Another one bites the dust....

[Elf_NFB]

I read the post. It strikes me as someone with a sob story to get a buck out of you. Using quotes from a work published illegally and crying that the appropriate copyright holder won't give you the time of day is despicable. He can certainly post his work as a free epub anonymously on the internet if he is so worried about this terribly important work not being read. yes.. that was sarcasm.

[davem]

Great as my love Tolkien's work is, I have never had much sympathy with the copyright thing - given the sheer degree of 'theft' of earlier writers' work he indulged in. If Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, the Eddas, the Arthurian legends and most works of myth, legend and folklore he 'drew on', was 'inspired by', or that 'influenced' him had been covered by copyright, and the holders had been as eager to protect their rights as Tolkien's heirs are he quite probably wouldn't have published any middle earth stories at all.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

Great as my love Tolkien's work is, I have never had much sympathy with the copyright thing - given the sheer degree of 'theft' of earlier writers' work he indulged in. If Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, the Eddas, the Arthurian legends and most works of myth, legend and folklore he 'drew on', was 'inspired by', or that 'influenced' him had been covered by copyright, and the holders had been as eager to protect their rights as Tolkien's heirs are he quite probably wouldn't have published any middle earth stories at all.

Tolkien's work being influenced by earlier writers doesn't seem quite the same as someone expressly writing (or re-writing) a book about a popular author in order to cash in on that author's resurgent popularity.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Inziladun;6815'in76

Tolkien's work being influenced by earlier writers doesn't seem quite the same as someone expressly writing (or re-writing) a book about a popular author in order to cash in on that author's resurgent popularity.

I think with Tolkien 'influence' always has to be in quotes. He basically lifted images, characters and whple scenes -.often without even bothering to change the names (cf the dwarf names in TH). If another author tried that kind of thing with Tolkien's writings the Estate would have a legal lynch mob out. I don't have a problem with that kind of 'borrowing' personally, I just find it hypocritical of the Estate given that far, far more than most authors Tolkien drew on the works of other minds.

Recall that the Estate threatened legal action against a Canadian children's summer camp for their use of the words Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit - none of which Tolkien actually invented.

As far as this case goes, the Grotta bio was in print for years, and had done zero harm to Tolkien or
his work. This seems a bit of sour grapes, given CT's original failure top prevent it going ahead. It's not even as if Grotta intended to charge for it.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Recall that the Estate threatened legal action against a Canadian children's summer camp for their use of the words Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit - none of which Tolkien actually invented.

No, it was because the camp named itself "Rivendell."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

He basically lifted images, characters and whple scenes -.often without even bothering to change the names (cf the dwarf names in TH)

Pleeze. Lifted "characters" by borrowing 1000-year old names? Care to tell us how Thorin, Bifur, Dori and the rest are "characters" from The Prophecy of the Sybil?

Whole scenes? Really? Anything more substantial than Bilbo's lifting of a cup a la Beowulf?




----------------------
A great part of the Estate's remit is quality control. When a book is issued under the JRRT monogram- effectively the Estate's imprimatur - the book can be assumed right off the bat to be *good:* Shippey, Hammond & Scull, Garth, Rateliff: all printed with the Seal of Approval, and all representing the very best in Tolkien scholarship. The Estate doesn't license just any old crap (unlike Zaentz/Wingnut).

The "Mirkwood" novel was tripe, and I cannot blame the Estate for not wanting to provide a Nihil Obstat, any more than I blame them for blocking "sequels" and other fan-fic.

The Estate *did* btw take action against Grotta-Kurska; the original edition contains blank pages marked (very cattily) "redacted for legal reasons"

-----------------

The Estate didn't "suppress" the Hilary biography; it withheld permission to use JRRT's letters, after which the authors decided not to publish without them.

------------------


NB: Tolkien didn't invent hobbits? Please don't go back to that Denham Tract stuff....

[Boromir88]

This one (unlike the Zaentz lawsuit) looks fairly clear cut...

Grotta exploited a loophole in the copyright laws of the 70s to get his biography (I hesitate to even use that term...a worthy biographer wouldn't let a personal grudge carry into the biography he's writing) pushed through. Good for him. The loophole no longer exists today...tough luck, but good riddance.

Anyway, the TE may be stingy when it comes to allowing access to certain papers/letters JRRT wrote, but they're excersing legal rights no differently than WB, Disney, Zaentz or anyone else would. And would you let any hack writer access to your own papers (or papers you're the legal guardian of) who wanted it?

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

---------------------
A great part of the Estate's remit is quality control. When a book is issued under the JRRT monogram- effectively the Estate's imprimatur - the book can be assumed right off the bat to be *good:* Shippey, Hammond & Scull, Garth, Rateliff: all printed with the Seal of Approval, and all representing the very best in Tolkien scholarship. The Estate doesn't license just any old crap (unlike Zaentz/Wingnut).

