Tolkien Estate blocks new Tolkien book

[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The copyright in these private, unpublished letters belongs to the Tolkien Estate.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?

[Morthoron]

Whatever the convoluted legalistic circumlocutions, it all sounds like much ado about nothing, and ridiculously litigious on the part of the Tolkien Estate. Here we have two brothers who have been dead nearly forty years. FORTY YEARS! Unless J.R.R. paraded about in women's clothing in a foxhole in France and was referred to as Jane Tolkien by his comrades, I don't think much that is earth-shaking could come out of letters from two brothers.

I have long respected the conservative nature by which the Tolkien Estate transacted their business, and protected the authorial integrity of my favorite writer; however, there comes a point when it is simply asinine, particularly in the case of a biography about Tolkien's brother which seemed to originally receive the blessings of the Estate, and the authors considered appropriate to the task after being vetted.

Personally, the objections seem trivial -- as small and mean as snobby Hobbits like Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, who took pettiness to a higher level.

Sorry Tolkien Estate, you missed the boat on this one and received a self-inflicted black eye.

[davem]

I think many of us have a tendency to tip toe around the Estate, simply because the family are at the core of it & we don't like the idea of saying 'nasty' things about Tolkien's children & grandchildren. I have to say that if the 'Tolkien Estate was simply a commercial organisation who controlled the copyright of Tolkien's works & had no connection with the family the reaction to this story would have been far less muted.

We should perhaps remember that the Tolkien Estate is not a 'fan' organisation, but an entirely commercial one & clearly places issues of copyright above 'art'. 'Tolkien' is a copyrighted product now as much as Coke or MacDonalds or Apple - & you wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of their lawyers either.

Can't help but wonder whether something 'happened' when Tolkien's original publisher, Allen & Unwin, was taken over by Rupert Murdoch's Harper Collins...

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=davem;643234]I think many of us have a tendency to tip toe around the Estate, simply because the family are at the core of it & we don't like the idea of saying 'nasty' things about Tolkien's children & grandchildren. QUOTE]

Also maybe tempered by the fact that those of us who have had even slight contact with the family (which of course includes many who have attended an Oxonmoot) have found it a positive experience - I haven't heard a negative report personally. And we are aware of the tremendous good done with the processes of the jealously guarded rights via the Tolkien Trust.

It is a bit of a PR disaster though if it makes even informed and sympathetic Tolkienistas think that either there it some undisclosed scandal or that the estate is being draconian.

But while I am instantly suspicious of "true facts" (if it aint true it aint a fact!) , facts can have more than one perspective. For example, I happened to be doing my final teaching prac. at a Catholic school when it was reported in the paper that a catholic mass had been permitted to be celebrated in the chalpe of the Tower of London for the first time since the reformation. In the staff room there was a certain amount of chuntering about how dreadful it was that it had been forbidden so long. Now it happened that I sang in my college chapel choir and though it was a Methodist foundation, the chapel services were ecumenical and the services were led by different denominations and groups in rotation. There had been a huge fuss after the last time the Catholic service was held because it was a Mass and other than in exceptional circumstances they do not offer the sacrament to non Catholics (whereas in the Anglican tradition at least, communicant members of other denominations may receive it). So there was this awful division when the priest invited Catholics only up. Subsequently the Catholics were asked only to hold services in which an ecumenical congregation could participate equally and Vespers and Benediction were substituted. Now that could have been interpreted as a ban on the Mass but it wasn't quite that simple...

[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 ...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

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 ...

I am inclined to agree... but the issue of whether there is a copyright breach is separate to whether it is necessary or wise to protect it. After all if there were something, this would probably be the most neutralising way for it to get into the public domain... hardly likely to get a more sympathetic treatment.

However if those 20 pages were crucial it hardly suggests that the book was "all killer, no filler".

[Galin]

Well, it looks to me like ADC agreed to one thing -- not to quote or paraphrase these letters -- and did another.


It's easier to make light of privacy concerns when it's someone else's privacy involved, and in any case people have various opinions on what they feel should be kept private. It seems to me that the Estate is entitled to their opinion regarding the Tolkien family's privacy -- not just JRRT's privacy, noting '.... and from other family members' in the statement above.

(...) 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.

from the statement provided by Hammond and Scull

Is ADC claiming that this wasn't made clear from the outset?

I haven't seen that so far in any event. Angie G's response doesn't speak to this -- for whatever reason, but repeated comments that ADC or the authors were trusted, vetted, and revised the book X many times as requested by the Estate...

... also don't speak to breaking an earlier agreement (whatever the law).

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Just speculation, but in the Introduction to Letters Humphrey
Carpenter says:

Among the omissions is a very large body of letters he
wrote between 1913 and 1918 to Edith Bratt, who was his fiancee
and then his wife; these are highly personal in character...

Given that HC's work was "supervised" by Christopher Tolkien could
this dustup be more obsessive/compulsive micromanaging by CT?
Some sort of mild domestic and/or relatives "dirt" disagreement
which CT could fear would damage dad's reputation?

(Think the scenes in the movie Avalon where the relatives get into
a long-term feud over "you cut the turkey before I got there)."
Something like that?

[Mithalwen]

Tuor you are showing the dangers of selective quotation! The preceding paragraph of the introduction to the letters explains that there had to be careful selection editing due to the sheer volume and that priority was given to what was relevant to the writing, and later states that it was he and not Christopher who made the selection. Loveletters are seldom of interest to the non-participants and may be quite cringeworthy - as Maupassant said " Love has only one story - always the same" . Important to remember that many letters had no more significance than a quick phonecall or text in the days when it was the only form of non-direct communication. Not all letters were significant; not all omissions are sinister.

[Galin]

Let's not forget there have been volumes concerning Tolkien and his work published by Christopher Tolkien, starting with Letters -- through HME, including for example (and relatively recently) Hammond and Scull's detailed Chronology of Tolkien's life.

[Mithalwen]

He also provided some assistance to the BBC radio production at least in matter of pronunciation. However it may be unfair to personalise this and equate the estate estate with Christopher alone. However I think the key phrase is "Tolkien and his work". Christopher has spent over thirty years bringing us his father's work over 15 substantial volumes of it ...are we being greedy to demand access to that which isn't related to his work?

[Bêthberry]

Thank you, Angie G, for elaborating on what was your mandate or authorisation. This must indeed be bitter for you, after all your efforts, as well as frustrating for all concerned.

I must say I find this all extremely sad and disconcerting, particularly because I've become more and more impressed with Christopher Tolkien's work as I read through HoMe. Protecting the privacy of a living author is laudable, particularly in our age of paparazzi and mudrakers and personality-driven analysis. Yet once a writer enters the public domain by publishing, he becomes a legitimate study himself. It's just not possible to pretend that we can return to medieval conditions of manuscripts where all that exists is the text and the author is a great unknown.

When will copyright run out in these matters? Apparently later rather than sooner scholarship will come to terms with the writer behind all that pipe smoke.

And by the way, for those curious, nothing I heard in the Oxonmoot session in any way to my mind reflected badly on JRR or other members of the family. Not that I suspect everything was covered there.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

When will copyright run out in these matters? Apparently later rather than sooner scholarship will come to terms with the writer behind all that pipe smoke.

I believe the UK laws are virtually identical. In the US, anything created after 1978 the copyright lasts during the duration of the author's life + 70 years. Same goes for anything created, but unpublished before 1978.

So, it does appear like we'll have a while yet to wait.