The Brief

Raw milk is getting fresh scrutiny, as bird flu continues to infect dairy herds.

A highly pathogenic strain of flu, deadly to birds, has spread to at least 58 herds of dairy cattle in nine states, and to at least two people. Samples of unpasteurized milk have been found to contain the virus, according to USDA tests.

But while federal authorities have advised people not to drink raw milk, it is still on sale and easily accessible in many places across the country.

Even in Texas, where the bird flu in cows was first detected and where it has been found in more than a dozen herds, some farms selling unpasteurized raw milk to the public declined to have their supply examined, NPR found after reporters purchased raw milk and submitted it for testing on May 8.

The USDA-approved lab authorized to test the milk for the H5N1 bird flu virus called the farms to seek their permission to examine the milk, then also declined to test the milk for bird flu when the farmers did not grant it.

“[The farms] are aware of what a nonnegative test would do to their business,” said Brandon Dominguez, the Veterinary Services Section Head at the Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic laboratory in College Station, Texas. “They asked that we do not run the test.”

After NPR reported that the USDA had confirmed the agency does not require labs to have permission from farms to test milk samples for bird flu, Amy Swinford, the director of the Texas A&M lab, added that another reason the lab could not perform the test is that reporters did not provide the premise identification numbers for each of the farms. Those numbers are not publicly available; reporters did include the license numbers of each of the farms when they submitted samples for testing.

The lab and the farms’ refusal to test samples of raw milk comes as scientists have criticized the federal government for being slow to collect and report information about the virus. There has been no widespread testing of dairy workers to understand how many may be infected, no mandate that dairy farms test their herds if they aren’t moving cattle between states, and no clear testing data to support federal authorities’ warnings of a potential threat of bird flu in raw milk that people drink.

Advocates and critics of unpasteurized milk square off

In the void of evidence, both sides of the raw milk debate are shoring up their traditional perspectives.

Public health officials and academics say the risks are currently heightened, and that precautions should be taken until there’s a clearer understanding of the scope of bird flu in dairy cows, and how it’s spreading between animals and humans.

“Pasteurization is effective at inactivating the virus,” said Don Prater, head of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, in a press call on May 1. “[We] strongly advise against the consumption of raw milk – milk that has not been pasteurized – and recommend that the industry does not manufacture or sell raw milk or raw milk products made with milk from cows showing symptoms of illness, any illness, including those infected with avian influenza virus,” Prater said.

Raw milk advocates say the theoretical risks are exaggerated and are the latest chapter in their long, contentious battle with the federal government, which banned the interstate sale of raw milk in the 1980s. “The FDA will take any excuse to blast us any way they can,” says Marc McAfee, a raw milk dairy farmer in California and founder of the Raw Milk Institute, an advocacy organization.

Raw milk for sale, but not recommended

It’s not hard to get raw milk in Texas. You can pick it up at a fitness center in Austin, or drive directly to the farmhouse stoops of dozens of raw milk dairies sprinkled throughout the state. There, if you drop some money in a lockbox, you can leave with a cold gallon of milk, straight from the cow, that’s never been heated to a temperature that would kill the bacteria and microorganisms that might be living in it.

Cheryl Masraum was unconcerned about bird flu as she bought raw milk from Stryk Jersey Farm in Schulenburg, Texas, between Houston and San Antonio.

“We were keeping up on that, but it didn't seem to be a threat here,” said Masraum, noting that the outbreaks in cows were reported in northwest Texas, near the New Mexico border. “I think the raw milk is typically a much better quality, and it just tastes better.”

Samples of raw milk from different Texas dairy farms that NPR collected for testing. <br>

(

Lucio Vasquez

/

Houston Public Media

)

Masraum is part of the small but passionate group of raw milk consumers in America. Roughly 1.6% of U.S. adults frequently drink milk that’s never been pasteurized to kill germs, according to a survey from the Food and Drug Administration.

Now, the bird flu outbreak in dairy cattle has prompted federal health officials to renew their warnings to the public not to drink raw milk.

Public health officials say they’ve long recommended against drinking raw milk, because it can harbor disease-causing bacteria. Pasteurization, the brief heating of milk, can kill or inactivate microbes..