The "Mirkwood" novel was tripe, and I commit blame the Estate for not wanting to provide a Nihil Obstat, any more than I blame them for blocking "sequels" and other fan-fic.

The Estate *did* btw take action against Grotta-Kurska; the original edition contains blank pages marked (very cattily) "redacted for legal reasons"

-----------------

The Estate didn't "suppress" the Hilary biography; it withheld permission to use JRRT's letters, after which the authors decided not to publish without them.

------------------


NB: Tolkien didn't invent hobbits? Please don't go back to that Denham Tract stuff....

Pretty dire quality control if you're correct as most of those authors would support my statement that Tolkien drew very liberally on the sources I mentioned. Hammond and Scull's frankly creepy literary stalking job I leave in the gutter-in spite of CT's approval of it. Also, whatever the merits our otherwise of the Mirkwood novel I don't think the estate should have the right to decide whether a book should be published based purely on literary quality.

As for the Hilary bio, my understanding was that they wanted to prevent any reference to events mentioned in the letters, not publication of the texts.

I do like the way you bring in the Denham Tracts as a way of dismissing their use in the argument, when it is the main evidence that Tolkien didn't invent hobbits.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

The Estate didn't "suppress" the Hilary biography; it withheld permission to use JRRT's letters, after which the authors decided not to publish without them.

From what I can remember, the Hilary Tolkien biography was a bit more complicated.

Originally the authors (Angela Gardner and Neil Holford) worked with Hilary's family, and got their permission to use correspondences between Hilary and JRRT. Unaware that they needed the Tolkien Estate's permission to use some of the letters, and not Hilary's family.

The authors further attempted to rework their biography in accordance to the wishes of the Estate, and paraphrase when needed to not breach copyright laws. Only until it became abundantly clear the Estate wanted 20 pages completely removed did the authors decide not to publish the Hilary Tolkien biography.

It may seem like nothing "what's 20 pages amongst several hundred?" But everyone has to know you can't just remove 20 pages of material and expect to get the same story, or for the story to hold the same meaning. What would Tolkien's reaction be if I got lawyers to use copyright laws and had The Old Forest chapter (or any assortment of 20 pages) removed from The Fellowship?

As much as I can understand protecting quality and artistic integrity, you really can't make that case with the Hilary Tolkien biography the Estate went after. Gardner and Holford were proper biographers who went through the work, research, and permissions from Hilary's family. And after finding out they needed the Estate's permission to use certain material, they tried to rework the biography in a manner that would respect the Estate's wishes.

I'm afraid that one was a case where the Estate used copyright law to halt the work of two respected authors. Whether it would have been a worthy biography about Hilary Tolkien, well I suppose we won't know, but personally...you can't make the protecting artistic integrity argument and it was unfortunate to see the Estate would use copyright law in that way.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Recall that the Estate threatened legal action against a Canadian children's summer camp for their use of the words Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit - none of which Tolkien actually invented.

No, it was because the camp named itself "Rivendell."

But why did they go after a non-profit (and that's a precise legal term in Canada) camp for children? Particularly when there are any number of other companies and organizations, some of which are clearly profit-based, that call themselves Rivendell?

Do a google search. There's a bike company, a Christian retreat, an organic farm, a golf club/course, a horse farm, a radio broadcast enterprise, a software company, a ski company, holiday cottages (in Norfolk), a fantasy radio station, a construction company, a bookstore, a mountain equipment company, a guest house in Namibia, an environmental services company. Some of them are recent; others, quite old.

Why go after a children's camp, particularly one designed to give city kids whose parents cannot afford summer camp a place to experience the joys of summer camp? Have any of these other enterprises been subject to legal charges by the Estate?

EDIT: Note, I'm not talking specifically about Grotta's book because I haven't read it. Yet it does seem strange that the Estate's lawyers are attempting to control scholarship. Other authors do not have an Estate authorising what scholarship is acceptable. Scholarship is supposed to be free, not controlled by one entity. Some of the thing the Estate wishes to defend I can understand and approve of, but there are some very strange things as well.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Why go after a children's camp, particularly one designed to give city kids whose parents cannot afford summer camp a place to experience the joys of summer camp? Have any of these other enterprises been subject to legal charges by the Estate?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Yet it does seem strange that the Estate's lawyers are attempting to control scholarship. Other authors do not have an Estate authorising what scholarship is acceptable. Scholarship is supposed to be free, not controlled by one entity. Some of the thing the Estate wishes to defend I can understand and approve of, but there are some very strange things as well.

It seems clear from Christopher's own writings, as well as those of his father, that JRRT's work occupies a unique position in his heart. He and his father seem to have had a special bond that was rooted at least partly in the latter's written work.
Since his father's death, CT appears to have had the same goal all along: to preserve artistic integrity of JRRT's writings, and keep a lid on their commercialization.

