Tolkien Estate blocks new Tolkien book

[Galin]

Let's not forget there have been volumes concerning Tolkien and his work published by Christopher Tolkien, starting with Letters -- through HME, including for example (and relatively recently) Hammond and Scull's detailed Chronology of Tolkien's life.

[Mithalwen]

He also provided some assistance to the BBC radio production at least in matter of pronunciation. However it may be unfair to personalise this and equate the estate estate with Christopher alone. However I think the key phrase is "Tolkien and his work". Christopher has spent over thirty years bringing us his father's work over 15 substantial volumes of it ...are we being greedy to demand access to that which isn't related to his work?

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

(...) However it may be unfair to personalise this and equate the estate estate with Christopher alone.

That's true and I didn't and don't mean to do this. My post was poorly worded despite that I would guess CJRT has a notable voice in these decisions.

However I think the key phrase is "Tolkien and his work". Christopher has spent over thirty years bringing us his father's work over 15 substantial volumes of it ...are we being greedy to demand access to that which isn't related to his work?

OK but I would still highlight more than work, in letters and the Estate authorised Chronology mentioned, for instance. And not that anyone disagrees but work illuminates the Man, even though personal letters are (obviously) a different animal.

[Mithalwen]

Oh it was a general point - though of course as Literary executor he is of course highly significant. There is a net wide tendancy to rather cast him as a pantomime villain and blame him for everything.

Yes there have been authorised stuff - I wasn't aware of the Chronology (RL has prevented me keeping up) but whether this matter crossed a line it is hard to tell from the outside. It is fair to say that the works mentioned are fairly concentrated on his work rather than private life - I suppose the exception would be the Tolkien Family Album. However on the whole they haven't cashed in as they might have done (wouldn't we all want to read Christopher's autobiography?). However I think this would have been a fairly niche market I don't think I have paid so much for a book myself.. £25 I think is my record for The road goes ever on and Artist and Illustrator.

[davem]

I think the interesting point here is that the Family (who effectively are the Estate) have released a great deal of 'personal' information in the years since Tolkien died - Carpenter's Bio, the Letters, the Chronology & Garth's bio of Tolkien's WWI service &, of course, the Family Album - all 'authorised'. We even had Christopher. Priscilla & Father John taking part in the documentary JRRT: A Film Portrait discussing their father's work & reminiscing about their childhoods. Given that they have agreed to the relase of so much 'personal information it would be difficult for them to argue that they have a 'right' to keep information about their father 'private'. If they had never released any personal info about him & adopted the approach they did with the movies, then they would have a stronger position. As it is, it looks like they are attempting to control what is revealed about him - in effect to 'create' a JRR Tolkien in their own image.

Using copyright in this kind of way begs a larger question - they may have a legal right to letters & documents created by JRRT, but do they 'own the man, the 'artist'? This, to me, is a vital question - does the Estate own JRR Tolkien to the extent that they have a right to stop information about him being made public? As far as I'm aware, facts aren't copyright, or copyrightable. One could argue that quoting, or even paraphrasing, a letter from JRRT telling Hilary that he went into Birmingham for tea one Sunday in September 1935 was protected by copyright, but the FACT that JRRT went into Birmingham for tea one Sunday in September 1935 is not copyrightable.

[Mithalwen]

Hmm then maybe it is a question of exploitation of the copyrighted material? Intellectual property may not be tangible but it doesn't mean it is a free for all and that makes the fact that the family has used it irrelevant. If you run a bed and breakfast are you supposed to tolerate squatters? If I gave someone a bag of my secret recipe fudge as a gift I would be pretty narked if they copied it and marketed it for their own benefit.

Catherine Zeta Jones' Hello v Okay law suit established rights to privacy I think even when in that case photo rights had been sold.

[davem]

Well, as I stated earlier - we may just be dealing with the Estate putting its foot down over letters that are the equivalent of 'Dear Hilary, went into Brum for a cuppa & forgot me brolly - Doh!, Yours Ronald'. But if its the alternative, & its facts about Tolkien they are attempting to prevent getting out then I think at the very least that morally questionable, even if its legally shiny. Either say nothing, or tell the truth, warts & all.