Still, the risk of contracting bird flu from raw milk is largely theoretical. “There's not a tremendous amount of studies showing the infectivity related to this virus and raw milk products,” FDA’s Prater said during the press briefing.

How much bird flu virus is in milk?

The FDA found bird flu virus fragments in 20% of pasteurized, grocery store samples the agency collected and tested, according to a recent survey. Those virus fragments were not capable of causing infection, according to FDA tests.

According to the federal government, the virus appears to be spreading between herds through the movement of infected cows. In the current working theory, H5N1 jumped from birds to dairy cows in Texas towards the tail end of 2023. Then, “the transportation of cattle from Texas to a number of other states basically created problems in those states,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack told reporters May 10. Vilsack said that the USDA’s current strategy – of requiring cows to test negative before they move across state lines – is aimed at “trying to contain the spread and eventually allowing for specific herds to have the virus peter out.”

Raw milk advocates say their farms are small, and their herds are relatively isolated. Raw milk can only be legally purchased in the state it’s produced in. “There’s been no exposure of our cows with cows that are positive from other states. We don’t buy cows from other states. So why would [our cows] be positive?” McAfee, in California, says. No cows or milk samples from California have tested positive.

Virus researchers counter that there’s not enough ongoing surveillance to establish the limits of the outbreak. “I don't know that we have the information because we haven't been systematically testing,” saysDr. Helen Chu, an infectious diseases specialist at University of Washington in Seattle. “This is a virus that mutates very quickly, that goes from humans to birds to pigs to cows – to all of these different species.” Given that avian influenza is carried by wild waterfowl and migratory birds “who are flying all over the place and defecating into the feed of farms everywhere… I don't know that we've been looking [enough] to know for sure that this is the one event,” Chu says.

One way to determine if there’s H5N1 virus in raw milk, intended for humans to drink, is to test for it. Chu’s colleague Lea Starita, who leads a genomic testing lab at the University of Washington, has tested dozens of milk samples, raw and pasteurized, purchased from local farmer’s markets and grocery stores. She has found probable viral fragments in about 5% of the samples, though the raw milk samples have tested negative.

But testing raw milk for bird flu is not happening regularly, and farms have declined requests to have their raw milk tested, NPR and others have found.

“They're frankly afraid of what's going to happen to their farms, their families. It isn't just strictly a public health issue. It's an issue of economics and frankly, survival,” said Swinford, the director of the Texas A&M lab that declined to test the milk NPR submitted for analysis.

On May 21, an employee of the Texas A&M lab confirmed that the lab could ship the samples to another laboratory for NPR, and that shipping was a service the lab provided to clients. But on May 22, Swinford called a reporter to say that she would not allow that for the raw milk that NPR purchased and submitted for testing of bird flu.

“I’m not going to facilitate that…because these dairies told us not to test them,” Swinford said.

Could consuming avian influenza in raw milk infect people?

The federal government’s warnings against raw milk consumption are based on known dangers. Raw milk has been implicated in food poisoning of more than 2,500 people food poisoning over the past 20 years, with bacteria such as Campylobacter and Cryptosporidium. But whether unpasteurized milk can give people bird flu is unclear.

Farm cats that drank unpasteurized milk from infected cows became seriously ill – some cats went blind, experienced serious neurological effects and died after drinking it, according to a recent report in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases. And mice that were fed samples of infected, unpasteurized milk from cows in New Mexico got sick very quickly and had high virus loads in their respiratory tracts, according to a May 24 report in the New England Journal of Medicine, co-authored by Swinford at Texas A&M.

So far, there are no confirmed cases of humans getting bird flu from drinking raw milk. Two dairy workers – one in Texas and one in Michigan – got sick with avian influenza after working closely with infected cows. In both cases, the workers developed eye infections and have since recovered.

On May 1, the CDC said health authorities had monitored over 100 exposed workers without finding any bird flu infections. But a veterinarian in Texas told the publication Bovine Veterinarian of sick farm workers that have not been tested.

As far as consumers go, McAfee and other raw milk advocates see the lack of cases to be reassuring. If nobody has caught bird flu from drinking raw milk yet, it may not happen at all.

