Tolkien Estate blocks new Tolkien book

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by davem

My first thoughts on reading this were that it was a copyright matter - any letters/docs/personal photos from JRRT are copyright JRRT & his Estate. The Estate may simply being a bit precious. What I find curious is that the author has worked with Hilary Tolkien's family on this book, & from what I know of Angela Gardener via the Tolkien Society & buying books from Daeron's Books, I know it would have been an entirely respectful work, so I'm not sure what the Estate's objection could be, other than 'This our stuff & you can't use it!'

However, reading between the lines of the publisher's statement:



it seems a bit more complex - the issue seems to be not so much about the use of the photos/pix/letters referred to in the blurb, but about the book's making 'proper reference to his close relationship with his brother'.

Which seems a bit much - stopping a book going ahead because it touched on the relationship between Tolkien & his brother from Hilary's perspective. I don't know if any more info will be released on the exact issues but I don't think we'll ever see the book in print now - after the Estate's recent victory over New Line they have a VERY lot of money for lawyers.....

It might be that the book can't make 'proper reference to his close relationship with his brother' without using letters and other personal documents.

What the Estate can't do is simply block bios of members of the Tolkien family - it doesn't matter how many fancy lawyers you have if your case has no legal substance - sure, the Estate can issue injunctions against books they don't like, but there are loads of Tolkien related books being published every year, so it's not like they block everything.

I'm puzzling over the argument that the book was a "misrepresentation". Normally, if the book represents "false claims" or "false advertising" (eg, a book about JRRT masquerading as being about Hilary) then that would be a matter for the UK Advertising Standards Authority and also perhaps the Office of Fair Trading. There is certainly no obvious basis for a civil lawsuit - unless the authors of the book signed a contract with the Estate regarding the use of certain materials owned by the Estate. The Estate may be complaining that they were deceived as to the nature of the book when they (the Estate) agreed to the use of those materials. In fact, that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

[Calcifer]

As authors who have worked with the Tolkien Estate in producing books containing copyrighted material, and are known to contribute to Tolkien fan forums, we have been asked to forward the following official statement:

Statement of the Tolkien Estate - Wheelbarrows at Dawn

The J R R Tolkien Estate has been made aware of a statement by ADC Publications concerning its cancellation of its proposed publication Wheelbarrows at Dawn by Angela Gardner and Neil Holford.

ADC's statement suggests that the publication has been cancelled as a result of the Tolkien Estate's threats to take court action preventing the release of the book.

As this statement is highly misleading, the Tolkien Estate considers it important that the true facts be clarified for those concerned.

The book in question was presented by ADC as a biography of J R R Tolkien's brother Hilary. However, the publication included numerous personal letters from J R R Tolkien to his brother and from other family members that were reproduced virtually verbatim.

The copyright in these private, unpublished letters belongs to the Tolkien Estate. As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family, both of which it takes great care to protect, the Estate quite properly declined permission for the letters to be reproduced in this way.

However, the Estate made clear to ADC that it had no issue with the publication of the book providing the material in question - affecting only 20 pages out of a total of some 300 - was removed.

Although ADC's response was to agree to this, what it then did in practice was to paraphrase the letters, something that had been made clear from the outset would not resolve the issue.

Despite the Estate's devoting considerable resource to helping ADC, not least by suggesting specific editorial changes which would meet its concerns, ADC then announced the cancellation of the book.

=====

Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull

[Bêthberry]

Thank you very much, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull for providing that statement for the benefit of discussion here. Please thank the members of the Tolkien Estate as well for explaining their position.

I'm sure I speak for all Downers when I say we would be delighted to see Calcifer contribute to our discussions, particularly when we can benefit from your great expertise and wide knowledge of all things Tolkien. I am reading, slowly and carefully, through your Companion and Guide and have found it as refreshing and enlightening as any Ent draught.

[davem]

Still not sure whether the issue is

a)Simply that the authors are paraphrasing the letters - ie its not about what the letters contain, but simply because the copyright on the material belongs to the Estate, & that they object on principle to its being used.

Or

b) Whether its because the letters contain information the Estate do not want to be published - but I suspect that if the content of the letters was along the lines of 'Dear Hilary, went into Birmingham today & had tea. It rained for a bit, but then the sun came out & made the whole place seem rather Elvish. Yours Ronald' then no-one at the Estate would be bothered if it was published.

