Film Rights to First & Second Age

[Sauron the White]

Just to make sure we both are on the same page, explain it to me like I am a four year old ..... as Denzel Washington once said.

[Sauron the White]

Nerwen... in a previous post you asked this question of me. I am sorry but I did not give you a speedy answer. Here is what you asked of me

Are you suggesting that lawyers for Tolkien Estate might claim anything which is treated in both The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion violates the copyright on the latter? I don't think they'd get very far.

I make no claims regarding the copyright on SIL or LOTR. Both of those books were legally copyrighted under the law and as such have protections.

I do say that because of the timeline of the various publications and selling of film rights there are now problematic areas due to overlapping rights.

I refer you to the timeline in my earlier post showing that LOTR with its Appendcies was copyrighted in 1955 and sold as exclusive film rights to UA in 1969. After the death of JRRT, his son Christopher had a book length SIL published in 1977 and its copyright was registered at that time.

This created a situation where the many characters, settings and events found in the Appendicies and many of the same plus more are also found in the book length SIL. UA, and then Saul Zaentz, and now New Line Cinema, hold the film rights to LOTR and that includes the Appendicies with all the mention and description of First Age Events.

I contend that, and believe I have demonstrated that there are now overlapping rights regarding this material. It places the current film rights holder in a very tricky position regarding the Appendicies material.

In exchange with Willaim Cloud Hicklin yesterday, we agreed that New LIne could make a film which contained the following events and characters

- Feanor is shown to be the greatest of the Eldar making the Silmarils filling them with the radiance of the Two Trees
- Morgoth stealing the Silmarils
-Morgoth destroying the Two Trees by poisoning them
- Morgoth retreating to his great fortress of Thangorodrim with the Silmarils
- Feanor leading his people into exile
- War between the Eldar and Edain against Morgoth and his forces
- the defeat of the Eldar and Edain
- the union of Beren and Luthien and their lineage
-Beren and Luthien steal a Silmaril from the Iron Crown of Morgoth
-Luthien becomes mortal and gives birth to Dior
-the city of Gondolin with Turgon as its king
-the wedding of Earendil to Elwing
-the overthrow of Morgoth
-the ship of Earendil is set into the heavens

All this is mentioned directly in the Appendicies and it says it is from The Silmarallion. So the current film rights holders could make a movie about all this.

However, all of those events are also mentioned and discussed further in the book length SIL which the Tolkien Estate retains film rights and Mr. Hickline says they will never be sold.

The publication of the book length SIL was a perfectly legal action and well within the rights of CT and the Estate. No dispute there. But it does create a very practical and thorny problem for the current film rights holders.

If New Line or a future designee of Saul Zaentz were to exercise their legal rights and make a movie of those events from the Silmarallion found in the Appendicies, they now have the unique problem of their work being held up to ridicule because another work presents a different picture of those events, settings and characters. And if they dare to refer to the book length SIL and use any of that material to make sure they get it right, then they run the very real danger of being accused of violation of the SIL copyright and using rights they did not have.

All this because the film rights were sold at a time when no book length SIL had been published or legally copyrighted. There was no competing book length SIL in existence that had been legally copyrighted when the film rights were sold. All that came years afterwards.

It puts the current rights holders in a position of damned if they do and damned if they do not. If they make a film and ignore the actual book length SIL and fill in all the blanks on their own from the Appendicies, they risk ridicule, derision and potential damage to their ability to market and do business with their product because "its not the real thing. You made most of this up and we can prove it by comparing the real book length SIL to your movie".

That situation did not exist when the film rights were sold in 1969. Now it does.

The publication of the SIL has greatly compounded the situation and created overlapping rights. I have said that the current rights holders could make a case that they now have a property which has been diminished.

We now have a situation where two more films were announced this week and at least one will be made up of material taken from the Appendicies.

I have said that these two parties, should work this out potential problems before this happens.

That will not happen. Both parties would much rather beat their respective chests and claim that they own certain rights and the other side does not and then proceed independently of the other. And for the next five to ten years we will again be debating, disputing and arguing about what was done, was it right and legal, did they go too far and all the same stuff that goes nowhere.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

It puts the current rights holders in a position of damned if they do and damned if they do not. If they make a film and ignore the actual book length SIL and fill in all the blanks on their own from the Appendicies, they risk ridicule, derision and potential damage to their ability to market and do business with their product because "its not the real thing. You made most of this up and we can prove it by comparing the real book length SIL to your movie".

