Film Rights to First & Second Age

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, Sauron, it seems your only remaining argument is based on 'fairness,' since you have none at law.

I should point out of course that Party A took nothing resembling 'extraordinary additional steps.' He published his father's manuscript. That's all. If UA were really interested in The Silmarillion film rights, they could have bought them from JRRT. They did not.

And do you really think 'Party B' had any intention, or ability, or prospect of revenue, in making a 'Silmarillion' movie BEFORE 'Party A' took those 'extraordinary steps' in 1977? Please. UA got, tossed in as a disregarded freebie, a then-valueless one-paragraph synopsis. It's only valuable now thanks to the 'extraordinary steps' of 'Party A.'

And your assertion that Party A's actions rendered Party B's investment 'worthless' is a bit rich, considering that Party B and his licensees have raked in something like a billion dollars from the deal. Party B wanted The Lord of the Rings. They got it. They made movies of it. They generated squillions of dollars.

I can't bring myself to feel sorry for poor, abused Party B.

[Sauron the White]

William ... you said

I should point out of course that Party A took nothing resembling 'extraordinary additional steps.

Could you please name for me another situation in which an author sold film rights to something and then years later had it repackaged in a longer book length form and it had the effect of rendering some of the original film rights to lose their value?

I would call that extraordinary additional steps. But if you can find other instances to show that it is an ordinary business practice in the publishing or fim industry, I would be happy to read about them and change my mind and statements.

If UA were really interested in The Silmarillion film rights, they could have bought them from JRRT. They did not.

In point of fact, they did buy the only published Silmarillion based tales in 1969. They did just what you said they should have done.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

No, they didn't in any real sense. "Published" is irrelevant, remember?

In any event, the synopsis in the Appendices does not purport to be 'The Silmarillion.' By its own terms,

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

So, a prima facie declaration that The Silmarillion was a separate work with an independent existence- and moreover, one which everyone even dimly aware of Tolkien in the late 60s knew was supposed to be nearing completion.

It's still rather gobsmacking to consider the notion UA was so desperately concerned with a fillip tucked away on pp 1033-34, but made no move to acquire rights in the (independent) work to which it refers! It was right there in Tolken's office. You want De Niro? Here's This: UA wanted the Lord of the Rings. They didn't care about The Silmarillion.

You say:

an author sold film rights to something and then years later had it repackaged in a longer book length form

You make it sound like the first page of Appendix A was the purpose of UA's purchase!

But, seriously, folks: the 'book-length form' was of course not a 'repackaging' of the Appendix A (i) preface, but a 'repackaging' of many thousands of manuscript and typescript pages JRRT created over the course of sixty years.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Additional damages, attorneys fees and the ability to use the filing as evidence.

So there is a difference.

If not, why would anyone ever pay the $30.00 fee?

All procedural matters. They are unrelated to ownership.

[Nerwen]

I'd just like something clarified.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Please note that I used the word "copyright" and did not deny it. I also differentiated between the type of copyright that you keep referring to and a legally registered copyright. I do believe that any fair minded person can read the quote from the Copyright site that Nerwen provided and see that there are indeed definite differences that are beyond procedural.

STW, I gave you the link to that site precisely so you could see that there is no difference.

Have you conceded that point now?

[Sauron the White]

The link you gave me stated that if one registers their copyright with the government that there are additional benefits one can receive. Additional damages, attorneys fees and the ability to use the filing as evidence.

So there is a difference.

If not, why would anyone ever pay the $30.00 fee?

[Nerwen]

Sauron, I refer you to William Cloud Hicklin's comment:

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Procedural advantages are not the same as asserting that copyright doesn't exist pre-registration!

Perhaps you're confusing property with the value thereof. A copyright is property. Its monetary value may be enhanced by many things, including registration. That doesn't in any way alter the basic fact of ownership.

Now, after that, you said this:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

WCH - even before your previous post, we had disposed of copyright questions.
The link from Nerwen was extremely helpful as were you. Thank you.

