Film Rights to First & Second Age

[Sauron the White]

People would do well to pick up a copy of LOTR and read the Appendicies. Right there in Appendix A, Section I The Numenorean Kings (1) Numenor, there is a wealth of information that gives a filmamker tons of material. The following are mentioned in this section of LOTR:
Feanor and some of his actions, the Eldar, the Silmarils, the Two Trees, Morgoth and some of his actions, Thangorodrim, the exile of Feanor and the emigration of his people to Middle-earth, the war of the Eldar and Edain against Morgoth, the coming of the Edain to Middle-earth. There is listing of Luthien and Beren, Idril and Tuor, the lineage of those people and some of their actions including the taking of a silmaril from the Iron Crown of Morgoth, Dior and Elwing and the keeping of the silmaril. Gondolin and some of its people are listed. There is information about Earendil and his activities.

and then it says this:

"Of these things the full tale, and much else concerning Elves and Men, is told in The SIlmarililon."

And a ton of more information, even more detailed follows.

Consider these dates of progression:
1955 Return of the King is published containing the above information.
1969 JRRT sells films rights to LOTR including the above information
1973 JRRT dies.
1977 Christopher Tolkien oversees publication of a book length SILMARILLION expanding on much of the above information with much more added.

Consider that the film rights to the above information now lie in the hands of New Line Cinema and then Saul Zaentz when they expire in a couple of years.

Consider that Appendix describes these events and directly mentions The Silmarillion as the source of this information.

Consider that JRRT - in his lifetime - never published anything, or copyrighted anything which would change the rights he sold away.

Consider that Christopher Tolkien had published and copyrighted THE SILMARALLION four years after his fathers death and some eight years after the film rights to that material were sold.

Is it not possible, that a sharp legal staff with some innovative thinking, could well claim that they own the films rights to that material and anything published later and made known to the public can be used by them as well since it only details material which they already owned and had use of?

Could it not be legally argued that CT causing to be published the SIL after his fathers death, was the unfair diminishing of rights his father had already sold and were legally owned by others?

Yes, this would indeed be pushing the envelope and an attempt to expand upon what many now believe the film rights are constituted of. And yes, it would be an end run around the idea that THE SILMARALLION cannot be touched by New Line, Zaentz, Jackson or anyone else. But could it happen?

[Lalwendë]

If they tried contesting the estate and used some sneaky way of making films out of the material then it would be no better than stealing.

Would it be worth it? Many Tolkien fans would be upset by something like that and wouldn't go to see the film. And bearing in mind that the material in the Sil is worlds away from the clear-cut narrative of Lord of the Rings (the plot is a gift to a scriptwriter, it's so finely crafted), there's no guarantee it would turn up a good story. Nor is there any guarantee that fantasy films will even be popular in a few years, they're already beginning to die back, that's the nature of fashion. Oh yes, and the impending Credit Crunch - not that many studios will be too keen on risky, expensive films if that hits.

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende... I guess I am asking people here to stop thinking like Tolkien fans for a moment and to put on the guise of an attorney and think legally. Could not a case be made that it was Christopher Tolkien who - in your words - "used some sneaky way" of attempting to take back what his father had already sold?

I am not arguing against his publishing of THE SILMARALLION. I am only asking people to open their minds to a different understanding of the rights that were sold and how they could be utilized.

you also said this

Nor is there any guarantee that fantasy films will even be popular in a few years, they're already beginning to die back, that's the nature of fashion. Oh yes, and the impending Credit Crunch - not that many studios will be too keen on risky, expensive films if that hits.

Fantasy films in the style like LOTR never really were popular in the sense of westerns as a genre in the 30's and 40's or detective films or murder mysteries as a long time Hollywood staple. LOTR was the exception to the rule. And as far as funding, I have a funny feeling that a Tolkien movie helmed by the same people who gave us the first three would have little trouble in garnering the necessary funds to make and market them.

[davem]

Tolkien sold the rights to TH & LOTR & that's all. Sorry - in a way I wish you were right, so that Jackson & New Line could churn out a few more trashy Middle-earth movies, make the money they so desperately need & then, in a few years, we could forget all about movie versions & just get back to the books.