That situation did not exist when the film rights were sold in 1969. Now it does.

The publication of the SIL has greatly compounded the situation and created overlapping rights. I have said that the current rights holders could make a case that they now have a property which has been diminished.

Ah, I think I understand where you're coming from now. The publication of The Silmarillion didn't make any difference to the ownership of the film rights to the LotR Appendices– what it did is make those rights (arguably) not worth having. Is that it?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

All this because the film rights were sold at a time when no book length SIL had been published or legally copyrighted. There was no competing book length SIL in existence that had been legally copyrighted when the film rights were sold. All that came years afterwards.

It puts the current rights holders in a position of damned if they do and damned if they do not. If they make a film and ignore the actual book length SIL and fill in all the blanks on their own from the Appendicies, they risk ridicule, derision and potential damage to their ability to market and do business with their product because "its not the real thing. You made most of this up and we can prove it by comparing the real book length SIL to your movie".

That situation did not exist when the film rights were sold in 1969. Now it does.

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.*

To follow on from mine hereinabove, 'derivative right' is the right to adapt or transform a creative work from one medium to another. In this case from book to film. Now, the Copyright Act makes a very important point (one of those which courts get very exercised over):

The copyright in a compilation or derivative work.....does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

*No* exclusive right in the pre-existing material. Derivative rights are *fixed*. they do not, ever, expand; in this case, the derivative rights to make movies about Feanor or for that matter Aragorn do not increase if Tolkien-and-heirs make use of those characters in another book.



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.

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.



The situation poor little multizillionaire Zaentz finds himself in (besides being far richer than the whole Tolkien family put together) is no different at all from any producer who buys derivative film rights to a novel, including the characters therein, and subsequently the author publishes a sequel. Sure, that diminishes the inchoate value of whatever bogus movie sequel might have been planned. Tough.

Or to take a real-world example, where the film-book relationship is reversed: George Lucas' decision to produce the second set of Star Wars films contradicted and thus lessened the 'value' of parts of Timothy Zahn's (and others') Star Wars novels. Do you think Zahn has a claim?


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.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH -

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?

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.

*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)?

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.

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.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from WCH -
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?

STW, copyright exists from the moment a work is created. That's one of the basics.

Here is a link which may answer some of your questions: http://www.publaw.com/cfaqs.html

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

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.

Indeed... but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll get compensation, which is what your argument seems to turn on– unless I've misunderstood it again. (I'm finding the point-of-view shift in that passage rather confusing.)

And no, The Silmarillion is not a derivative work.

[Sauron the White]

WCH
Again I invoke the name of Denzel Washington and ask you to explain this to me like I am a four year old.

You keep coming back again and again to this

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.*

And it seems to be the cornerstone of much of your reasoning.

I do understand that the term COPYRIGHT originally simply mean that, you as the author, had the right to copy comething ..... ergo - the right to copy/copyright.
And that is certainly one meaning of the term.

I read the information in the link provided by Nerwen which said this in part:

When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form so that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

As a layman without benefit of Law school, but one who taught high school Government for 33 years, it has been my belief that there is a difference in that meaning of the word COPYRIGHT and the registered or legal copyright which is provable and enforcable in court and comes with certain legal rights and benefits that go far beyond simply the ability to write and copy something.

Before we go an further I would appreciate it if you could clarify that for me so we can both be reading from the same page.

[davem]

Originally Posted by StW

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.

Still trying to work out what your point is, but from this it seems that you're worried about Saul Zaentz/putative maker of a movie based on the synopsis in Appendix A being embarrassed by not being able to use subsequently published works & having to make stuff up.

They certainly could find themselves embarrassed - if they decide to make a movie based on that synopsis & invent new material. Of course, they don't have to make such a movie, & thus can avoid any such potential embarrassment. But the real point you're missing is that nothing in the synopsis contained in LotR is contradicted by the published Silmarillion. The only problem (if red faces are to be considered a problem) would arise if they attempted to expand on the matter they own.