But public health officials maintain that bird flu in dairy cattle remains a new, evolving situation. “There are a lot of unanswered questions, and much more to learn,” says Lori Freeman, head of the National Association of County and City Health Officials. “Until we learn more about this particular pathogen spreading among animals and to people, we should be taking an abundance of precaution.”

Raw milk farmers say they’re following the developments closely, and working to ensure that their cows are healthy and their milk is safe. And that these arguments are unlikely to sway many of their committed customers. “People that follow us – if FDA says it's bad, they'll run [towards] it,” McAfee says, “In my opinion, here in California with our raw milk, it's much ado about zero.”

A coalition that advocates for renters and unhoused residents is demanding the city of Los Angeles halt its planned rollout of a new state law that gives local officials authority to dismantle more recreational vehicles the city deems a problem.

Assembly Bill 630 gave L.A. County authority to dispose of abandoned or inoperable RVs that have an estimated value of $4,000 or less, an increase over the previous $500 threshold.

Supporters of the new law argue that abandoned RVs often pose public safety, health and environmental hazards.

The law goes into effect in the new year. It was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October. That same month, L.A. City Councilmembers approved a motion instructing various city departments to “immediately implement” the new RV enforcement program.

The problem, according to attorneys representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, is that the new law only authorizes L.A. County to launch the program, not the city of Los Angeles.

“The City's planned implementation of AB 630 is illegal,” attorneys wrote in a demand letter sent to L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto last week.

The lawyers who sent the letter represent the CD11 Coalition for Human Rights, an organization that includes individuals living in RVs in Los Angeles and advocates for renters and unhoused residents in the city’s Westside.

The letter gives L.A. city officials a deadline on Dec. 29 at 5 p.m. to confirm in writing that the city will not implement the new law, or at least that it will wait until the issue can be resolved in court.

No lawsuit has been filed yet.

L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein-Soto did not immediately respond to LAist’s requests for comment on the demand letter.

Mayor Karen Bass proposed AB 630 in partnership with Assemblymember Mark González, who sponsored the California assembly bill.

Representatives from Bass' office told LAist Friday that the mayor is working with the state to "secure the authority necessary for the City to fully implement this landmark legislation."

They also said raising the threshold to $4,000 allows "local jurisdictions to dismantle more of these dangerous, inoperable RVs and get them off the street for good."

City vs. county authority

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents westside communities including Venice and Culver City, sponsored the City Council motion to “immediately implement” the new RV law.

It instructed the city administrative officer to work with the city’s Department of Transportation, city attorney and Police Department to start enforcing AB 630 on L.A.'s streets.

Park told LAist that the city needs to be able remove unsafe vehicles from public roads.

“These vehicles create unacceptable health, environmental, and safety risks, putting entire neighborhoods, critical infrastructure, and sensitive environmental areas at risk,” Park said in a statement. “Residents want solutions, not ideological wars, delay tactics, and frivolous lawsuits.”

The City Council approved an amended motion this month, instructing city staff to move forward with implementing the new law as they prepared informational reports for various City Council committees.

The attorneys challenging L.A.’s actions say the City Council moved too quickly, without realizing the legal limitations of the new statute.

“The City Council passed this motion without really fully understanding the consequences of it or even what it said it all,” said Shayla Myers, an attorney with Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles told LAist.

“As a result of that, it’s a policy that could really harm Angelenos, but also could result in costly litigation,” she continued.

The legal challenge centers on the language stating that the “Counties of Alameda and Los Angeles may implement a program” to dispose of recreational vehicles. The statute makes no mention of cities having this authority.

Lawyers for the coalition warn that if the city proceeds with implementation, it would be acting beyond its legal authority under state law.

Thousands of RV dwellers 

There are nearly 6,500 people living in more than 4,000 RVs parked across the city of L.A., according to last year’s homeless count estimates.

L.A’s city administrative officer is involved in coordinating and managing the removal of RVs from city streets, along with LAPD and the city’s Transportation Department.

It oversaw more than 370 RV clearing operations between May 2022 and June 2024, according to a CAO report. As part of those operations, the city issued more than 1,000 citations, towed more than 600 vehicles and moved nearly 200 people into housing, the report said.

City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo did not respond to LAist’s request for comment on AB 630.

Three L.A. City Council members voted against the city’s AB 630 implementation plan: Hugo Soto-Martinez, Isabel Jurado and Eunises Hernandez.

