Another one bites the dust....
Daniel Grotta, author of one of the earliest biographies of Tolkien, has had a reprint of his work, which he wanted to publish as a free ebook, nixed by the Estate (getting a bit boring now imho) http://www.grotta.net/blog.htm?post=899042
Looks like CT had wanted to prevent it going ahead in the first place, and has finally succeeded. |
I'd be interested in hearing the Estate's side of the issue.
I did note the following quote: Quote:
|
Grotta's miserable "biography" is a piece of dog-merde. Good riddance. As Tolkien's friend Dorothy Sayers said, "This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly; this is a book to be hurled away with great force."
One review: "I picked up the original version of this biography a few months ago, and it was the most uninformed and ignorant waste of fifty cents I ever saw. Grotta was terribly upset that the Tolkiens didn't let him rummage through JRRTs possessions, but I doubt it would have done any good if he had -- it was clear that he not only hadn't read the Silmarillion, even the parts available at the time, he hadn't even read the appendices of the Lord of the Rings." |
Lots of people are cashing in on the Hobbit at the moment - and on a lot of other things. That doesn't justify banning a book. Neither does the fact it contains inaccuracies. Taking recent history into account it looks like banning things is the Estate's default position when it comes to anything it doesn't like.
Mind you, I'd love to get Christopher's reaction to the description of him in Oliver Beard's comment. |
Presumably he is quite free to rewrite it without using infringing copyright. Rather hard to feel much sympathy for someone complaining that theyare no longer allowed to benefit from the ballantine paperback.
|
I read the post. It strikes me as someone with a sob story to get a buck out of you. Using quotes from a work published illegally and crying that the appropriate copyright holder won't give you the time of day is despicable. He can certainly post his work as a free epub anonymously on the internet if he is so worried about this terribly important work not being read. yes.. that was sarcasm.
|
Great as my love Tolkien's work is, I have never had much sympathy with the copyright thing - given the sheer degree of 'theft' of earlier writers' work he indulged in. If Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, the Eddas, the Arthurian legends and most works of myth, legend and folklore he 'drew on', was 'inspired by', or that 'influenced' him had been covered by copyright, and the holders had been as eager to protect their rights as Tolkien's heirs are he quite probably wouldn't have published any middle earth stories at all.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Bet that was the instant reaction at Unwins... based on the Kalevala? Kerching!!!!! |
Taking recent history into account it looks like banning things is the Estate's default position when it comes to anything it doesn't like.
Care to expound on that "recent history?" |
Quote:
Recall that the Estate threatened legal action against a Canadian children's summer camp for their use of the words Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit - none of which Tolkien actually invented. As far as this case goes, the Grotta bio was in print for years, and had done zero harm to Tolkien or his work. This seems a bit of sour grapes, given CT's original failure top prevent it going ahead. It's not even as if Grotta intended to charge for it. |
Quote:
|
Recall that the Estate threatened legal action against a Canadian children's summer camp for their use of the words Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit - none of which Tolkien actually invented.
No, it was because the camp named itself "Rivendell." |
He basically lifted images, characters and whple scenes -.often without even bothering to change the names (cf the dwarf names in TH)
Pleeze. Lifted "characters" by borrowing 1000-year old names? Care to tell us how Thorin, Bifur, Dori and the rest are "characters" from The Prophecy of the Sybil? Whole scenes? Really? Anything more substantial than Bilbo's lifting of a cup a la Beowulf? ---------------------- A great part of the Estate's remit is quality control. When a book is issued under the JRRT monogram- effectively the Estate's imprimatur - the book can be assumed right off the bat to be *good:* Shippey, Hammond & Scull, Garth, Rateliff: all printed with the Seal of Approval, and all representing the very best in Tolkien scholarship. The Estate doesn't license just any old crap (unlike Zaentz/Wingnut). The "Mirkwood" novel was tripe, and I cannot blame the Estate for not wanting to provide a Nihil Obstat, any more than I blame them for blocking "sequels" and other fan-fic. The Estate *did* btw take action against Grotta-Kurska; the original edition contains blank pages marked (very cattily) "redacted for legal reasons" ----------------- The Estate didn't "suppress" the Hilary biography; it withheld permission to use JRRT's letters, after which the authors decided not to publish without them. ------------------ NB: Tolkien didn't invent hobbits? Please don't go back to that Denham Tract stuff.... |
This one (unlike the Zaentz lawsuit) looks fairly clear cut...
