The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

davem · 11-17-2010, 03:09 PM

I think the interesting point here is that the Family (who effectively are the Estate) have released a great deal of 'personal' information in the years since Tolkien died - Carpenter's Bio, the Letters, the Chronology & Garth's bio of Tolkien's WWI service &, of course, the Family Album - all 'authorised'. We even had Christopher. Priscilla & Father John taking part in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait discussing their father's work & reminiscing about their childhoods. Given that they have agreed to the relase of so much 'personal information it would be difficult for them to argue that they have a 'right' to keep information about their father 'private'. If they had never released any personal info about him & adopted the approach they did with the movies, then they would have a stronger position. As it is, it looks like they are attempting to control what is revealed about him - in effect to 'create' a JRR Tolkien in their own image.

Using copyright in this kind of way begs a larger question - they may have a legal right to letters & documents created by JRRT, but do they 'own the man, the 'artist'? This, to me, is a vital question - does the Estate own JRR Tolkien to the extent that they have a right to stop information about him being made public? As far as I'm aware, facts aren't copyright, or copyrightable. One could argue that quoting, or even paraphrasing, a letter from JRRT telling Hilary that he went into Birmingham for tea one Sunday in September 1935 was protected by copyright, but the FACT that JRRT went into Birmingham for tea one Sunday in September 1935 is not copyrightable.

11-17-2010, 03:09 PM	#43
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	I think the interesting point here is that the Family (who effectively are the Estate) have released a great deal of 'personal' information in the years since Tolkien died - Carpenter's Bio, the Letters, the Chronology & Garth's bio of Tolkien's WWI service &, of course, the Family Album - all 'authorised'. We even had Christopher. Priscilla & Father John taking part in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait discussing their father's work & reminiscing about their childhoods. Given that they have agreed to the relase of so much 'personal information it would be difficult for them to argue that they have a 'right' to keep information about their father 'private'. If they had never released any personal info about him & adopted the approach they did with the movies, then they would have a stronger position. As it is, it looks like they are attempting to control what is revealed about him - in effect to 'create' a JRR Tolkien in their own image. Using copyright in this kind of way begs a larger question - they may have a legal right to letters & documents created by JRRT, but do they 'own the man, the 'artist'? This, to me, is a vital question - does the Estate own JRR Tolkien to the extent that they have a right to stop information about him being made public? As far as I'm aware, facts aren't copyright, or copyrightable. One could argue that quoting, or even paraphrasing, a letter from JRRT telling Hilary that he went into Birmingham for tea one Sunday in September 1935 was protected by copyright, but the FACT that JRRT went into Birmingham for tea one Sunday in September 1935 is not copyrightable. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."