The constant demands of movie fans (most of whom would freak out so badly if you actually handed them one of Tolkien's books to read that their brains would turn to jello & leak out of their ears) for a Hobbit movie & a Turin movie & a Beren & Luthien movie & a Gondolin movie & a (fill in the blank) movie get increasingly depressing.

I'm now so bored by these constant demands for more Middle-earth movies that I can't even summon up the energy to

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien sold the rights to TH & LOTR & that's all. Sorry - in a way I wish you were right, so that Jackson & New Line could churn out a few more trashy Middle-earth movies, make the money they so desperately need & then, in a few years, we could forget all about movie versions & just get back to the books.

Is this a joke post?

Originally Posted by davem

The constant demands of movie fans (most of whom would freak out so badly if you actually handed them one of Tolkien's books to read that their brains would turn to jello & leak out of their ears)

My, my. What an accurate opinion you seem to have about non-purists. This kind of snobbishness is exactly what I dislike about purists. One does not have to be a purist in order to have read the books well(I've read them all multiple times and so far I haven't found any jello in my ears, thank you), and being a purist doesn't elevate you to a higher plane of existence so that you can judge others as you like.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm now so bored by these constant demands for more Middle-earth movies that I can't even summon up the energy to

To what, reply? Then don't.

[Sauron the White]

davem -- it is your knowledge of Tolkien that I respect more than almost any other on this site. In your post you dismissed my ideas saying

Tolkien sold the rights to TH & LOTR & that's all. Sorry

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

While I do not have access to the original sales contracts between JRRT and the film company - UA I think - I imagine it included all pages of LOTR which would be inclusive of the Appendicies. And that includes lots of material from the First and Second Age as well as much Third Age material not in the body of either THE HOBBIT or LOTR itself. Is it your opinion that the currents rights holder does not legally hold those rights from the Appendicies? And what legally would you base that view on if it is your opinion?

[davem]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

Is this a joke post?

No, it was meant to ironic.

My, my. What an accurate opinion you seem to have about non-purists. This kind of snobbishness is exactly what I dislike about purists. One does not have to be a purist in order to have read the books well(I've read them all multiple times and so far I haven't found any jello in my ears, thank you), and being a purist doesn't elevate you to a higher plane of existence so that you can judge others as you like.

I'm sorry, I was posting a response to StW, part of a long running argument between us on the quality (or lack thereof) of the LotR movies & whether there should be any similar fiascos in future.

I am, of course, pleased to hear that you have read the books.

Originally Posted by StW

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

While I do not have access to the original sales contracts between JRRT and the film company - UA I think - I imagine it included all pages of LOTR which would be inclusive of the Appendicies. And that includes lots of material from the First and Second Age as well as much Third Age material not in the body of either THE HOBBIT or LOTR itself. Is it your opinion that the currents rights holder does not legally hold those rights from the Appendicies? And what legally would you base that view on if it is your opinion?

They have a right to use the word 'Silmarillion' in any future adaptation, to mention that The Silmarillion exists, but they don't have the right to use any material not included between the covers of TH & LotR. There is a great deal of material they could use in there, but nothing that isn't in there.

BTW, if you want to know exactly what material is available to use in LotR you could ask zxcvbn - apparently he's read LotR numerous times.

[The Might]

Now, now, zxcvbn everyone is entitled to their opinion and there is no need to be rude.
I don't see this as snobbish, as I am myself aware of many people around me that like LotR, but really know nothing of what is behind it and just go like:
"Wow, cool CGI!"

Now these I really can't call LotR fans, but only LotR film fans, so I believe we must make a distinction here.

As far as what each group wishes it is clear. The film fans all want more films, and as for the ones that also enjoy Tolkien's universe the opinions differ.
I mean, I for one would like to see another movie of LotR, because I personally find them ok. Of course they are not the books, but when I think of many of the good scenes I am happy they were made.

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm sorry, I was posting a response to StW, part of a long running argument between us on the quality (or lack thereof) of the LotR movies & whether there should be any similar fiascos in future.