Grotta exploited a loophole in the copyright laws of the 70s to get his biography (I hesitate to even use that term...a worthy biographer wouldn't let a personal grudge carry into the biography he's writing) pushed through. Good for him. The loophole no longer exists today...tough luck, but good riddance. Anyway, the TE may be stingy when it comes to allowing access to certain papers/letters JRRT wrote, but they're excersing legal rights no differently than WB, Disney, Zaentz or anyone else would. And would you let any hack writer access to your own papers (or papers you're the legal guardian of) who wanted it? |
Quote:
As for the Hilary bio, my understanding was that they wanted to prevent any reference to events mentioned in the letters, not publication of the texts. I do like the way you bring in the Denham Tracts as a way of dismissing their use in the argument, when it is the main evidence that Tolkien didn't invent hobbits. |
Quote:
Do a google search. There's a bike company, a Christian retreat, an organic farm, a golf club/course, a horse farm, a radio broadcast enterprise, a software company, a ski company, holiday cottages (in Norfolk), a fantasy radio station, a construction company, a bookstore, a mountain equipment company, a guest house in Namibia, an environmental services company. Some of them are recent; others, quite old. Why go after a children's camp, particularly one designed to give city kids whose parents cannot afford summer camp a place to experience the joys of summer camp? Have any of these other enterprises been subject to legal charges by the Estate? EDIT: Note, I'm not talking specifically about Grotta's book because I haven't read it. Yet it does seem strange that the Estate's lawyers are attempting to control scholarship. Other authors do not have an Estate authorising what scholarship is acceptable. Scholarship is supposed to be free, not controlled by one entity. Some of the thing the Estate wishes to defend I can understand and approve of, but there are some very strange things as well. |
Quote:
Quote:
Since his father's death, CT appears to have had the same goal all along: to preserve artistic integrity of JRRT's writings, and keep a lid on their commercialization. Clearly his motives do not lie in greed. Instead, I see an ardent desire to frustrate those that he sees as exploiting his father's work in any way. The renewed popularity of Tokien's works undoubtedly sparked dollar signs in the minds of many, and for every news story we hear about the Estate slamming the door on a children's camp, I wonder if there aren't a hundred more that could be written about someone wanting to open a drug rehab facility called "Eressëa", or an shanty county fair haunted house named "Moria". Just maybe, the Estate thinks it just isn't worth trying to sort out the innocent uses of copyrighted material from the less-than savory. I'm not saying that's always a good approach, but CT is an old man, after all. I could understand if that's his thinking. |
Quote:
To claim that any of this means that Tolkien did not invent hobbits - that is, his hobbits - is really somewhat ridiculous. |
Quote:
It hardly speaks to the integrity of the approach if some are singled out while others are not, particularly when those who are singled out are not commercialising Tolkien. And particularly when it is those don't have the financial resources to hire lawyers to defend themselves. I'm not sure every case and example is decided upon by CT. Some of them smell to me like lawyers attempting to put a chill on any idea of using Tolkien in any way. That may well be an accepted legal practice but I think it hardly speaks well of an Estate that is supposed to want people to respect the author. Just think of the children who would go home excited to read The Hobbit, for instance, thinking they'd just spent some time in Middle-earth. And age is no excuse for lazy thinking. |
Quote:
Quote:
Try as I might, I just don't see any sinister motive between the Estate's possessiveness. Again, I'm not saying I agree with every call they make, but I have to think there's some reasoning behind it. Quote:
|
Quote:
Greetings |
Quote:
Originally the authors (Angela Gardner and Neil Holford) worked with Hilary's family, and got their permission to use correspondences between Hilary and JRRT. Unaware that they needed the Tolkien Estate's permission to use some of the letters, and not Hilary's family. The authors further attempted to rework their biography in accordance to the wishes of the Estate, and paraphrase when needed to not breach copyright laws. Only until it became abundantly clear the Estate wanted 20 pages completely removed did the authors decide not to publish the Hilary Tolkien biography. It may seem like nothing "what's 20 pages amongst several hundred?" But everyone has to know you can't just remove 20 pages of material and expect to get the same story, or for the story to hold the same meaning. What would Tolkien's reaction be if I got lawyers to use copyright laws and had The Old Forest chapter (or any assortment of 20 pages) removed from The Fellowship? As much as I can understand protecting quality and artistic integrity, you really can't make that case with the Hilary Tolkien biography the Estate went after. Gardner and Holford were proper biographers who went through the work, research, and permissions from Hilary's family. And after finding out they needed the Estate's permission to use certain material, they tried to rework the biography in a manner that would respect the Estate's wishes. I'm afraid that one was a case where the Estate used copyright law to halt the work of two respected authors. Whether it would have been a worthy biography about Hilary Tolkien, well I suppose we won't know, but personally...you can't make the protecting artistic integrity argument and it was unfortunate to see the Estate would use copyright law in that way. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Just maybe, the Estate thinks it just isn't worth trying to sort out the innocent uses of copyrighted material from the less-than savory.
It goes beyond that; it is in fact an imperative created by the nature of trademrk law. You see, a trademark has to be enforced if you want to keep it- if you don't assert ownership continually then the argument can be made, successfully, that the trademark has passed into the public domain as happened to, for two examples, Nylon and Aspirin. Xerox' lawyers were notorious for hurling C&Ds at any and everyone who used "Xerox" as a synonymn for "photocopy," and pretty much succeeded in suppressing it- and it was for that reason. All that's necessary to make such a case is that the trademark-holder has known or even should have known about unauthorized use, and done nothing about it. -------------------------------------------- Hammond and Scull's frankly creepy literary stalking job I leave in the gutter :eek::eek::eek: |
Addendum: this goes back a very long time: the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons included Hobbits, Ents and Balrogs; the Estate forced the change in the 2d ed. to Halflings, Treants and "Type VI Demons (Balor)." Elves, Dwarves and Orcs got through, while retaining heavy Tolkien aspects- but orcs, justified as an obscure A-S word for unspecified monsters, became green with pig-snouts rather than Tolkienian Orcs.
