|
m'kay.... well I'm not a lawyer, but..... if the changes Tolkien made to the 1st ed text created a 'substantially different work' (even though from a reader's pov they aren't really all that great), & enabled him to register the new edition as copyright how come the changes that were made after his death by Hammond & Scull, under CRRT's authorisation, don't make it a 'substantially different work' ? If the original version no longer 'exists' as such (ie is not being published anymore), then doesn't the copyright to the new edition belong to the ones who produced the new edition? Or to put it another way, all Shakespeare's work are out of print, but if I published out an edition of Hamlet with a certain number of changes of my own - say I produced a parody, replacing the original names with names of current politicians & added a few jokes, but left the text substantially as is, wouldn't I be able to claim copyright for my adaptation, being as it is a 'substantially new work'?
If this edition of LotR is different to the pre-50th anniversary edition (one could argue by as much as the 2nd edition is different from the 1st), & that difference is down to other people, how come the copyright situation isn't affected? And if CRRT's editorship of the posthumous works establishes copyright with him rather than his father when the writings they contain are actually by his father, then I don't see how it could be easily argued that the same situation doesn't apply now to the new improved LotR.
|