[davem]

I wonder if there's any chance Calcifer could clarify something in the 'official' statement:

The book in question was presented by ADC as a biography of J R R Tolkien's brother Hilary. However, the publication included numerous personal letters from J R R Tolkien to his brother and from other family members that were reproduced virtually verbatim.

The copyright in these private, unpublished letters belongs to the Tolkien Estate. As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family, both of which it takes great care to protect, the Estate quite properly declined permission for the letters to be reproduced in this way.

However, the Estate made clear to ADC that it had no issue with the publication of the book providing the material in question - affecting only 20 pages out of a total of some 300 - was removed.

First they seem to be saying the issue is with the personal letters being reproduced 'virtually verbatim', & that they "declined permission for the letters to be reproduced in this way." So, the issue seems to be the way the material was reproduced....

But then in the following paragraph they state they required 20 pages of material to be removed - ie, not re-written, or the material to be presented in a different way, but for it not to exist in the book at all.

So, in the statement they seem to be saying first the issue was the form the material was presented in, & then to immediately contradict themselves & state that it wasn't the actually the form it was presented in but the material itself that was the issue...

Seems that the issue is actually not the way it was produced at all, whether that was to be verbatim, virtually verbatim, in paraphrase, or in precis, but that it was to be even referred to in any way at all. If that is the case its hardly surprising that authors & publisher felt unable to proceed with the book. Key point around which this whole issue seems to revolve is in the words:

As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family, both of which it takes great care to protect

Or, as I've been arguing all along - the Estate is using Copyright law as a quick, cheap & easy way to protect their privacy by preventing the publication of family documents. If a genuine issue of invasion of privacy is involved then privacy laws exist under which this matter could be dealt with, but it seems that the Estate don't feel able to take that route (possibly because the individuals concerned are dead & they wouldn't succeed), so they've resorted to Copyright law as the only option.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Or, as I've been arguing all along - the Estate is using Copyright law as a quick, cheap & easy way to protect their privacy by preventing the publication of family documents. If a genuine issue of invasion of privacy is involved then privacy laws exist under which this matter could be dealt with, but it seems that the Estate don't feel able to take that route (possibly because the individuals concerned are dead & they wouldn't succeed), so they've resorted to Copyright law as the only option.

The flaw in your argument, davem is that not all the members of the family are dead.

As Calcifer's statement from the Estate says,

As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family

.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by davem

(...) So, in the statement they seem to be saying first the issue was the form the material was presented in, & then to immediately contradict themselves & state that it wasn't the actually the form it was presented in but the material itself that was the issue...

That's not how I read it

The book in question was presented by ADC as a biography of J R R Tolkien's brother Hilary. However, the publication included numerous personal letters from J R R Tolkien to his brother and from other family members that were reproduced virtually verbatim.

As I read it, this sums up the end result of what ADC did: the publishers reproduced the letters virtually verbatim by paraphrasing them closely.

The copyright in these private, unpublished letters belongs to the Tolkien Estate. As the guardian of these rights and of the privacy of the Tolkien family, both of which it takes great care to protect, the Estate quite properly declined permission for the letters to be reproduced in this way.

'In this way' as in reproduced virtually verbatim, or 'paraphrased' (but can include the actual letters obviously). What about the sequence?

However, the Estate made clear to ADC that it had no issue with the publication of the book providing the material in question - affecting only 20 pages out of a total of some 300 - was removed.

This arguably refers to the actual letters, because...

Although ADC's response was to agree to this, what it then did in practice was to paraphrase the letters, something that had been made clear from the outset would not resolve the issue.

... ADC agreed to remove something -- the paraphrasing? that doesn't seem right because what it then did was to paraphrase the letters.

Now I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation, and I don't see that one need necessarily conclude that there is any contradiction here.

And even if I'm wrong about that much, I still see no necessary contradiction here: other possible negotiations of how these letters might or might not be used need not even be contextual in this part of the statement -- the Estate need only be referring to existing problematic 'ways' that were presented to them... two ways that would have to be removed in order to publish.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The flaw in your argument, davem is that not all the members of the family are dead.