What I took offence to was you generalising the film lovers as people incapable of reading Tolkien Literature; it gave me the image of a self-proclaimed high-class fellow looking down on what he considered the unwashed masses.

Originally Posted by davem;539667BTW, if you want to know exactly what material is available to use in LotR you could ask [B

zxcvbn[/B] - apparently he's read LotR numerous times.

Glad to see you seem to value my knowledge; sadly I don't have anything more to add than what you've said.

Originally Posted by davem

They have a right to use the word 'Silmarillion' in any future adaptation, to mention that The Silmarillion exists, but they don't have the right to use any material not included between the covers of TH & LotR. There is a great deal of material they could use in there, but nothing that isn't in there.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

They have a right to use the word 'Silmarillion' in any future adaptation, to mention that The Silmarillion exists, but they don't have the right to use any material not included between the covers of TH & LotR. There is a great deal of material they could use in there, but nothing that isn't in there.

Yes, I understand that is the popular and conventional wisdom. And it is close what I believed for a long time now. However, why could it not be said, as part of a legal argument, that Christopher Tolkiens efforts to publish and copyright THE SILMARALLION had the effect of diminishing or restricting the rights that his father had already sold?

I am reminded that the very popular Christmas film, ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE, was first published as a simple Christmas card. The movie rights to it were sold for $10,000. Could the author then write a novelization of the Christmas card, copyright it, and claim that any such film could not be made from it even though the rights had already been sold?

I am not an attorney. But I do think this is a very tricky situation that goes much further than the conventional wisdom that has been around regarding what could be used and what could not be used regarding THE SILMARALLION.

I really think nobody knows for sure and it would take either one huge court case or mutual consent and cooperation for it to be decided. Two weeks ago I floated the idea of cooperation here and it seemed to fall on deaf or protesting ears. Maybe that leaves only one option... and that would be the worst one available.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from davem
Yes, I understand that is the popular and conventional wisdom. And it is close what I believed for a long time now. However, why could it not be said, as part of a legal argument, that Christopher Tolkiens efforts to publish and copyright THE SILMARALLION had the effect of diminishing or restricting the rights that his father had already sold?

If it wasn't for Christopher the Silmarillion would be nothing more than a collection of mouldering papers. And in his will Tolkien left CT absolute control over all his unpublished writings. That CT took those writings & produced something that did not exist up to that point (ie The Silmarillion in a publishable form) gives him absolute legal right over it.

Or could you suggest how New Line, Jackson or Zaentz could have used that material before it was brought together by CT, when according to Tolkien's will no-one but CT had any right to it?

[davem]

Might be useful to have the section from Tolkien's will cited here:

’Upon Trust to allow my son Christopher full access to the same* in order that he may act as my Literary Executor with full power to publish edit alter rewrite or complete any work of mine which may be unpublished at my death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works as he in his absolute discretion may think fit and subject thereto’

*unpublished works

[Mithalwen]

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 ( NB This is not an instruction to any of our legal eagles hoping to rack up billable time). I would doubt it since it would mean that the outline of The Hobbit was sold with LOTR as part of the Appendices, and I seem to recall the film rights were sold separately.

[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.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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.

I wasn't saying it would be a good idea.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Your restated argument is no stronger. You're claiming that UA somehow bought everything to do with Numenor? No. First off, JRRT and thus his estate explicitly retained plenary rights over the written word. A claim based on derivative film rights doesn't affect that in any way, shape or form.

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?

"Rewrite the stuff you already own?" Rubbish. Hollywood owns nothing but the right to make films. They don't own the underlying tales. "Rewrite" is of course bogus as well, since you know as well as I do that this material had been written long, long before 1968. If you want to regard The Silmarillion as something already in existence in 1968 (essentially true), then Tolkien did *not* sell those rights (and, I remind you, copyright applies to unpublished as well as published works). If you want to consider it as something Christopher 'wrote', then the film rights to it weren't even in existence to be sold in 1968, Christopher owns it, and no film rights are for sale.