However, I accept that we'll never be told one way or the other, so further speculation seems pointless.

Narfforc, via Facebook, made me aware of this novel 'Looking for the King: An Inklings Novel '[Hardcover] http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1586...pt#reader-link In it, Tolkien, Lewis & the other Inklings appear as supporting characters, & we've seen other novels where the same thing happens (ie 'Here, There Be Dragons (Chronicles of the Imaginarium Geographica' http://www.amazon.com/There-Dragons-...9942839&sr=1-1 ). I begin to feel that Tolkien is moving towards being a 'fictional' character himself, the dreamy, slightly bumbling old professor with his pipe. We may never get to know the real man.

[Lalaith]

The copyright in these private, unpublished letters belongs to the Tolkien Estate. As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family, both of which it takes great care to protect, the Estate quite properly declined permission for the letters to be reproduced in this way.

I'm still a bit baffled by this. Firstly, because most 20th century literary figures eminent enough to have biographies written about them, have letters that are published as part of biographies, and it isn't generally seen as a problem by the estates of these writers.
Secondly, from whom did the authors obtain the letters in question, if not the family?
Thirdly, why could the letters not be paraphrased? If I paraphrased the plot of LotR I would not be in breach of copyright, although if I copied it word for word I clearly would.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Thirdly, why could the letters not be paraphrased? If I paraphrased the plot of LotR I would not be in breach of copyright, although if I copied it word for word I clearly would.

I wasn't aware that a paraphrase or synopsis is a breach of copyright either, but I'm sure a very long, exorbitantly expensive, court case would be able to determine whether that is actually the case or not. What one would need is two very rich individuals/organisations to be prepared to argue it out in front of a judge.

[Galadriel55]

Yes, paraphrasing without giving credit is plagiarism. However, if credit is given, it's OK to even paraphrase another author's work. If the words "Tolkien's letters" would be listed, I think it wouldn't be a problem. Crazy, this system, isn't it?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I'm still a bit baffled by this. Firstly, because most 20th century literary figures eminent enough to have biographies written about them, have letters that are published as part of biographies, and it isn't generally seen as a problem by the estates of these writers.
Secondly, from whom did the authors obtain the letters in question, if not the family?
Thirdly, why could the letters not be paraphrased? If I paraphrased the plot of LotR I would not be in breach of copyright, although if I copied it word for word I clearly would.

The physical letters are presumably in the possession of Hilary's family whereas the copyright resides with the estate. So Hilary's family have the right to show them to whom they like the reproduction of the contents is verboten without the permission of the estate. "Eyes only" in effect.


As for paraphrasingtaking Dave's example, if I write "He wrote to Hilary that he had gone into Birmingham today & had tea. It had rained briefly , but then the sun had emerged giving the place an Elvish quality ". I don't think substituting some vocabulary, using reported speech and so on is enough for me to say that is no longer essentially Dave's writing. You could say that a film or radio script is essentially a paraphrase and both require the authority of the copyright holder.

All in all it seems rather sad that it has got to this stage. I don't blame the Estate for protecting its rights but it shows how tight the laager has been drawn if even Angie Gardner with the cooperation of Hilary's family has fallen foul. But the price of Tolkien being taken more seriously as an author is legitimate interest in his life. There is a danger of babies being thrown out with bathwater....

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

As for paraphrasingtaking Dave's example, if I write "He wrote to Hilary that he had gone into Birmingham today & had tea. It had rained briefly , but then the sun had emerged giving the place an Elvish quality ". I don't think substituting some vocabulary, using reported speech and so on is enough for me to say that is no longer essentially Dave's writing. You could say that a film or radio script is essentially a paraphrase and both require the authority of the copyright holder.

But I personally wouldn't care if a letter of mine like that was published - & if my heirs did, I feel seriously disappointed in them.

There are only two possible takes on this 1 - the Estate is being petty & simply refusing to allow even reference to correspondence which contains no more than everyday trivia, or 2 - they are being secretive, because what is contained in the letters is something they do not to be made public. Neither option reflects well on them & anything that reflects badly on them is in danger of reflecting badly on Tolkien himself. And frankly, I am now incredibly curious about what they don't want me to see ...