.

Which is why we have libel, slander & privacy laws - to protect the living: if Copyright was intended to include protecting privacy then you wouldn't need the others. If these letters were implying dodgy stuff involving living members of the family then the family would have a range of legal options they could make use of. To use copyright to prevent material being made public, implies that it is not material that relates to anyone living, but stuff that they don't want to come out about Ronald or Hilary

'Dear Hilary, I was just thinking the other day about the jolly times we had dressing as Elizabethen ladies & cycling through the lanes round Sarehole after dark, throwing ferrets through people's windows....Happy days!'
Estate's response: Blimey! we have to stop this hitting the presses! Isn't that libelous?
Laywer: Er, no - you can't libel the dead! Besides, it looks like they might have done it - there were reports around the time of people in Sarehole waking up to find their front windows smashed & dazed ferrets on their fireside rugs.
Estate: Well, that's as maybe but surely other young bucks in those days did similar things? Look, just tell them the letters are copyrighted & they can't use them.
Laywer: Are you sure, that's not what copyright is for?
Estate: Just do it - A) its a bit embarrassing for the family for their dad & uncle to be seen as cross dressing ferret-tossers & B) we don't want the descendants suing us for the broken windows.

Its probably nothing more than something with a minor embarrassment factor at worst. I'm not even necessarily arguing that whatever it is should be published - just that using copyright in these circumstances is a bit off. After all the Estate have never implied that whatever it is that being referred to isn't true.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Its probably nothing more than something with a minor embarrassment factor at worst. I'm not even necessarily arguing that whatever it is should be published - just that using copyright in these circumstances is a bit off. After all the Estate have never implied that whatever it is that being referred to isn't true.

You are up to your old tricks again, in simply regurgitating innuendo and supposition and for that reason I'm becoming very bored with this.

I've already pointed out that nothing I heard or saw in any way was the least bit dodgy.

It is possible that the Family simply does not want any kind of reference to the children's and grandchildren's lives as they believe that has no merit in any literary questions about Tolkien's writing.

What I see is a very sad situation in which one member of the family invited the authors to undertake a particular kind of study using the material they owned. And that study has been repeatedly, despite significant changes and edits, rejected by the Family Estate, which owns copyright but not the material itself.

So I see two authors who have spent considerable time now with no likelihood of renumeration. I see scholars and fans of Tolkien losing access to information about his life, no matter how banal or trivial or personal. And I see a Family Estate that lacks unanimity. That must be very hurtful.

I had always wondered about the sibling relationship, how the elder was able to attend university and achieve a university career while the younger did not. In a class-ridden society, those occupational differences were substantial. (Yet in spite of that difference, the two families maintained close contact.) It is a sociological question to me, not a family question. Tolkien getting into Oxford strikes me as a story very similar to that of Patrick Bronte getting into Cambridge a hundred years earlier.

I'm trained as a scholar and I know countless stories of situations like this.

And having heard from the authors, the publisher and the Estate, that's all I'm going to say about this very unfortunate event.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

You [davem] are up to your old tricks again, in simply regurgitating innuendo and supposition and for that reason I'm becoming very bored with this.

By the way, davem has now deleted a post which followed post 60 (mine) and included an invented conversation indulging in the speculation being referred to here.

That's what Bethberry is (partially) quoting above. People are free to delete posts of course, but davem's deletion changes the context of Bethberry's response.

And I might as well add that I doubt even Fauskanger and Salo would consider the Wired article not to be one sided.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

You are up to your old tricks again, in simply regurgitating innuendo and supposition and for that reason I'm becoming very bored with this.

Ok - I've removed any potentially 'bothersome' stuff of mine from the thread & I'll opt out of this discussion from now on.

Originally Posted by galin

By the way, davem has now deleted a post which followed post 60 (mine) and included an invented conversation indulging in the speculation being referred to here.

Yes - all of them. sorry of anything has been lost to the discussion but I probably shouldn't have joined in this discussion at all. There are some aspects of it I care too much about & some I don't care about at all but couldn't resist commenting on & that's a fatal combination.