Back to Zaentz: up until a couple of years ago, Zaentz' cash-milking operation was called "Tolkien Enterprises"- and far, far too often not only the Intertubes but clueless "professional" media reported Zaentz' near-constant suits against assorted "Hobbit Cafes" etc as originating with the Tolkien Estate. The name was abruptly changed to "Middle-earth Enterprises," without explanation; but I suspect it had to do with the Estate exercising pressure. |
Quote:
It isn't an ideal setup, but if that's the way they have to play the game, what can they do about it? Quote:
|
It is the the Saul Zaentz company that owns and guards the trademarks as WCH has pointed out , and it is worth pointing out since it is tediously and somewhat odiously fashionable to blame CRT personally for all these incidents.
Local to me are two pubs/restaurants with Hobbit names. One has had no trouble since it does not sell merchandise or give TM names to its drinks or dishes. The other which was in the news with the Estate wrongly getting the blame did sell stuff and theme the menu was allowed to continue on payment of the very modest sum of Ł70 for a license. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
However maybe it should also be remembered that while, according to the Carpenter bio, Tolkien was willing to suggest names for people like the cattle farmer, he DID think people should ask.. |
As far as the word 'Hobbit' is concerned, we've just seen a recent case of a movie using the word Hobbit being effectively banned http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/20781777 Given that there was no connection between the movie & Tolkien's work other than the name Hobbit & that Tolkien didn't actually invent the name Hobbit I don't know what the lawyers, or the judge were up to with this one.
Since Tolkien's death the man & his life's work have moved increasingly towards becoming just as much a 'brand' as 'Disney' is. In place of the famous 'Disney' signature we have the JRRT monogram & the Estate & its lawyers are driven by nothing less than a desire to control everything to do with Tolkien. The children's camp thing (let's not forget that proper names cannot be copyrighted - plus the fact that Rivendell is basically a compound of two standard, if slightly archaic, english words: riven=broken or split, dell=valley. Claiming you hold the copyright on riven+dell is about equivalent to claiming you own the copyright on foot+print & only a lawyer would try that one) was a thoroughly unpleasant act of legal thuggery. And preventing publication of the Hilary biography came across as a very shady misuse of copyright law because they weren't able to twist existing privacy laws to their purposes. I do wonder whether there would be as much tolerance for the Estate's behaviour if it didn't include member's of Tolkien's immediate family. If it was made up of business people lawyering up at the slightest 'provocation' I wonder if people would still be so eager to see their side of things. Interestingly, the author of the Mirkwood novel actually stood up to the Estates lawyers & took the case before a judge, who threw the case out & sent the Estates lawyers off with a flea in their ears (as we used to say). I suspect that most of the other cases would go the same way - if those being threatened were to stand up. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And really, to claim that a parodistic movie called 'Age of the Hobbits' has nothing to do with Tolkien's hobbits is ridiculous. Or are we to suppose that it's a parody of the Denham Tracts, and that the title was chosen at random from among other choices such as 'Age of the Hodge-pochers' or 'Age of the Chittifaces'? |
Quote:
And if an author was to write a novel based around the Denham Tracts & had Hobbits as characters (obviously not like Tolkien's Hobbits) should he or she be prevented from publishing it? To what extent should Tolkien's use of myth & folklore prevent anyone else from using it also? |
Davem, please understand the difference between copyright and trademark law. One can trademark any word (existing or coined), combination of word or visual logo if it is used in commerce to identify *your* goods or services; Terry Pratchett has trademarked the compound of ordinary Disc + World-- and righly so, or parasites would be coming out of the woodwork with their own "Discworld" novels (and/or plastic tat). ZaentzCo has trademarked dang near every place-name and race in Middle-earth, which stinks but he can do it
Interestingly, the author of the Mirkwood novel actually stood up to the Estates lawyers & took the case before a judge, who threw the case out & sent the Estates lawyers off with a flea in their ears Untrue, untrue, untrue. The parties settled, on terms which amounted to a complete surrender on Perry's part. He then told the press loudly the court had "thrown the suit out"- when in fact all he had was the pro-forma dismissal that goes with *every* settled lawsuit. |
Quote:
Is Rivendell trademarked? I've lost count of the number of houses, b&b's and private, with the name. |
Zaentz hold and have renewed trademarks for Rivendell in various categories including those for jewellery, card games and computer games. I did find a list once of the many many names they claimed but no longer. Apparently there has to be the potential for customer confusion to defend a trademark, so consumer protection is a factor as well as brand protection. So I guess that is why b and b are safe. I have friends called Claridge who have called their house Claridges for years. Might be a problem if they ever go in for b&b....
So I wonder if the pursuit of the children's camp is linked to the rumours of wanting a middle earth theme park. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.