Hernandez’ communications director Naomi Villagomez Roochnik told LAist the councilmember remains opposed to the city-led effort.

“Moving forward without clear legal authority exposes the City to unnecessary litigation and cost during an already severe budget crisis,” she said. “It is imperative we get that clear legal analysis before the city moves forward in any way.”

The state law goes into effect Jan. 1.

President Donald Trump's long-anticipated executive order to loosen U.S. restrictions on marijuana promises to bring immediate relief for cannabis businesses — but only in some respects. And although rescheduling it as a lower-risk drug is touted as opening a new era for cannabis research, experts say it's not as simple as flipping a light switch.

"It's hard to see the big headlines of, 'Marijuana rescheduled to [Schedule] III; marijuana research will open,'" says Gillian Schauer, executive director of the nonpartisan Cannabis Regulators Association, which includes agencies from 46 states. "You know, those things are not true as of now."

That's because on its own, Trump's Dec. 18 order isn't enough to rewrite federal drug policy that has stood for more than 50 years.

"The Controlled Substances Act [of 1970] does not grant any president the authority to unilaterally reschedule a drug," Schauer says. Such changes are historically made through either a rulemaking process, or an act of Congress.

Many details will shape how the administration enacts Trump's order, affecting the timeline and scope for easing marijuana restrictions. But when it does happen, rescheduling won't automatically revoke federal laws targeting marijuana, and interstate marijuana commerce would remain illegal, Schauer says.

It's not yet known how other policies might change.

"We don't know what will happen to federal drug testing requirements," Schauer says, until agencies issue guidance.

Here's a rundown of other key questions raised by the rescheduling order:

The time frame depends on which path the DOJ takes

Trump's order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to "take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III" of the Controlled Substances Act "in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law … "

The directive evokes the process that started under former President Joe Biden. Under his administration, both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Justice Department advanced a proposal to reclassify pot from Schedule I, meaning it has no medical use and a high potential for abuse, to the lower-risk Schedule III, which includes ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

The Trump administration could resume the process that was already underway under Biden. But the new executive order's mention of the Controlled Substances Act's Section 811 hints at a potential shortcut.

"That allows the attorney general to move a drug to whatever schedule they deem is best, without going through the usual steps that are needed to reschedule a drug," Schauer says.

The streamlined process was meant to ensure the U.S. can do things such as complying with international drug treaty obligations. But a historic precedent also links it to cannabis: In 2018, it was used to schedule the CBD epilepsy drug Epidiolex, months after it became the first U.S.-authorized purified medicine derived from marijuana. The drug was placed in Schedule V, the least restrictive schedule.

President Donald Trump displays an executive order reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the Oval Office on Dec. 18.

(

Evan Vucci

/

AP

)

Will the DOJ call for public comment?

The Trump administration's approach to administrative hearings and public comment periods would also help determine the pace of rescheduling.

"I would anticipate, if they use that [expedited] option, that we would not see a comment period," shortening the process, Schauer explains.

But rescheduling could take longer if the Justice Department follows the traditional, and lengthy, notice-and-comment process.

Again, Bondi has options that could speed things up. She could choose to issue a final rule after a public comment period, for instance, or do so without a comment period.

"Some of the calculation for that may be on the legal end," Schauer says. Noting that some anti-marijuana groups are vowing to file legal challenges to block rescheduling, she adds that the DOJ will likely have to balance Trump's call for expedience with the need to defend its actions in court.

If the rule is published for comment, interest would likely be intense: In 2024, the DEA's earlier proposed rescheduling rule for marijuana attracted more than 43,000 comments.

Cannabis firms would get tax relief, but credit cards remain forbidden

Sam Brill, CEO of Ascend Wellness Holdings, a multistate dispensary company, says rescheduling could bring a cascade of positive changes to his industry. But one benefit could come immediately, he says.

"The biggest thing that happens overnight is the 280E, the restrictive punitive tax code that is set on us," would no longer apply to marijuana businesses, he says.

Like other businesses, Brill's company is obligated to pay taxes on income. But because their core product is a Schedule I drug, the IRS says that under Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, they're blocked from claiming common tax deductions, exposing them to a higher effective tax rate.