The fact is that any film-maker licenced by Zaentz is as free now to put together a movie script based on that material in LotR, & fill in any gaps, as they were before The Sil was published. The only problem is that we now have the 'official' version. Now, its quite possible that the audience for such a movie either would not care that it is not Tolkien's version of the story, & may even prefer it over Tolkien's work. Whatever, the only thing that has changed is that we now know what Tolkien intended, & therefore we would know if a movie maker invented a new version. Zaentz has the same rights now as he purchased from UA.

What you seem to be getting het up about is the possibility that Saul Zaentz/potential movie maker may end up looking a bit silly. And, speaking for myself, all I can say to that is 'I think you have me confused with someone who cares."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Sauron, do you actually read my posts, or do you merely skim them and fly off half-cocked?



To quote the Copyright Act,

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, *motion picture version*, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted....The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

You talk as if Zaentz 'owns' the Appendices to the Lord of the Rings. He does not. He owns a license to make motion pictures based on The Lord of the Rings. That is a derivative right, which implies no right whatsoever in the underlying original work.

You might try to assert that (all within the primary copyrights of the author and his heirs) that the 1977 Silmarillion is somehow a 'derivative' of the Synopsis in the Appendices. But 1) this is not so; the Synopsis is an abridgemant or 'derivative' of the pre-existing Silmarillion, not the other way around; and 2) the question is irrelevant, because you are talking about the primary copyright in the written works, which Tolkien and his heirs have always owned, and upon which Zaentz has no claim at all.

Once and for all: copyright is *not* created by publication nor registration. I appreciate that you did some research last night: but give me credit for havin' done bin to lawyer school and everthin', and I might just possibly have learned more about the topic than "anything [you] have ever read or understood."

Here are relevant excerpts from the Act:

On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and came within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title

A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

and, reinforcing that copyright does not come into being dependent upon registration:

(a) REGISTRATION PERMISSIVE.—At any time during the subsistence of copyright in any published or unpublished work, the owner of copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration of the copyright claim by delivering to the Copyright Office the deposit specified by this section...

+++++++++

I should like to reiterate one of the above cites in a slightly different context:

....and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

Got that? Each successive version Tolkien (or Christopher) made of the Elder Days material is a separate work. Zaentz owns film rights to only one of those separate works- the one-paragraph precis in the Appendices. The Silmarillion, from the Lost Tales to the 1977 text, comprises several separate works each and every one of which is completely free and clear of any claim by Zaentz, except that LR synposis.

+++++++++

You try to distinguish my stock-market example because apparently everybody knows stocks go up and down in value. Guess what? So do film properties. UA paid a quarter-million for the LR film rights, and unloaded them eight years later for twenty thousand: they took a bath. No asset is ever purchased with an implied warranty of retaining value. It's called 'risk'.

Your counterexample regarding a novel-length expansion of a short story: "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?"

Yes, it would. Tough cookies.

Your purchase of derivative film rights places no restriction or limitation on the holder of the underlying primary copyright in any way, shape or form.

There might, hypothetically, be some sort of colliding interests *if* the film rights to The Silmarillion were ever to be sold. But on that day I reckon most of us will be far too busy keeping winged hogs from crashing through our upstairs windows to worry about it.

And I'm not especially convinced that Zaentz would have much of a claim even then, since courts will apply the contract-law concept of 'the intent of the parties', and might very well conclude that what UA intended to buy and thus did buy was the story The Lord of the Rings, not an ancillary sketch of an unpublished work in which nobody, certainly not UA, had any interest in at the time.

And, again, the '77 text is a separate work, with a separate primary copyright, which Zaentz' derivative license cannot affect, limit nor constrain in any way. Could Orson Scott Card have sold the film rights to his short story 'Ender's Game' to Studio A, and then sold the film rights to the novel 'Ender's Game' to Studio B? Quite possibly. Were Beethoven subject to modern copyright law, I see no problem with him selling publishing rights to 'The Creatures of Prometheus' to Breitkopf und Haertel, and then selling pub rights to the 3rd Symphony to Schirmer, notwithstanding the fact that the finales of the two works are based on the identical theme.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

As a layman without benefit of Law school, but one who taught high school Government for 33 years, it has been my belief that there is a difference in that meaning of the word COPYRIGHT and the registered or legal copyright which is provable and enforcable in court and comes with certain legal rights and benefits that go far beyond simply the ability to write and copy something.

