Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
I would have thought that, since the visual companion was a companion to the film rather than the book, the right to publish would derive from the film or merchandising rights rather than the book rights. So I am not sure why the estate's permission was required in this case. Then again, I suppose it counts as a "literary work" (  ) and therefore falls within the book rights. In which case the estate's permission will have been required for every publication which "tells the story" (as opposed to telling of the making of the film etc). |
It sounds like the kind of nice distinction that could rack up a lot of billable time for the legal profession. The book did make clear that dialogue quotes are from the film not the book. I am not sure that the estate would necessarily have benefitted directly - certainly not from film advertising although of course they would have had increased sales of the original books. And of course there was a film tie-in edition of the book .... so it is a peculiar situation.
I would be surprised if the Estate could have rights to the word "Shire" since it is in the dictionary .....