Section 280E "does not allow us to basically deduct normal expenses that everyone else can deduct," Brill says. "I can't deduct the rent for my stores, the cost of my employees in those stores, my interest expense."

Brill says that some cannabis companies, including his, say 280E should not apply to them — but the IRS disagrees. As a result, Brill says, his company sets aside a large reserve fund in case the IRS comes after them.

"For 2024 alone, the value of this reserve" was about $38 million, Brill says, "which includes interest and penalties."

Brill hopes marijuana's changing status might also eventually lead to other restrictions falling, especially the inability of cannabis operations to accept credit cards. Most financial institutions refuse to provide basic banking services to state-authorized marijuana businesses, due to potential liability.

"The lack of the use of a credit card is really one of the biggest challenges for customers," he says. Citing the importance of payday, Brill says: "For us, Friday by far is the biggest day every single week because this is a cash business."

Medical research 

Scientists welcomed news in 2023 that the Biden administration was moving toward reclassifying marijuana, and Trump says his move will boost medical research. But both then and now, there are caveats.

One benefit of the new rules is that they wouldn't require marijuana researchers to go through the onerous process of obtaining a Schedule I license, and they would also ease rigorous laboratory regulations.

"You have very stringent requirements, for example, for storage and security and reporting all of these things," neuroscientist Staci Gruber, of McLean Hospital in Massachusetts and Harvard Medical School, told NPR last year.

But another obstacle promises to be more stubborn: finding marijuana to study. The U.S. requires researchers to obtain marijuana from a handful of sources, which is itself an improvement over decades in which they were compelled to use one facility based at the University of Mississippi.

And, as Schauer notes, federal rules about sourcing marijuana have been decided separately from the controlled substances schedule.

"This does a little to make research easier," Schauer says of the current rescheduling effort. "But there's a lot that will still be challenging in researching cannabis unless we see a lot of agency policies change and adjust."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Tortillas sold in California are going to have a new ingredient, one that’s intended to help nurture healthy infants.

Starting Jan. 1, a new law will take effect requiring most tortillas and corn masa products sold in the state to contain folic acid, a vitamin that’s important to infant health.

Latinas in California are far less likely than other women to get enough folic acid early in pregnancy — a gap that can lead to life-altering birth defects.

State data show that, between 2017 and 2019 – the latest years for which state data is available – about 28% of Latinas reported taking folic acid the month before becoming pregnant. White women took the vitamin at a higher rate, with 46% of them reporting consuming folic acid, according to the California Department of Public Health.

This puts Latinas at higher risk of having a baby born with neural tube defects — defects of the brain and spinal cord. Some examples of that are conditions like spina bifida and anencephaly.

Research has shown that folic acid can reduce birth defects by up to 70%. That’s why it’s found in prenatal vitamins. But because women may not find out they are pregnant until weeks or months after, public health has long recommended that folic acid also be added to staple foods.

In 1998, the U.S. required manufacturers to fortify certain grain products with folic acid, such as pasta, rice, and cereals, to help women of reproductive age get the necessary amounts. Since that rule took effect, the rate of babies born with neural tube defects dropped by about a third, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But even with the addition to these foods, birth defect rates among babies born to Latinas have been consistently higher. In search of a more culturally appropriate addition, in 2016, the federal government allowed makers of corn masa to add folic acid to their foods – but didn’t require it.

Joaquin Arambula, a Democrat from Fresno, who authored the law said leaving folic acid out of corn masa products, used in many Latino staple foods, was a “real oversight.”

Now, with the implementation of Assembly Bill 1830, California is the first state to require folic acid in corn masa products. The law requires manufacturers that do business in the state to add 0.7 milligrams of folic acid to every pound of flour and to list the addition in their nutrition labels. The law makes exemptions for small batch producers like restaurants and markets that might make their own tortillas from scratch.

Months after California’s law was signed, Alabama passed its own version. Its law goes into effect in June 2026.

Some large manufacturers have already been adding folic acid to their products for years. Gruma, the parent company of Mission Foods, said it started fortifying its foods back in 2016, when the federal government first allowed it. A company spokesperson said Gruma “has a longstanding commitment to supporting legislative fortification initiatives” and supports the new laws in California and Alabama.

Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more.

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.

Copyright 2025 NPR