Then you misunderstand. "Copyright" in the first sense is the author's EXCLUSIVE right to create copies, and the right to prevent anyone else from doing so. Ergo it is indistinguishable from the 'second' sense. The rights and benefits are there from the first. All registration does is to ease the copyright-holder's path to the courthouse door.

I am currently engaged in editing certain unpublished Tolkien manuscripts from Marquette. Hoever, unless and until the Estate approves my edition for publication, I am legally prohibited from disclosing a single word of those texts. They are absolutely, positively copyrighted materials. In fact, they are protected more stringently than published material, since "Fair Use" explicitly does not apply to unpublished works.

[Sauron the White]

davem .. believe me my friend I never confused you with someone who cares.
But you did say this:

Zaentz has the same rights now as he purchased from UA.

Perhaps he does. But the ability to utilize those rights has been diminished by the actions of CT and the Estate in putting before the public a competing and more complete version of The Silmarallion. Is that ethical for the Estate, or anyone for that matter to engage in a business practice that has that effect without some degree of working things out with the person who held those rights before they were diminished?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

As a layman without benefit of Law school, but one who taught high school Government for 33 years, it has been my belief that there is a difference in that meaning of the word COPYRIGHT and the registered or legal copyright which is provable and enforcable in court and comes with certain legal rights and benefits that go far beyond simply the ability to write and copy something.

Sauron, I guess you didn't have time to read the whole page to which I gave you the link. It explains this issue pretty clearly.

[Sauron the White]

It is going to take time to go through the responses... so one at a time, starting from the latest and working back.

from Morwen

You agree that Zaentz has the same rights now that he always had. You have not put forward any evidence to suggest that Christopher Tolkien by publishing the Silmarillion was engaged in a malicious act to try and reduce the value of those rights.

I never said that CT did anything malicious or illegal or with an intent to do any harm or damage. Just the opposite. I stated that I was glad he collected the papers into THE SILMARALLION and glad it was published. However, even in the free exercise of ones rights, there can be unforeseen consequences that damage others. That is what we have here. Zaentz may indeed have on paper the same rights that he always had - BUT - and its one huge BUT - the value of some of it - the sections describing the events of The Silmarallion in the Appendicies - have been diminished. It is now going to be nearly impossible for him or anyone else to exercise those rights and make a movie of those events without holding themselves up to ridicule when that work is compared to the 1977 SILMARALLION book. UA, and then in turn Zaentz, purchased something and then saw part of its value rendered either less or worth nothing altogether since it is nearly impossible to realize it.

That is the point.
-------------------------------------------------------------

WCH on Saul Zaentz and ethics

"Ethics" and "Saul Zaentz" I never thought to see in the same sentence.....

So the good luck of Zaentz in a business investment causes you to create a new standard of ethics which then applies to ..... what exactly? Or are you saying that because Zaentz hit the lottery with LOTR than he deserves to receive less than he is entitled to otherwise and thats just karma? I did not realize that there was a legal limit on return on ones investment.

and more from WCH --

And you want to complain it's 'unethical' for the author and his family to publish the work he spent sixty years creating, just because Zaentz bought film rights to a footnote????

Just like the discussion of yesterday where you misstated and exaggerated my opinion for heavens only knows what purpose, you do it again today. In its entirety, here is what I said about etchics:

Is that ethical for the Estate, or anyone for that matter to engage in a business practice that has that effect without some degree of working things out with the person who held those rights before they were diminished?

My point was short and clear. Since the publication causes the rights of Zaentz to be diminished or practically unusable, then it would a good thing to work things out between the seller and holder. I did not, do not and will not criticize CT or the Estate for causing to have published THE SIL. I am very glad that happened. CT had a perfect right to do that. However, there were some unforeseen consequences which caused previous rights holders to see their rights now in a diminished capacity. My criticism was not for the publication but for the failure to work something out in restoring to whole what was previously sold and now devalued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from Mithalwen

I would want to be very sure that the apendices were part of the rights deals before coughing up cash for a fim. I think there is a good chance they would not be included since they are appendices to the LOTR not an actual part of LOTR but I don't have the contract and I am not an IP lawyer.