The claim you're advancing is breathtaking in its audacity: you're asserting that, because the subsidiary material to The Lord of the Rings contains a synopsis of certain stories, that the author was thereby precluded from publishing the full-length originals? Again, that Saul Zaentz somehow 'owns' Numenor to the exclusion of its creator?

You can't get out of it by trying to differentiate the Estate- Tolkien's heirs own precisely as much copyright as he did himself: Christopher from a legal perspective merely stepped into his father's shoes.

It's really very simple: UA bought, and New line holds a temporary license in, the words contained between the covers of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Nothing else. If they want to try to expand the synopsis in the Appendices into an entirely bogus film-script, I suppose they could; but their right to do so is in no way 'diminished' by the fact that the genuine article exists beyond their control.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH - (who should know better)

Your restated argument is no stronger. You're claiming that UA somehow bought everything to do with Numenor? No. First off, JRRT and thus his estate explicitly retained plenary rights over the written word. A claim based on derivative film rights doesn't affect that in any way, shape or form.

Its an unfortunate given in some debates that each side or one side will ignore the actual truth in the others arguement and instead attempt to restate the opposing sides points in language that is far more favorable to themselves and then argue against that. And that is what you have done here.

I never claimed that UA SOMEHOW BOUGHT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH NUMENOR. If I did, please reproduce that section so I can see it with my own two eyes. You are a smart man who should know better. And we have gone round on other issues before and you should know I will not fall for this tactic.

I brought up an issue that many here do not even want to think about, let alone tackle and look at the implications. It is a legal one and not a literary one.

JRRT sold film rights to every single thing in LOTR and HOBBIT to UA before he died. Included in those rights is every word in the Appendicies. Then he died not having published the actual book version of THE SILMARALLION.

Do you agree with those facts?

My point is a simple one that people have not looked at before this - at least I have not seen it discussed. The current rights holders to both LOTR and HOBBIT own a wealth of material from previous Middle-earth history. They own the film rights to that. They do not own the film rights to the published book THE SILMARALLION edited by CT after his fathers death.

The fact is this: the publishing and copyrighting of SIL causes many legal questions to arise since much of what is in there was first published and included in LOTR and to a lesser extent in HOBBIT. If it was me, and I owned those film rights to that material, I would be very concerned that my rights have been severely diminished by CT causing to be published SIL.

Here is the position the rights holders are now in.

1- they can go ahead and include things from the Appendicies in a film and invent all the dialogue, place designs, character designs, and transitional scenes from scratch.

2- they can utilize the fuller descriptions of these things as found in the published SIL without actually filming the book as a movie in much the same way that Jackson used afew things outside of the actual LOTR.

3- they can film something like SIL using anything they want to use claiming that they owned the story first.

If they do any of these things, here is what can happen with each of those actions.

option 1 - critics here and elsewhere - the Print Purist community for lack of a better term - rip on that approach saying over and over again for years and years and years that the films are not authentic, made too much up out of their own heads, were creatures of invention, are NOT the Middle-Earth of JRRT, show no respect for the actual world of JRRT and Middle-earth and are, in short, a bunch of crap.

option 2 - risk being sued by the Estate

option 3 - risk a stonger chance of lawsuit by the Estate

Sounds like lose, lose , lose to me.

So the rights holders own rights which have been rendered problematic in the least and impossible in the extreme.

The diminishment of rights is a practical matter that renders those same rights in great jeapordy.

Some here may not want to look at it that way but I think it is very clear.

The published SIL makes the holders of those film rights sold free and clear by JRRT damned if they do and damned if they do not.

[zxcvbn]

A question I'd like to ask is: exactly how much of the Appendices do New Line have the rights to? I believe that the original editions of the book had smaller Appendices and they were expanded later in the 70s or 80s(which was AFTER Tolkien sold the film rights). I say this because a few years ago I read an article about the Middle Earth MMORPG game where the developers said that they had the rights to only parts of the Appendices.

[Sauron the White]

I have a copy of the first edition US of ROTK which contains the Appendicies. By the time the rights were sold in late 1969, the books would have been updated with any of the changes you refer to - if there were any.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

They do not own the film rights to the published book THE SILMARALLION edited by CT after his fathers death....

