Tolkien Estate blocks new Tolkien book

[Nerwen]

[Note: this is a reply to a deleted post]

Davem, thanks for the clarification; however, I don't think we're quite approaching this from the same angle. I'm aware that copyright laws were never intended to block information, and I generally think it's very bad indeed when they're used for that purpose, as has been all too often the case recently (especially with their misbegotten internet offspring, the DMCA). However, I think what we're talking about is a grey area. There are considerations other than either profit or defamation– I mean, I think it reasonable if a deceased person's family doesn't want some private material published simply because it happens to be embarrassing in a sub-defamatory way, or indeed just because it is private. Again, I know this wasn't the original purpose of copyright law. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's wrong to use a law for another purpose than what it was meant for, if that purpose is not in itself wrong.

All the above, though, relates to your own hypothesis that the Estate's real motivation is to suppress some juicy bit of scandal... which remains just an hypothesis, anyway.

Having said all that, I do consider that giving people permission to use material, then withdrawing that permission at a point where it makes everything they've done pointless, is indeed "morally questionable". If that's what Tolkien Estate did, then they were in the wrong.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

[ Again, I know this wasn't the original purpose of copyright law. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's wrong to use a law for another purpose than what it was meant for, if that purpose is not in itself wrong.

And I think that's what's gotten us all a long way down a very slippery slope with lots of nasty sharp rocks waiting at the bottom. There are constant attempts to extend the term & nature of 'Copyright' - some are demanding that copyright to be up for sale to the highest bidder & extended indefinitely, so that companies could purchase copyrighted material & keep it out of the public domain forever. That would be be concerning enough if we were dealing only with works of art, but when it includes personal letters & documents, then the danger to society is immense. Copyright is a bit of a bugbear with me (I check out Techdirt at least once everyday!) & my hackles rise at the casual use & abuse of it.

All the above, though, relates to your own hypothesis that the Estate's real motivation is to suppress some juicy bit of scandal... which remains just an hypothesis, anyway.

.

Well, I could be flip & say - 'Who's fault's that? The Estate are not offering up any real explanation of what they don't want 'out there' - they are simply saying 'We own the copyright & we are not allowing this material out'. If this wasn't the Tolkien Estate, but Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation I don't think my reastion would be uncommon. In other words, there's a sense of 'Its the TOLKIEN Estate, therefore their behaviour can only be good & wise & done entirely for the best reasons. My response - yes, very probably. I don't think they're trying to cover up some terrible scandal that would shock the Tolkien community to the core & lead to public burnings of his books & himself in effigy. I suspect its more just a bit of mildly embarrassing stuff about Father Francis' prediliction for juggling stoats or some such.

Actually, no, it must be something beyond the range of silly but a bit embarrassing, because I doubt the authors & publishers of this book would have any issue leaving out material like that. Let's remember they have spent years researching & writing a scholarly work about Tolkien's brother & brought it right to the point of publication & clearly feel that the story cannot be told without the inclusion of this material. The Estate are making out this is just 20-odd pages out of 300 & its no big deal to remove it. The authors, after all their hard work feel that without it the book is missing an element so vital that there is no point publishing it. If I step back from an attitude of 'Oh, its the TOLKIEN Estate so there can't possibly be anything bad in what they're doing here' & look at this objectively, I see very big. very rich organisation preventing the publication of a serious work of scholarship because it contains information said very big, very rich organisation does not want in the public domain. That may just be material which is a bit embarrassing rather than deeply scandalous, but stopping this book going ahead for that reason is a bit of a scandal in itself (IMHO)

[Nerwen]

[Note: replying to a deleted post]

Originally Posted by davem

And I think that's what's gotten us all a long way down a very slippery slope with lots of nasty sharp rocks waiting at the bottom. There are constant attempts to extend the term & nature of 'Copyright' - some are demanding that copyright to be up for sale to the highest bidder & extended indefinitely, so that companies could purchase copyrighted material & keep it out of the public domain forever. That would be be concerning enough if we were dealing only with works of art, but when it includes personal letters & documents, then the danger to society is immense.

As I said in my first post, there are situations when it would clearly would be vital for private documents to be made public, and where this should override all considerations of copyright and privacy. If there isn't any legal provision in such a case, then there certainly ought to be. But that doesn't mean those considerations shouldn't otherwise exist. You apparently see this as an "all or nothing" deal; I don't. (I'd like to use the term "slippery slope" to describe your argument here, but, heck, you beat me to it!)

Still, Davem if society collapses into a bloody dictatorship as a result of people not being automatically able to read each others' diaries without permission, you can always blame me.

Originally Posted by davem

Actually, no, it must be something beyond the range of silly but a bit embarrassing, because I doubt the authors & publishers of this book would have any issue leaving out material like that. Let's remember they have spent years researching & writing a scholarly work about Tolkien's brother & brought it right to the point of publication & clearly feel that the story cannot be told without the inclusion of this material. The Estate are making out this is just 20-odd pages out of 300 & its no big deal to remove it. The authors, after all their hard work feel that without it the book is missing an element so vital that there is no point publishing it. If I step back from an attitude of 'Oh, its the TOLKIEN Estate so there can't possibly be anything bad in what they're doing here' & look at this objectively, I see very big. very rich organisation preventing the publication of a serious work of scholarship because it contains information said very big, very rich organisation does not want in the public domain. That may just be material which is a bit embarrassing rather than deeply scandalous, but stopping this book going ahead for that reason is a bit of a scandal in itself (IMHO)

I'm sorry, but look, unless there's something you haven't told us, you don't have any evidence for this, have you? Just your own conjectures. As far as any of us know, this is just a straight copyright issue. And as far as I'm concerned, you and I have been talking about a purely hypothetical situation.