Clearly his motives do not lie in greed. Instead, I see an ardent desire to frustrate those that he sees as exploiting his father's work in any way. The renewed popularity of Tokien's works undoubtedly sparked dollar signs in the minds of many, and for every news story we hear about the Estate slamming the door on a children's camp, I wonder if there aren't a hundred more that could be written about someone wanting to open a drug rehab facility called "Eressëa", or an shanty county fair haunted house named "Moria".

Just maybe, the Estate thinks it just isn't worth trying to sort out the innocent uses of copyrighted material from the less-than savory. I'm not saying that's always a good approach, but CT is an old man, after all. I could understand if that's his thinking.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by davem

I think with Tolkien 'influence' always has to be in quotes. He basically lifted images, characters and whple scenes -.often without even bothering to change the names (cf the dwarf names in TH). If another author tried that kind of thing with Tolkien's writings the Estate would have a legal lynch mob out. I don't have a problem with that kind of 'borrowing' personally, I just find it hypocritical of the Estate given that far, far more than most authors Tolkien drew on the works of other minds.

Well, who holds the copyright of a folk tale? I'm not an expert when it comes to the question of who published what and when and how, but it seems to me that borrowing from folklore and myths doesn't infringe on any copyright. It's not like they belong to anyone.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Just maybe, the Estate thinks it just isn't worth trying to sort out the innocent uses of copyrighted material from the less-than savory.

It goes beyond that; it is in fact an imperative created by the nature of trademrk law. You see, a trademark has to be enforced if you want to keep it- if you don't assert ownership continually then the argument can be made, successfully, that the trademark has passed into the public domain as happened to, for two examples, Nylon and Aspirin. Xerox' lawyers were notorious for hurling C&Ds at any and everyone who used "Xerox" as a synonymn for "photocopy," and pretty much succeeded in suppressing it- and it was for that reason. All that's necessary to make such a case is that the trademark-holder has known or even should have known about unauthorized use, and done nothing about it.








--------------------------------------------
Hammond and Scull's frankly creepy literary stalking job I leave in the gutter

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Addendum: this goes back a very long time: the first edition of Dungeons & Dragons included Hobbits, Ents and Balrogs; the Estate forced the change in the 2d ed. to Halflings, Treants and "Type VI Demons (Balor)." Elves, Dwarves and Orcs got through, while retaining heavy Tolkien aspects- but orcs, justified as an obscure A-S word for unspecified monsters, became green with pig-snouts rather than Tolkienian Orcs.

Back to Zaentz: up until a couple of years ago, Zaentz' cash-milking operation was called "Tolkien Enterprises"- and far, far too often not only the Intertubes but clueless "professional" media reported Zaentz' near-constant suits against assorted "Hobbit Cafes" etc as originating with the Tolkien Estate. The name was abruptly changed to "Middle-earth Enterprises," without explanation; but I suspect it had to do with the Estate exercising pressure.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

It goes beyond that; it is in fact an imperative created by the nature of trademrk law. You see, a trademark has to be enforced if you want to keep it- if you don't assert ownership continually then the argument can be made, successfully, that the trademark has passed into the public domain as happened to, for two examples, Nylon and Aspirin. Xerox' lawyers were notorious for hurling C&Ds at any and everyone who used "Xerox" as a synonymn for "photocopy," and pretty much succeeded in suppressing it- and it was for that reason. All that's necessary to make such a case is that the trademark-holder has known or even should have known about unauthorized use, and done nothing about it.

So why do all the other entities continue to use the name Rivendell and presumably have not been approached by the Estate? In fact, given how many do use the name, it would appear that for all intents and purposes the name has passed into the public domain.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

It is the the Saul Zaentz company that owns and guards the trademarks as WCH has pointed out , and it is worth pointing out since it is tediously and somewhat odiously fashionable to blame CRT personally for all these incidents.

Mithalwen, according to the new reports, it was the Estate which contacted the children's camp: Tolkien Estate makes Alta. camp drop name

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Great as my love Tolkien's work is, I have never had much sympathy with the copyright thing - given the sheer degree of 'theft' of earlier writers' work he indulged in. If Beowulf, the Mabinogion, the Kalevala, the Eddas, the Arthurian legends and most works of myth, legend and folklore he 'drew on', was 'inspired by', or that 'influenced' him had been covered by copyright, and the holders had been as eager to protect their rights as Tolkien's heirs are he quite probably wouldn't have published any middle earth stories at all.

Surely all of those would have been long out of copyright in Tolkien's lifetime. And he was hardly capitalising on the vast popular success of those works.

Bet that was the instant reaction at Unwins... based on the Kalevala? Kerching!!!!!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Taking recent history into account it looks like banning things is the Estate's default position when it comes to anything it doesn't like.

Care to expound on that "recent history?"

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Taking recent history into account it looks like banning things is the Estate's default position when it comes to anything it doesn't like.

Care to expound on that "recent history?"

The attempt to ban the Mirkwood novel, the actual ban on the Hilary biography and the threatened legal action against the Canadian children's camp.