Film Rights to First & Second Age

[Sauron the White]

Mithalwen... you said this

Given that The Lord of the Rings was originally published without its appendices, I wonder whether legally speaking they form a part of of the "The Lord of the Rings" for the purposes of film rights

I believe your information is not accurate. I have a US first edition of ROTK published in 1955 and it has the appendicies as part of the book. I checked that edition before I posted this thread this morning just to make sure.

davem ... please understand that I am not finding any fault or error with Christopher putting together the SIL or finding a publisher for it. I am very glad that he did it. My point is more of a legal question based on the idea that when they bought the film rights to LOTR, everything in the appendicies was part of it. And that includes material that JRRT himself said was from The Silmarallion. When he used the term it was not really as a published book since that would not happen until after his death several years later. He was referring to it as a body of work on the First Age.

My point is this: is it not possible for a legal department to advocate that since the legally own that information in the Appendicies for the purposes of film, that they have the right to other more detailed information that JRRT had also written up until that time and referred to by name or character or event in LOTR?

I am not an attorney and would love to hear from one on this subject. But I do think it is an interesting perspective that is different than the conventional wisdom.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

davem ... please understand that I am not finding any fault or error with Christopher putting together the SIL or finding a publisher for it. I am very glad that he did it. My point is more of a legal question based on the idea that when they bought the film rights to LOTR, everything in the appendicies was part of it. And that includes material that JRRT himself said was from The Silmarallion. When he used the term it was not really as a published book since that would not happen until after his death several years later. He was referring to it as a body of work on the First Age.

No - he drew on material he had already written (& invented a great deal for the Appendices of LotR). The fact that he referred to 'The Silmarillion' is neither here nor there, in that at that time The Silmarillion didn't exist in a completed form. I honestly don't see where you're coming from with all this. Are you saying that if a writer sells the movie rights to one novel of a series that contains references to a previous novel in the series then the buyer of the rights somehow owns all the novels in the series - even the pnes that haven't been written up to that point?

I mean, are you saying that they have the rights to everything Tolkien wrote on M-e that could come under the heading 'The Silmarillion' - because a good part of it was written post LotR. Or should it only include M-e writings written up to the time Tolkien sold the rights? Or should it only include the Quenta Silmarillion proper - thereby excluding the Grey Annals/Annals of Valinor, the Gest of Beren & Luthien, the Narn i Hin Hurin, Athrabeth, Laws & Customs, the Numenor material, et al? What do you consider to constitute 'The Silmarillion' - everything Tolkien ever wrote on M-e? How much of the Gondolin material is part of The Silmarillion? The Book of Lost Tales material is not 'The Silmarillion' & the Later Tuor was written post LotR & not part of the Quenta Silmarillion proper.

My point is this: is it not possible for a legal department to advocate that since the legally own that information in the Appendicies for the purposes of film, that they have the right to other more detailed information that JRRT had also written up until that time and referred to by name or character or event in LOTR?

No, it isn't - apart from the fact that, as I've pointed out just now, what constitutes 'The Silmarillion' as referred to in LotR could be argued over till the cows come home, & what, exactly, was sold has been accepted by all parties for a long time now.

[Sauron the White]

Things are only accepted - until they are not. History and human nature have shown that again and again and again.

Up until recently, there seemed to be no interest in filming events other than the main body of LOTR and HOBBIT. And that still may be the way things are in reality. I, we, many of us are speculating about things that are only seen as shadows in the cave lit by a fire which at times burns bright and then wanes. So this is conjecture.

My point is a simple one that I feel nearly everyone has overlooked. The holder of the film rights to LOTR and HOBBIT owns much much more than most people have taken for granted. And, if they were willing to push the issue with some creative legal thinking, they could own even more.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And are not the Appendicies with its clear and unmistakable mention of The Silmarallion and events part of LOTR?

What you appear to be asking is whether, somehow, The entire Silmarillion was, by its title being mentioned, incorporated by reference into The Lord of the Rings and hence its film rights?

No.

While I suppose one could try to film the two-paragraph synopsis, it couldn't track the remaining material at all.

Your other question about 'diminishing value' is just a roundabout waty of making a similar but even more audacious claim: that when UA bought the LR fim rights they somehow acquired an ownership interest in everything JRRT might publish in the future. Again, no. UA/Zaentz/New Lin's rights to do something based on the Appendices text is unaffected by the subsequent publication of The Silmarillion.

(But see the South Park episode where Chef is sued by a record company for "prospective plagiarism", for having written a song the company ripped off twenty years later).

If this chutzpatic theory had any merit, then surely New Line could make and distribute The Hobbit on the grounds that it's 'incorporated' in the LR!

[Aiwendil]

What you appear to be asking is whether, somehow, The entire Silmarillion was, by its title being mentioned, incorporated by reference into The Lord of the Rings and hence its film rights?

Maybe I'm missing something - but I didn't think Sauron's argument was this at all. Of course any such claim would be ridiculous. But this, surely is a valid point: the rights owned by Zaentz include any material in the appendices to LotR. Now, the appendices contain (almost) no information on the first age. Appendix A does, however, include a long synopsis of the story of the downfall of Numenor and the establishment of the realms in exile. One could, then, imagine the holders of the film rights attempting to produce an adaptation of this story (though there is, of course, vastly more material on the same subject that is not within their rights).

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Appendix A does, however, include a long synopsis of the story of the downfall of Numenor and the establishment of the realms in exile. One could, then, imagine the holders of the film rights attempting to produce an adaptation of this story (though there is, of course, vastly more material on the same subject that is not within their rights).

But that's the problem– such an adaption would have to be either very sparse or completely inauthentic. All the detail's in the Akallabêth. I mean, the Appendix A version has one line of dialogue and says nothing about Amandil sailing West or Sauron's human sacrifice cult or Isildur rescuing the seedling of the White Tree.

The only way I can see to get round this is for the filmmakers to say they're drawing on Appendix A, then sneak in Akallabêth material to flesh the story out. They'd have to be prepared to go to court over it, though.

[Sauron the White]

Aiwendil is correct in saying that you are misstating my point.

WCH said

Your other question about 'diminishing value' is just a roundabout waty of making a similar but even more audacious claim: that when UA bought the LR fim rights they somehow acquired an ownership interest in everything JRRT might publish in the future.

Not at all. You are broadening the issue to the point where it reduces the arguement to absurdity or straw man status. Of course they would not have the rightsto everything JRRT would publish in the future. There is a key question here that is being ignored for one reason or another. What about JRRT and his heirs publishing expanded material which is already owned in film rights form by others? And I refer to the material both in the Appendicies as well as mentions of First or Second Age events in both LOTR and HOBBIT?

That is NOT "everything JRRT might publish in the future" as claimed. It is material already discussed by JRRT and sold as film rights.

Put yourself in the position of the holder of those film rights. You bought the rights, have yet to use them fully, and then see the heirs of the author rewrite the stuff you already own, albeit in far more detailed fashion and much fuller treatment. What would you as rights holder say about this?

Again, I am no attorney but I do think this is not as clear cut as some of you think. I also think such a claim could go a long way in the court system and the outcome would not be a sure thing for the Estate.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Mithalwen... you said this



I believe your information is not accurate. I have a US first edition of ROTK published in 1955 and it has the appendicies as part of the book. I checked that edition before I posted this thread this morning just to make sure.

To clarify ..having checked it was the index that was missing - the appendices delayed publication but were included.

However it may be worth adding that it seems that there was a great disparity in English and US copyright legislation else the rip off edition would not have been possible.