I just want to know whether, in your mind, we have or have not disposed of the copyright question? Can we get a definite answer from you on this one?

Edit: X'd with William Cloud Hicklin.

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

So, a prima facie declaration that The Silmarillion was a separate work with an independent existence- and moreover, one which everyone even dimly aware of Tolkien in the late 60s knew was supposed to be nearing completion.

I remember The Shadow used to proclaim "who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows." I guess he had nothing on you. By the way, when you are not looking into the future expecting your contractual partners to screw you, could you define "to be nearing completion"? By your own timeline there was a good ten years between when everybody was suppose to know these things and when the SIL was published. But it makes no difference. None. Zip. Nada.

from Nerwen

I just want to know whether, in your mind, we have or have not disposed of the copyright question? Can we get a definite answer from you on this one?

Mr. Hicklin is attempting to soften or mitigate his previous firm statement that there is no difference - NONE - between what I called a copyright and what I called a legal registered copyright. When I quoted the link where it said that one can gain additional damages from statuatory law, that one can gain repayment attorneys fees, and one can use the filing as evidence - and I take that to mean they save tons of work producing other proof in court - those are definite differences that go beyond the limited word PROCEDURAL. The link that you provided clearly spells out some additional benefits one can gain from taking the steps and spending the money to get a registered copyright. And I believe we have disposed of the copyright question and it has no impact on my main point either way.

I never ever ever claimed that the Tolkien Estate or CT did not have the right to have the SIL published as a book. Never.

The value of the rights held by the legal film rights holders were severly diminished by actions taken by CT with the publication of the SIL.

from WCH -

In any event, the synopsis in the Appendices does not purport to be 'The Silmarillion.' By its own terms,

So what?
It does list a whole bunch of First Age historical events which it says are taken from The Silmarillion. Where else in 1969 could you pick up a published book by JRRT and find that information? And it all was sold to UA in film rights. LOTR is much more than the story that ends with Sam going back announcing his return safe and sound. Its also the Appendicies.

UA wanted the Lord of the Rings. They didn't care about The Silmarillion.

How do you "know" for certain what UA wanted?
What I know for a fact that does not depend on some mystical powers or abstract reasoning is this: UA bought the films rights to LOTR from JRRT and gained the film rights to everything in that book including the Appendicies. They gained the usage of a whole list of events from the First Age that JRRT says are part of The Silmarillion. They gained the right to use those in a film.

It is foolish and silly to speculate and argue about what somebody wanted and what you may know about it. Lets look at the facts. The facts say what happened.

In 1969 there existed no bloody work titled the SILMARILLION outside of stacks of unsorted and sometimes unreadable papers strewn around various locations where JRRT worked. It may have existed in his mind. Fragments may have existed on scraps of paper. But THE SILMARILLION as an identifiable work that UA or anyone else (beyond some Tolkien groupies) would know about did not exist to be bought, stolen or anything else.

You make it sound like the first page of Appendix A was the purpose of UA's purchase!

It matters not one jot or tittle what UA 's purpose or motive was in their purchase. I could not care less if they were more concerned about page 7, 353, 869 or 1012. It matters not. They bought the whole darned thing lock stock and barrel. They bought film rights to LOTR from cover to cover and that includes the whole contents including the Appendicies.

I have tried to answer all your questions. Would you please be good enough to answer this for me that I have posed before?

Do you know of any other situation in publishing or in film rights where someone made a legal purchase of film rights and then, years later, some of those same contents were repackaged and sold in a longer format thus weakening the usability and exercise of rights of the original sale?

