from WCH -
Quote:
Again, Sauron, the copyright in the broader 'Silmarillion' came into existence as that work was written, not in 1977. Its eventual date of publication makes *no difference whatsoever.*
|
This is not at all what I have been taught copyright to mean. Could you please cite some law or legal language which supports this position which is quite a bit broader than anything I have ever read or understood?
Based on what you posted plus what I read last night in researching the idea of derivative rights - why is not the book length SILMARALLION a derivative of the previously published and legally copyrighted shorter work found in LOTR?
Quote:
You complain that the Silmarillion being published somehow decreased the commercial value of Zaentz' rights. Well, in the first place, copyright law only concerns itself with questions of ownership (intellectual *property*, right?) The market is the market. Zaentz today owns precisely what UA did in 1968. No more, no less. The value of that property is irrelevant.
|
Does Zaentz have what he had in 1969? Then he could well make a film of those Silmarallion events, fill in the blanks, and go on his merry way. Years later, CT caused the book length SIL to be published not giving the world a different picture of those events. Now Zaentz owns a property which has been impacted and its usage is made problematic or impossible by the subsequent publication of the larger work.
Question: if I sell you exclusive film rights for a 1,000 word short story can I then wait a few years, write a novel length version of the story including many of the same characters, scenes, and events and sell that version to someone else in film rights? Would not the appearance of a far more detailed book length version compound and greatly impact my efforts to use the rights I have already purchased from you?
Of course, I could still do it. But your subsequent actions will cause my legal usage of those original rights to be ridiculed, derided and castigated because they are different that what people have read in the fuller treatment.
That reality materially diminishes the rights you sold to me.
Quote:
*No* exclusive right in the pre-existing material.
|
This gets back to you showing me that your broad and expansive definition of copyright is the one that applies here. Why is not the 1977 SILMARALLION, with its registered legal copyright, a derivative of the LOTR copyright in which that material was legally copyrighted for the first time (that I am aware of)?
Quote:
One final shot: It's also worth pointing out that the 'value' of Zaentz' film rights in a one-paragraph synopsis of the Silmarillion was very close to nil, until Christopher Tolkien made The Silmarillion a number-one bestseller.
|
That is your opinion and I respect that. But it is far from provable fact. Many successful movies have been made from far less than that synopsis found in the Appendicies. Many hit movies are simply somebody originally pitching an idea in one or two sentences - "THE OLD DARKHOUSE on a spaceship in space" and we get ALIEN.
The fact is this - as we discovered yesterday, when you look at the listing of events found in the Appendicies, there is more than enough to make a movie.
Quote:
Let's look at it this way: suppose you buy 100 shares of Acme Corp (purveyors of fine malfunctioning explosives since 1949). Subsequently, Acme makes another issue of common stock, which dilutes the market and drives the price of your shares down. Do you have a claim? Not a prayer. You still own 100 shares of Acme, which is exactly what you bought.
|
I understand your point. I will spare you the "this is this" speech. Lets look at your comparison and give it some thought. When I buy the stock from Acme, I do so with the full knowledge and understanding that it is common practice to reissue other shares of stock and this is what companies do on a regular basis. It is part and parcel of the business and is common practice in that business.
It is something I should know, or something my broker should make me aware of along with the usual risks of buying stock.
When I purchase the film rights to a property, I would normally expect that I own the film rights exclusively to all that is in the original source that I am purchasing. It is not part and parcel of that business for the seller to turn around and rewrite it, copyright it and create a whole new property which has the very real effect of causing me some very real problems, difficulties and reduces what I can now do with it without creating even more problems and difficulties.
I believe your Acme stock comparison does not fit. And thus we come back to the reason for Robert DeNiro and his famous quip.