from davem
Quote:
|
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.