Once again, I'm not even trying to defend Tolkien Estate here. I'm certainly not taking the attitude that 'Oh, its the TOLKIEN Estate so there can't possibly be anything bad in what they're doing here'. I've already said it sounds like they may well be being pointlessly obstructive. I just think it's also possible to look at things "objectively" without making a foray into what, if you'll forgive me for saying this, is starting to look rather like borderline conspiracy-theory territory. (More in the phrasing than anything else, though– cf the passage I bolded.) And anyway, as I've said several times already, I do not believe that a moral duty exists to make any and all material public. It just depends.

Again, from my point of view the possible ethical violation here lies in giving permission and then withdrawing it for no good reason, wasting the authors' time and effort in the process.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

I noticed that one of the authors has posted a comment here:

http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/...ode=0&start=10

In particular, they say:

"We wanted to include various letters in the book, some from members of Ronald's family, or failing that to give some account of their contents to illustrate how close and loving the family was and what they talked to each other about. This has been the sticking point that it has not been possible to overcome thus far.

I should also point out that the Estate have not been demanding money for permissions or anything like that."

AND

"The publication of the book had to be cancelled as there was not time to make further changes to the book and get it printed and bound in time for the launch. What happens in the future I really don’t know. Only time will tell."

So the book may still be published in the future.

The problem the Estate has is the publication of the letters - either in their full form or in paraphrased form.

Some have suggested that it is not a violation of copyright to paraphrase material - but that depends. For example, it is not a violation of copyright to do a 1000 word paraphrase of The Lord Of The Rings, but it would definitely violate copyright to do a 1000 page paraphrase of The Lord Of The Rings, because that would simply be an obvious rewrite of the book, which most definitely would not be allowed!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfTheHalflings

For example, it is not a violation of copyright to do a 1000 word paraphrase of The Lord Of The Rings, but it would definitely violate copyright to do a 1000 page paraphrase of The Lord Of The Rings, because that would simply be an obvious rewrite of the book, which most definitely would not be allowed!

And yet, I'm sure I've read quite a few fantasy novels that fit that description pretty closely...

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

(...) Again, from my point of view the possible ethical violation here lies in giving permission and then withdrawing it for no good reason, wasting the authors' time and effort in the process.

The Estate notes that ADC agreed not to publish the letters or paraphrase them, and then did the latter anyway. I'm wondering why anyone was given access to this material in the first place -- mistake on someone's part? Did party A assume something party B had not actually agreed to?

It seems possible that this material was provided as research to generally help with an accurate description of familial relationships -- without however using it in a very specific way, such as publication or close paraphrasing, noting the Estate's statement includes...


'... that were reproduced virtually verbatim.'

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galin

The Estate notes that ADC agreed not to publish the letters or paraphrase them, and then did the latter anyway.

Sorry, I should have read that more carefully.

Originally Posted by Galin

I'm wondering why anyone was given access to this material in the first place -- mistake on someone's part? Did party A assume something party B had not actually agreed to?

Well, it happens. Or perhaps they adopted a "write now, get permission later" approach since they had little idea at the outset what material they would end up including in the final version anyway. It's not an uncommon shortcut in some fields (don't know about biography), but it can lead to grief.

[Mithalwen]

Only time now to answer the easy point, Galin, the access issue is explained simply by the fact that copyright does not go hand in hand with ownership of the physical object. Copyright unless transferred belongs to the writer (unless they are commissioned or employed). So with a letter which by its nature usually is parted from its writer, the copyright stays with the writer and the manuscript goes to the recipient who is the legal owner of the artefact but has no right to publish the contents. So in this instance Hilary's descendent are the legal owners of the letters and of course may show them to whomsoever they wish. However noone may publish the letters without the consent of the estate. So the estate has no control over access to this material but it does over publication.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Galin

The Estate notes that ADC agreed not to publish the letters or paraphrase them, and then did the latter anyway.

I should note that I'm not sure exactly when ADC agreed to this, but that in any case they appear to have agreed at some point, and yet paraphrased the letters anyway. And so far at least, no one from the publishing company has spoken to this (that I know of).

That said, I don't know that the Estate ever agreed to using these letters in the specific ways that they object to in their statement, thus my...

It seems possible that this material was provided as research to generally help with an accurate description of familial relationships -- without however using it in a very specific way, such as publication or close paraphrasing, noting the Estate's statement includes '... that were reproduced virtually verbatim.'

Ah didn't see your post Mithalwen... thanks for the information.

[Mithalwen]

Galin I think that my cross post will answer that point. The Estate would not have provided access then quixotically withheld permission. Access to the letters was not theirs to grant. If you look at the Trust accounts you will see that some correspondents have returned or bequested their letters from JRRT to the estate but most letters he wrote will have stayed with the recipients as is the normal course of things. Now an interesting question might be if when a letter comes up for sale and it is photographed for sale say on E-bay if copyright is infringed if the contents can be read. NB None of the Downer legal eagles should take that as instruction since I haven't a bean!

Must pop out and then decide if I can persuade a certain terrier to yield his rat

[Galin]

Yes it did Mithalwen, thanks!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

If you look at the Trust accounts you will see that some correspondents have returned or bequested their letters from JRRT to the estate

For some reason I've thought for most of this discussion that that's what happened with these particular letters, but I'm not sure why, come to think of it.

This is now starting to sound to me like a bit of a storm in a teacup.