Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes...

[Mithalwen]

I am merely daughter and sister of lawyers ( despite early ambitions, when it came to the crunch I had neither the application or grades!), so I am quite ready to be corrected by the qualified. Given the Tolkien family situation, it is unsurprising that the literary estate was put in a trust (let aside tax planning reasons - it is the weekend and I don't want to remind myself that I am a bean-counter!). With four children, two of whom 'have issue', it would be impossible to divide up the published works fairly - imagine one getting LOTR while another got say Mr Bliss!. However CT would have copyright over his own editing work on the Silmarillion, UT and HoME. In 1995 the UK adopted the standard EU copyright period of 70 years so that takes us to 2041 for JRRT. Of course, CT is still alive so his copyright will outlast most of us... but how the time lapse affects access to the works is beyond my scope. While all of Tolkiens's descendants would benefit from JRRT's trust, it may be that CT's will pass to his alone. The situation is further complicated, no doubt, by Christopher's son, Adam being translator to French of HoME, by which he possibly acquires some rights in his own right .... lots of billable hours in that I should think .... wish I hadn't crashed my A-Levels now ... being a lawyer for the Tolkien estate might have been my dream job.... lol

I seem to recall that the actual Manuscripts were sold to Marquette for tax reasons but possession of the documents doesn't confer copyright - if you write a letter, the copyright remains with you while the letter obviously doesn't!


http://www.intellectual-property.gov.../question1.htm

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I'm not an intellectual property lawyer, but ...

The references to copyright in the various editions simply denote ownership of the rights in the work. Copyright is an asset and can be transferred just like any other asset. Since Tolkien, as the writer of LotR would automatically have been the original owner of copyright in it, he must have transferred it to his publishers. Whether it has now been transeferred by them to his estate, or whether the estate simply owns the copyright in the 50th Anniversary edition, I do not know.

In any event, I would doubt that copyright could be renewed simply by publishing an amended version of a work as this would effectively allow the right to be preserved indefinately (and therefore enable copyright owners to get round the applicable law). Perhaps copyright in the new version exists independently of copyright in the original, or perhaps it simply lasts as long as copyright in the original. The latter would produce a less complex situation but, then again, lawyers and lawmakers have never been known for eschewing complexity.

I am sure that someone who specialises in this field would be able to explain better than I. Athough I could always do some research into it (for a suitable fee, of course ).

[Mithalwen]

http://www.marquette.edu/library/col...s/tolkien.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/mag...the_gold_ring/


These may be of interest.

I imagine there would have to be changes significant enough to class it as a differernt work to extend the copyright? I don't imagine the changes outlined above would be enough.

[The Saucepan Man]

OK, I have done a little bit of research into this.

UK copyright law confers rights both in the original literary work (which last for 70 years after the author's death) and in published editions of literary works (which last for 25 years after the publication of the edition). These rights exist independently. Anyone wishing to publish an edition of a literary work (or adapt it in any way) will require permission from the owner of the rights in that work. With the publication of the edition, separate rights will arise but they will only apply to protect the format in which the work is published and not the work itself, which remains protected by the original copyright.

So, I would guess that Tolkien (or rather his estate) remains the owner of the rights in the original work, Lord of the Rings, and that it will continue to own those rights until 70 years following his death (unless they are, or have been, transferred - the film and merchandising rights have already been transferred). The rights in the various editions (ie their typographical arrangement) belong to the publishers and are separately protected. This protection lasts for 25 years following their publication. The differing refences to copyright in the different editions referred to above must therefore refer only to copyright in those editions.

One further complication. It is only the economic rights in the original work (essentially the rights to prevent or authorise copying, lending, adaptation etc and to receive royalties for authorised use) which can be tranferred. The moral rights (the rights to be identified as author of a work and to object to derogatory treatment of it) remain with the author and pass to his or her heirs on death.

I hope that this answers some questions.

Now, as for my fee ...

Although one question remains (unfortunately, the central one here). Does altering a few words in the text and thereby altering the meaning in some respects create a new "original work"? Hmm, perhaps some further research is on order ...

[Mithalwen]

Maybe it is a percentage? You know like the proportion of a book you are allowed to photocopy . After all a few words in a haiku are a different matter to a few words in LOTR.

Oh Saucepanadan.. I think you will have to class this as pro-bono... and you weren't actually instructed.... :P but it is appreciated... so interesting.. maybe I did miss my vocation after all... (but my mamma was relieved.. she felt there was quite enough lawyers in the family.. ).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Can you give us some more detail about this comment from CT, davem? Are you referring to something he said in this new edition or to comments elsewhere?

And, could you elaborate on what things JRRT wanted to change but decided not to because of CT's opinion? How old would CT have been at this time?