Because I know of not one situation like that. I spent several hours researching this to find out if there was precedent for it and cannot find one case where anyone did that.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Mr. Hicklin is attempting to soften or mitigate his previous firm statement that there is no difference - NONE - between what I called a copyright and what I called a legal registered copyright. When I quoted the link where it said that one can gain additional damages from statuatory law, that one can gain repayment attorneys fees, and one can use the filing as evidence - and I take that to mean they save tons of work producing other proof in court - those are definite differences that go beyond the limited word PROCEDURAL. The link that you provided clearly spells out some additional benefits one can gain from taking the steps and spending the money to get a registered copyright. And I believe we have disposed of the copyright question and it has no impact on my main point either way.

For the last time, Sauron– the creator of a work owns the copyright by default. This right exists as soon as the work is created. Registering copyright only helps facilitate things.

That is what that link is saying. You have had this explained to you over and over again. Why can't you just admit you were wrong? People can be wrong sometimes– it's no disgrace.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I never ever ever claimed that the Tolkien Estate or CT did not have the right to have the SIL published as a book. Never.

Actually, I believe you are claiming that, if you think the film rights holders can sue Tolkien Estate for damages caused by publishing The Silmarillion. Isn't that the cornerstone of your argument?

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Do you know of any other situation in publishing or in film rights where someone made a legal purchase of film rights and then, years later, some of those same contents were repackaged and sold in a longer format thus weakening the usability and exercise of rights of the original sale?

Because I know of not one situation like that. I spent several hours researching this to find out if there was precedent for it and cannot find one case where anyone did that.

I think you just shot yourself in the foot. What you have proved, if anything, is that no film company has ever tried to sue an author for publishing a sequel (or prequel) to his own novel. I don't know if this is so– but if it is– well, why do you think?

[Sauron the White]

Nerwen
It seems to me that the actual truth is somewhere in the middle. WCH claimed that there was absolutely no difference between the home created copyright when the work was created and a legally registered copyright. The link you provided explains several differences that I have repeatedly pointed to. Those include additional damages, repayment of attorney fees and the ability to introduce the filing as evidence thereby saving lots of other work.

Mr. Hicklin was wrong in claiming that there was no difference. Then he attempted to mitigate or soften his claim calling those differences (which previously DID NOT EXIST in his opinion) procedural. I also was wrong about some things. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White
I never ever ever claimed that the Tolkien Estate or CT did not have the right to have the SIL published as a book. Never.

from Nerwen

Actually, I believe you are claiming that, if you think the film rights holders can sue Tolkien Estate for damages caused by publishing The Silmarillion. Isn't that the cornerstone of your argument?

Its a free country so you can believe anything you darn well please. That changes nothing I said. Believe away. Please show me where I said the film rights holders can sue the Tolkien Estate for damages caused by publishing THE SIL. Please show me. I never said it. Some type of action may have come up in the discussion in passing over the last three pages but that was never my point. And if I never said it it cannot be the cornerstone of my argument. This is not about litigation or lawsuits.

What you have proved, if anything, is that no film company has ever tried to sue an author for publishing a sequel (or prequel) to his own novel. I don't know if this is so– but if it is– well, why do you think?

I have no idea of what you are saying here or what your point is because you are completly missing my point. I am not saying and have never said that no author cannot write a prequel to an existing story or a sequel to an existing story. If I did please show me where I said it. I have never talked about suing an author for doing that. If I did please show me where I did.

My point and my question was this: can anyone please show me evidence of another case where an author sold a piece of his work to a film company and then used that exact same work in an expanded form to cause diminshment of the original film holders rights?

I spent a couple of hours researching this yesterday and could find no other case.

[zxcvbn]

My,my. Things sure are getting heated up here!

I'll just contribute my two cents: Saul Zaentz only licensed the Hobbit and the LOTR including Appendices, and those are the only rights he owned. He never owned the rights to any of Tolkien's unpublished notes(which, at that time, were unknown to most of the world) and Christopher Tolkien did not 'degrade' Zaentz's license in any way because he never owned the rights to any of the material in the Silmarillion (except whatever little appears in the Appendices: words like 'Silmarillion', 'Tuor', 'Thingol' etc.).