Title 17—Copyrights, § 106. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106