There's this, from CT's note on the original Farmer Maggot episode:

I was greatly delighted by the story of Bingo's turning the tables on Farmer Maggot, & while retain now only a dim half memory I believe I was much opposed to its loss: which may perhaps explain my father's retianing it after it had become apparent that it introduced serious difficulties.

There's another incident I recall but can't find the quote, where Bingo had killed one of Maggots dogs with a stone which Tolkien was reluctant to change for the same reason.

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

It seems that the readings & opinions of certain individuals (the Tolkien 'literati') have decided that the text we had was wrong & have taken it upon themselves to amend it.

But in many cases the text we had was, quite plainly, wrong. I have not seen the new edition, but I understand a great many of the changes were simple and demonstratable errors - such as "ten miles" vs. "twenty miles". And while some the changes may be questionable - as with "do" vs. "need" - they were made, as far as I know, only when there was some apparent error. The omission of "need" was a mere error.

CT mentions that Tolkien was reluctant to make certain changes in the storyline of some of the early draft versions because 'Chris liked' the events in them.

It's hardly a crime for an author to alter his work in response to a reader's criticism! I do not see how one could blame Christopher for giving his father honest appraisals of his work.

What we seem to have among a number of Tolkien 'experts' is a decision to accept CT's opinions on the texts published during Tolkien's lifetime & a willingness to amend those texts, even to the extent of (in my opinion, at least - & for whatever that's worth) changing the meaning of a character's statements.

With the express and well-documented goal of correcting errors in the meaning of those statements, yes. It is not as though Christopher simply thought that "need" is better; as I argued before, I think that it is most likely that Tolkien did not reject "need" and that the alteration was due only to Christopher's copying error.

One thing occurs - if it is permissible to make the change from 'do not' to 'need not' to 'improve' the meaning, what about other words - like 'queer' or 'gay' which have altered their meaning radically since Tolkien's death - 'queer' could be altered to 'strange', 'gay' to 'joyous' with less of an effect than 'do' to 'need'.

Surely you jest! That sort of change is altogether different from what Christopher has undertaken. To suggest that Christopher is merely trying to "improve" the meaning or that he would even contemplate such a change as "queer" to "strange" seems to me to be doing him a great disservice. On the contrary - his goal is clealy (whatever you may think of the particulars of his analysis) to present the text as it was intended by his father.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

But in many cases the text we had was, quite plainly, wrong. I have not seen the new edition, but I understand a great many of the changes were simple and demonstratable errors - such as "ten miles" vs. "twenty miles". And while some the changes may be questionable - as with "do" vs. "need" - they were made, as far as I know, only when there was some apparent error. The omission of "need" was a mere error.

well, we don't know whether it was an 'error' or a decision to change the wording on Tolkien's part. My point is that CT's justification is not solid enough to make that change. We just don't know why Tolkien inserted 'do' in place of 'need'. All we know is that he did change it.

It's hardly a crime for an author to alter his work in response to a reader's criticism! I do not see how one could blame Christopher for giving his father honest appraisals of his work.

I'm not saying it is a crime - Bb was asking about CT's influence on the writing of LotR. I was just making the point that Tolkien was a 'collaberative' writer, to the extent that he took on board the feelings of others & was influenced by their opinions.

Surely you jest! That sort of change is altogether different from what Christopher has undertaken. To suggest that Christopher is merely trying to "improve" the meaning or that he would even contemplate such a change as "queer" to "strange" seems to me to be doing him a great disservice. On the contrary - his goal is clealy (whatever you may think of the particulars of his analysis) to present the text as it was intended by his father.

Actually, I was jesting (note to self: Use more smileys)

The point is, these changes seem to be motivated by a desire to produce a 'perfect' LotR - but this 'perfect' LotR has never existed. We're not talking about a once perfect version which was lost & must be reconstructed.

Ok, what, exactly, is this 'LotR' which has been copyrighted? Is it the actual text - the words themselves, or is it some kind of Platonic 'ideal' LotR, a 'story'? Does the 'meaning' exist apart from the words, so that the words may be altered to enable that 'meaning' to be communicated more precisely? An author may change his text to his own satisfaction, but if, after that author's death, other's come along (even with the very best of intentions) & produce an 'extensive revision' of it in order to create a new, 'ideal' text, a text which those people believe was what that author really wanted, I think we are entitled to ask if they're right.

Now, I bow to no-one in my respect for what CT has done for us in making available his father's unpublished texts, but so far we haven't had an 'extensive revision' of anything his father published during his lifetime which was intended to replace the existing version. I do think we are entitled to an opinion on what's happened.

To extend this - suppose we found that (actually I think we may have done) Leonardo had painted the Mona Lisa with eyebrows, & knew for a fact that he wanted the portrait to have eyebrows, would we be justified in painting some on?