You understate the case. They do not own rights to any of the manuscript materials from which CT edited the published Silmarillion, nor any of JRRT's other writings, published or unpublished. These materials were off-limits to UA in 1968 and continued to be so after 1977.

...the publishing and copyrighting of SIL causes many legal questions to arise

You may be under the misapprehension that copyright comes into being when a work is published. It does not. It comes into being at the moment of the work's creation.

...since much of what is in there was first published and included in LOTR and to a lesser extent in HOBBIT. If it was me, and I owned those film rights to that material, I would be very concerned that my rights have been severely diminished by CT causing to be published SIL.

There you're simply wrong. This notion of somehow 'diminishing rights' is nonsense. The film rights incorporate the right to make films of the contents of the Lord of the Rings. Had The Silmarillion never been published, then, arguendo, New Line could make movies based on the Appendices, alone, without reference to the (unpublished) Silmarillion. Post-77, arguendo, New Line could make movies based on the Appendices, alone, without reference to the (published) Silmarillion. Nothing has changed and their rights have not diminished one iota.

Also, please get this straight: the fact that Tolkien died before the Silmarillion was published is entirely immaterial. His heirs have just as much right to it as he did himself, and you can't get anywhere by claiming that CT and his father are different persons.

Film rights are derivative. They exist only in conjunction with the existence of a specific written work, and have no bearing of any sort whatsoever on future related written works by the author. As stated, your argument would lead logically to the conclusion that Saul Zaentz held veto power over The Silmarillion's publication! Zaentz bought rights to make use of the sketch history of the Elder Days. He did not buy all rights to the First Age.

[Sauron the White]

Where did I say anything about the holder of film rights deserving a veto over publication of THE SIL or anything else?

There is a huge legal difference between a copyright and a legally registered copyright which attaches protections of law and introduces certain legal remedies and penalties. Huge difference.

The facts are undeniable in that JRRT sold the rights to every single word contained in LOTR and HOBBIT in 1969. That includes the Appendicies. Then, later after his death, his heirs exercise their legal rights and cause to be published SIL. Fine. Nobody is disputing their right to do that.

But the problem is that the publication of SIL complicates material contained in it that is already owned for other purposes by UA.

The writer who has sold more books to screen than anyone else today is Stephen King. King does not complicate the arrangement by including the synopsis to his future books as part of his current ones. He does not sell the film rights to THE SHINING with inclusion of Appendicies which outline and describe the content and characters of his next several books.

JRRT did not do this. He sold the film rights to LOTR and H with all its inclusion of other material, Appendicies included. Then his heirs, took the foundation of that material, used additional writings by JRRT, and caused to be published a book length SILMARALLION.

Please answer me this question. If you are UA - or anyone else who holds those rights - what are you now suppose to do with them? You thought you owned something but now find out that it has been materially changed and altered makign it difficult for you to exercise the rights you paid for and were granted.

Again, and this has been ignored, here are your three options and results of exercising those options:

1- they can go ahead and include things from the Appendicies in a film and invent all the dialogue, place designs, character designs, and transitional scenes from scratch.

2- they can utilize the fuller descriptions of these things as found in the published SIL without actually filming the book as a movie in much the same way that Jackson used afew things outside of the actual LOTR.

3- they can film something like SIL using anything they want to use claiming that they owned the story first.

If they do any of these things, here is what can happen with each of those actions.

option 1 - critics here and elsewhere - the Print Purist community or anyone who can read and compare versions, - rip on that approach saying over and over again for years and years and years that the films are not authentic, made too much up out of their own heads, were creatures of invention, are NOT the Middle-Earth of JRRT, show no respect for the actual world of JRRT and Middle-earth and are, in short, a bunch of crap.

option 2 - risk being sued by the Estate

option 3 - risk a stonger chance of lawsuit by the Estate

Please address this very real problem.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It's not a "very real problem". It's a completely artificial problem created from whole cloth.

There is a huge legal difference between a copyright and a legally registered copyright which attaches protections of law and introduces certain legal remedies and penalties. Huge difference.