We all seem to be in the same boat since none of us have those contrcts spelling out those rights. However, I do not see how you can feel there is a good chance that the Appendicies are not included in those rights when there has been very open discusssion from the rights holders that they are going to use material from those very same Appendicies to form much of the second upcoming film. I would have to believe that you do not go around making statements of intent like that without a firm knowledge of what your rights are.

UA purchased the film rights to both HOBBIT and LOTR in 1969. The Appendicies are part of LOTR and always have been going back to the First Editions. I would think, that in a discussion such as this, the responsibility to show that they are NOT part of what normally they would be a part of is on you. The exception to the rule needs far more defense of worth than the normal practice does.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from davem

CT edited together The Sil for publication because he wanted to make that material available to readers, & I daresay that thoughts that it might cause a problem for Saul Zaentz never crossed his mind.

I agree with you on that. I am sure that CT never intended or wanted to hurt anyone.

You seem to have left the 'legal' question behind & are now arguing 'ethics' & asking for sympathy for poor Mr Zaentz - the man who is ultimately responsible for inflicting the Bakshi, Rankin-Bass & Jackson farragoes on us??

That involves a qualititave judgement on your part which some may agree with and others would not since it combines Zaentz with the work of those who he licensed to make films. I, for one, do not think it is fair or responsible to lump the work of Jackson in with that of the other two. But like yours, thats only my opinion and means little to nothing.

My point has been made over and over again. The publishing of the book length SIL has rendered the film rights to material found in the Appendicies - sold free and clear by JRRT - top be diminished in value if not in fact impossible to realize. This has created an area of overlapping rights to many of the events in the Silmarallion and should be worked out between the two parties.

more to come later when I read other responses

[Sauron the White]

WCW - earlier you were trying to explain to me about copyright law and how some of my beliefs were in error. And I guess some were. Thank you for that correction. The one thing that I still have a question about is on page 1 you said there is no difference in penalties or protections between a formal registered copyright and the one you said takes effect upon creation.

STW - There is a huge legal difference between a copyright and a legally registered copyright which attaches protections of law and introduces certain legal remedies and penalties. Huge difference.

WCH - No. There isn't. None. The only difference registration makes is that it's much easier to prove that the work in question existed as of that date. Period.

Then Nerwen provided a link with the copyright people which said this

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?

Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within five years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law.

Now that clearly mentions several advantages including eligibility for statuatory damages, repayment of attorneys fees, and the ability to use it as prima facie evidence in court. Those would seem to be some very big differences that could potentially mean a good deal more money. Would you agree?

[Sauron the White]

zxcvbn

Do you realize that the Appendicies contain all of the following

- Feanor is shown to be the greatest of the Eldar making the Silmarils filling them with the radiance of the Two Trees
- Morgoth stealing the Silmarils
-Morgoth destroying the Two Trees by poisoning them
- Morgoth retreating to his great fortress of Thangorodrim with the Silmarils
- Feanor leading his people into exile
- War between the Eldar and Edain against Morgoth and his forces
- the defeat of the Eldar and Edain
- the union of Beren and Luthien and their lineage
-Beren and Luthien steal a Silmaril from the Iron Crown of Morgoth
-Luthien becomes mortal and gives birth to Dior
-the city of Gondolin with Turgon as its king
-the wedding of Earendil to Elwing
-the overthrow of Morgoth
-the ship of Earendil is set into the heavens

and it says that all this is from The Silmarallion.

UA and then Zaentz owned the rights to place all these things in a film. But the publishing of the book length SIL makes this nearly impossible and places them at risk of either losing tons of money produing a film that will be mocked for not being the real thing or risks a lawsuit if it is the real thing. The publication of the SIL placed those rights in a nearly impossible lose/lose situation. That is very clearly a diminishment of rights that they paid for, held and now can not use. And who is responsible for this situation? CT.

That is in the Appendicies. It is far more than just a few names here and there as you claim. And that is just the tip of the iceberg for there is much more on other Middle-earth history that goes beyond that list.