[mark12_30]

As a tongue-in-cheek aside:

"Peter Jackson ruined the books!"

"No, he didn't. They are sitting right there on my shelf-- unharmed-- where they've always been."



Referring back to page one: if we take "do not" to its logical extreme, it would seem that since elves don't count them, then elves don't know what year it is. But their careful chronologies would seem to bely that, would they not? And since the elves named the months, they *do* know what month it is; it seems odd that they wouldn't know what year it is.

At any rate, I look at this as sort of the reverse of "The Annotated Hobbit." ...whups, must go. ToBeContinued... [Edit] Then again, maybe not, since Bethberry made my point using different illustrations. See Bethberry's post below-- where she says I'm naughty, and must be denied mushrooms.

I've come to this very late, but I felt a burning need to stick my two penn'orth in, despite not being in full possession of all the facts (story of my life)

It is certainly true to say that the difference betwen "do not" and "need not" has come to be seen as a significant one - a lot of that has to do with the plain english campaign - and I'm all for that, especially in a public service context.

But Tolkien is not a public service. It's a work of art - and it's there that these issues start to get more complex.

I think it would be hard to argue anything other than that most of Tolkien's work is an attempt to capture the spirit of writings from an earlier time - mythical and folkloreish - indeed, it seems to me to be the *point* of his work. And it's from this standpoint that the do not / need not debate becomes a thing of beauty really. Let me explain - in old texts (and many of them word of mouth texts) do not can *mean* need not, and vice versa. The language of earler times was less complex than our language - words had to work harder for a living and often had many more meanings than they do now. The classic example is the immaculate conception (bear with me) - the bible says that Jesus was borne of a virgin's womb, and modern religions have interpreted that to mean something magical and mystical. But, of course, the word "virgin" (or the Aramaic equivalent of it) meant many things - a young woman, a beautiful woman, a good woman etc etc etc.

Another example - there is a beautiful English folk song called Death and the Lady. There's no definitive version of it, though. In it, death comes to a young maiden to take her away to heaven. In one version I have, he says:

"Fair lady lay your robes aside
No longer glory in your pride.
And now sweet maid make no delay,
Your time is come, you must away"

In another

"Fair Lady, throw those costly robes aside,
No longer may you glory in your pride;
Take leave of all your carnal vain delight,
I'm come to summon you away this night."

In yet another

"I'll have no gold, I'll have no pearl
I want no costly rich robes to wear
I cannot spare you a little while
Nor give you time your life to lament
Nor give you time your life to lament"

But the meaning is the same in all of them. And why? Because, being a folk song its message is universal and all embracing. And what I find beautiful about Tolkien's work is that it is universal and all embracing too. And it's a great thing to me that dilemmas like this arise, because it means that he has succeeded in creating a mythology that seems to have the characteristics of coming from an earlier time.

Hope that makes sense. It sort of does to me (which is nothing short of a miracle)

"Finger pointing, eyebrows low, mouth in the shape of the letter 'O' - red means stop! Do not go! NO! NO! NO!"

[davem]

Dragging this one up, because of something I've just come across on the website of Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull (the editor's of this 'perfect' edition).

In the section on new books I found this:

In the meantime, we have completed editorial work on the 50th anniversary edition of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, in conjunction with Christopher Tolkien, to ensure the most accurate version to date. This was published in 2004.

Fine so far - that's what they sold the edition on. But they continue:

A reprint is to appear in 2005: this will have further corrections, some of which are to typos in the 2004 edition, others to errors that came to our attention earlier this year.

Get that? So, this 'perfect' edition, with its 450 corrections & emendations is now found to contain typos & requires further corrections!

Ok - cue smug grins from all those who didn't spend £100 (or the $ equivalent) on the deluxe edition - or even £35 on the 'standard' hardback edition, but that's not the point of my dragging up this old thread again.

No, the point is, this is a very silly sidetrack that Tolkien studies is going down. We're getting to a point now where we will no longer know what is the 'correct' text & what isn't. As we discussed earlier in this thread, changing a single word can alter the meaning of a passage profoundly. How many of these 'changes & emendations' are based on a reading of the published text (in however many versions of it there are), how many are based on CT's reading of his father's manuscripts - which may be mis-readings on his part (plus how many intermediate stages in the composition of LotR were lost, or are waiting to be discovered in the future)?

This project, for all its good intentions, is clearly flawed - in fact, its obviously pointless, or worse, is actually damaging, because pretty soon there will be so many different 'LotR's out there that we'll either end up having to forget discussing the book in any kind of depth & detail, or we'll have to limit discussions to specific editions & only those in possession of those editions will be able to join in anything but 'general' discussions.