No. There isn't. None. The only difference registration makes is that it's much easier to prove that the work in question existed as of that date. Period. The legal remedies and penalties exist notwithstanding as soon as the creative work reaches 'any tangible form.'

This I think is what underlies your argument. You're trying to claim that The Silmarillion somehow came into being post-68 and therefore somehow illegitimately compromised what UA had bought.

The film-rights holders have precisely the same rights they had in 1968. You're trying to argue that the publication of an Official Version might invite invidious comparisons to a made-for-Hollywood Crap Version. Well, it might. Tough.

You thought you owned something but now find out that it has been materially changed and altered makign it difficult for you to exercise the rights you paid for and were granted.

Once again: in selling film rights to LR, Tolkien *in no way whatsoever* compromised his rights to write whatever he bloody well pleased. He could had he chosen to do so have rewritten the end of the Third Age so as to make Sauron a hero fighting Gandalf's evil plot to corner the illicit pipe-weed trade. And UA/Zaentz/New Line would have no- repeat, NO- say in it.

Again- your argument boils down to a claim that since Zaentz has a claim on the Appendix synopsis, he effectively has a right to protect whatever value that claim might have from 'diminishment' by the original author writing futher about his own fictional world! Nonsense.

To adress your three lose-lose-lose propositions- they were *always* lose-lose-lose. Option one is the empty right to invent a bogus non-Tolkien plot, which readers would assail. Quite true. It doesn't become any more bogus than it already was when the Author's canonical account appears.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

Again- your argument boils down to a claim that since Zaentz has a claim on the Appendix synopsis, he effectively has a right to protect whatever value that claim might have from 'diminishment' by the original author writing futher about his own fictional world! Nonsense.

Why do you, an otherwise intelligent person, persist in deliberately twisting and misstating my words? Where did I say that the author - JRRT - should or could be restrained or stopped from writing about his own fictional world.

Please.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

That's exactly what you're saying. Disguised perhaps by an assertion that it's Christopher as if that made a shred of difference, legally.

You're objecting that Zaentz' rights are somehow 'diminished' because Tolkien-and-his-Estate had the audacity to publish additional material which was referenced in the Appendices. In other words, you're arguing that Zaentz has a 'right' to prevent that diminishment- which leads inevitably to some claim of a veto.

The alternative is equally preposterous- that Zaentz somehow has unfettered rights to the Silmarillion simply because the briefest precis of some of its content appeared in the LR.

Or what alternative remedy for this nonexistent problem have I overlooked?

[Sauron the White]

William .. the use of the strawman does not serve you well. Where in any of my posts on this subject do I state that Christopher should have been stopped, restrained, restricted, or otherwise prohibited from publishing THE SILMARALLION?

In fact, I said the direct opposite. I stated that I was glad he did so.

here it is for your benefit

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.

How can you construe that to constitute advocacy of prevention of publishing?

Where did I say that I supported any effort by Saul Zaentz to do the same?

I have stated before and will restate again in slightly different terms so perhaps we can better understand each other.

If lawyers for the Estate were asked to write down the rights regarding the Silmarallion or other material touched upon in the Appendicies, what do you think they would have to say about that?

And now lets put the same shoe on the other foot. If lawyers for Zaentz were asked to do exactly the same thing regarding their rights, what do you think they would have to say about that?

I do not need an answer.

What I would like is an admission that there is a high probability that those two lists would NOT BE THE SAME. I would speculate that the Estate would claim the film rights owned are far more limited than Zaentz would claim. And I speculate that the rights claimed by Zaentz would be much broader than those that would be conceded by the Estate.

Why would this be so? And this directly leads into the discussion here over and over again as to why we - who have no vested financial interest in either one - cannot agree about who owns what and what they can do with it.

The answer is the selling of the rights by JRRT and the eventual publishing of much of that same material by CT years later. Both give the holders a legal claim.

Right now, today even, minds other than ours are trying to comb these materials to see what they will use in two upcoming movies about Middle-earth. And I am willing to speculate that a few years down the road their will be more heated debate about who did what and what rights were violated.

