Peter Jackson 'stretched' the film license? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

zxcvbn · 12-22-2007, 04:10 AM

The 'possible court case' is over entire passages from books which New Line didn't have rights to appearing in the LOTR films. Here are more scrolls...in Tengwar. There's supposed to be a scroll depicting Akallabeth somewhere here, but I can't read Tengwar.

It's a great pity most of this material never made into the final cut of the film.

Sauron the White · 12-22-2007, 07:29 AM

zxcvbn ... where did you get those pages from? I do not remember seeing them before.

I do think that WCH is right - little violations like this would cost mucho bucks to take to court and the return would be rather small.

Folwren · 12-22-2007, 07:36 AM

Good blazes, I think this is like beating a dead horse. What's the point? Did Jackson taint the material from the Silm? He left it fairly alone. All he did was quote a little history, and Saruman would know history.

Why argue about it?

I honestly think this is going out of the way to find another reason to criticize Jackson, and in this case - it's ridiculous.

William Cloud Hicklin · 12-22-2007, 12:14 PM

There's also a doctrine of 'incidental infringement': the classic case is where a news photograper happens to catch a painting or a newspaper in a shop window in the background. Not that these 'scrolls' are exactly the same, since of course they're not accidental, and in theory even making them is an infringement: but they are similar in that hardly anyone would even notice them, even fewer of those could read Tengwar, and the bit of Akallabeth visible is only a fragment any way.

All pretty de damn minimis.

At any rate, the movie tie-in books got permission from the Estate; necessarily so, since Zaentz' rights do not extend to books.

Sauron the White · 12-22-2007, 12:20 PM

from WCH -

Quote:

At any rate, the movie tie-in books got permission from the Estate; necessarily so, since Zaentz' rights do not extend to books.

How do you think this fact impacts the often heard tale that the Estate had nothing to do with the films and simply took a very no-comment, no participation, no involvement in any way position?

William Cloud Hicklin · 12-22-2007, 12:24 PM

Aha! I thought you might take that line. The copyright statement in each of them reads "Published with permission but not approval of the Tolkien Estate."

Sauron the White · 12-22-2007, 12:33 PM

WCH - a tip of my hat to you for being able to predict my Pavlovian response. But how about it? Permisssion, even without direct product or content approval, is still involvement is it not? And it does seem to fly in the face of the loud protestations that the Estate simply stood there while others exercised their rights accordingly and they have no comment or involvement of any kind. You may not know this for fact..... BUT ... do you think that permission came with any kind of royalty paid to the Estate?

12-22-2007, 07:36 AM	#3
Folwren Messenger of Hope Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a tiny, insignificant little town in one of the many States. Posts: 5,076	Good blazes, I think this is like beating a dead horse. What's the point? Did Jackson taint the material from the Silm? He left it fairly alone. All he did was quote a little history, and Saruman would know history. Why argue about it? I honestly think this is going out of the way to find another reason to criticize Jackson, and in this case - it's ridiculous. __________________ A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. - C.S. Lewis

12-22-2007, 12:14 PM	#4
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,332	There's also a doctrine of 'incidental infringement': the classic case is where a news photograper happens to catch a painting or a newspaper in a shop window in the background. Not that these 'scrolls' are exactly the same, since of course they're not accidental, and in theory even making them is an infringement: but they are similar in that hardly anyone would even notice them, even fewer of those could read Tengwar, and the bit of Akallabeth visible is only a fragment any way. All pretty de damn minimis. At any rate, the movie tie-in books got permission from the Estate; necessarily so, since Zaentz' rights do not extend to books. __________________ The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.

12-22-2007, 12:24 PM	#6
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,332	Aha! I thought you might take that line. The copyright statement in each of them reads "Published with permission but not approval of the Tolkien Estate." __________________ The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-22-2007, 04:10 AM	#1
zxcvbn Wight Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In front of my PC Posts: 164	The 'possible court case' is over entire passages from books which New Line didn't have rights to appearing in the LOTR films. Here are more scrolls...in Tengwar. There's supposed to be a scroll depicting Akallabeth somewhere here, but I can't read Tengwar. It's a great pity most of this material never made into the final cut of the film.

12-22-2007, 07:29 AM	#2
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	zxcvbn ... where did you get those pages from? I do not remember seeing them before. I do think that WCH is right - little violations like this would cost mucho bucks to take to court and the return would be rather small.

12-22-2007, 12:33 PM	#7
Sauron the White Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 903	WCH - a tip of my hat to you for being able to predict my Pavlovian response. But how about it? Permisssion, even without direct product or content approval, is still involvement is it not? And it does seem to fly in the face of the loud protestations that the Estate simply stood there while others exercised their rights accordingly and they have no comment or involvement of any kind. You may not know this for fact..... BUT ... do you think that permission came with any kind of royalty paid to the Estate?