This is not a question of one party having all the rights and the other party having none. Clearly, both parties have rights that can be said to interlock and overlap.
I would think it incumbent on both parties to sit down and attempt some mutual satisfactory understanding of both of their respective set of rights.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

This is not a question of one party having all the rights and the other party having none. Clearly, both parties have rights that can be said to interlock and overlap.
I would think it incumbent on both parties to sit down and attempt some mutual satisfactory understanding of both of their respective set of rights.

Why is it 'incumbent'? As far as I'm aware the only person arguing, or even suggesting, this is yourself.

Are any actual, Primary world, lawyers currently employed to fight this one out? Has anyone, either on Zaentz's or the Tolkien Estate's side even suggested there is any conflict over who has the right to what?

It seems to me that, outside of your own little Secondary world, where this supposed legal battle seems to have taken on the epic dimensions of the Dagor Dagorath, this is pretty much academic, because Zaentz seems totally uninterested in claiming the material.

[Sauron the White]

Given that today was the official announcement of the next two Middle Earth movies, and given that there will be material used in these films that has been and will be debated about, yes, I do think it is incumbent on both parties to work this out in a rational fashion.

Or perhaps one party would much rather simply go ahead and do as they please and the other party will then carp and complain about how they should not have done it. But both parties will stay far away from either a negotiating table or a courtroom so they can both maintain the rightness of thier respective positions. And their respective supporters around the world can continue the same discussions without any resolution.

And both can be comfortable in that knowing that the other side is just as much afraid of a final answer.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Perhaps, Sauron, it would help if you clarified what remedy for this percieved violation of Zaentz' rights is appropriate.

I may be wrong, but I think you'll suggest that Zaentz or his licensee have the right to make use of anything and everything in the Middle-earth canon, because they somehow aquired rights in it all simply by buying rights to the Appendices.

The answer is the selling of the rights by JRRT and the eventual publishing of much of that same material by CT years later. Both give the holders a legal claim

No, they don't. UA purchased the rights to make films based on what appears between the covers of LR. The existence of the Silmarillion at that time, or its hypothetical publication by JRRT himself before or after the UA deal, or its eventual publication by CRT, do not alter those rights one jot or tittle.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Given that today was the official announcement of the next two Middle Earth movies, and given that there will be material used in these films that has been and will be debated about, yes, I do think it is incumbent on both parties to work this out in a rational fashion.

What is to be worked out? This dispute is all going on in your head. Do you have any evidence at all that either side is arguing over this?

[Sauron the White]

WCH - when two parties both believe that they have some claim to the same property, they can do several things including
a- continue to insist they are right and ignore the other party hoping they are of like mind
b- attack the other party and fight it out any way you have to
c- sit down like intelligent and reasonable people and work it out

Given that these movies are announced and soon to be reality, I strongly favor option c. The announcement of these two films with intended use of material above and beyond the storyline of HOBBIT or LOTR makes this a very real matter.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

What is to be worked out? This dispute is all going on in your head. Do you have any evidence at all that either side is arguing over this?

Yesterday, you could have been correct. But today things have changed making this matter one of reality.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

WCH - when two parties both believe that they have some claim to the same property,

THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF YOUR FEVERED IMAGINATION.

YOU URGENTLY REQUIRE A NICE CUP OF TEA & A SIT DOWN.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Great. I believe I have an ownership claim to the White House. Therefore I can

a- continue to insist I am right and ignore the US Government hoping they are of like mind
b- attack the Government and fight it out any way I have to
c- sit down like intelligent and reasonable people and work it out

Please!


Why on earth should the Estate negotiate a compromise over rights which are indisputably theirs? Zaentz/New Line have no claim outside the covers of The Lord of the Rings. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

[Sauron the White]

White House??? NO - this is this. This is not something else.

I truly hope and pray that the next few years of news regarding these movies falls on the deaf ears of both davem and WHC. I would hate to read here how rumored inclusion of certain events in those movies are risking lawsuit because the film companies "does not own those rights" or they are "going beyond what they own". And I never, ever want to hear from the so called Tolkien scholarly community, doing shadow work for their friends in the Estate, about how the upcoming movies are a travesty and went beyond their scope.

Fat chance.