Christopher Tolkien at it again....

[davem]

When people love something they want to make it part of their lives - whether that's kids playing at being at Hogwarts, or being Elves or Hobbits with their friends, or adults naming their house Rivendell or Bag End, or their pets Sam or Bilbo - or their children (Terry Pratchett wrote of girls being named Galadriel or Arwen beck in the 60's.)

It happens - though it seems the Estate would prefer children's active participation in the world of Middle-earth to be limited to sitting in front of a screen & hacking up Orcs via their PS3, rather than being out in the countryside with their friends.

I'm inclined not to excuse the Estate & place all the blame on the lawyers for this one - if you let your dog run loose & it savages an innocent person then you are responsible - if you claim you didn't know what Rover was doing then you would rightly be asked 'Why not?' - & I wouldn't be surprised to hear an announcement in the next few years about a 'Middle-earth World' in Orlando, Florida (they all seem to be built there for some reason.

I'm afraid that once a story enters into the public consciousness the writer loses a certain amount of control - & when lawyers get involved, threatening to punish people for expressing their love of a particular story which has moved them & brought them joy, then something is very wrong. Plus - as I quoted a few posts back:

Extending control over the identity of important people to their estates after death is, I think, to mistake how culture and art work and to elevate property rights to an importance that does us very little good. The identities of famous people as varied as Einstein, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe become part of our culture’s language. That cultural meaning then becomes part of the language of our cultural conversations, and as a part of that language it then has meaning that can be used in the sorts of compressed and symbolic ways that culture and art thrive on. To remove the identities of dead people from this language in the absence of payment for their use would substantially damage our culture.

& that applies even more to stories- which also "become part of the language of our cultural conversations, and as a part of that language it then has meaning that can be used in the sorts of compressed and symbolic ways that culture and art thrive on." And therefore to 'remove the stories from this language in the absence of payment for their use would substantially damage our culture' infinitely more.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm inclined not to excuse the Estate & place all the blame on the lawyers for this one - if you let your dog run loose & it savages an innocent person then you are responsible - if you claim you didn't know what Rover was doing then you would rightly be asked 'Why not?' - & I wouldn't be surprised to hear an announcement in the next few years about a 'Middle-earth World' in Orlando, Florida (they all seem to be built there for some reason.

Ah, when lawyers and lapdogs breathe their last. The analogy is incorrect, though, as lawyers are limited to bark and not bite. Yet I doubt we'd ever agree on that.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Ah, when lawyers and lapdogs breathe their last. The analogy is incorrect, though, as lawyers are limited to bark and not bite. Yet I doubt we'd ever agree on that.

Well, either the Estate know what their employees are doing & approve of it, in which case the fault is theirs, or they have no idea what their lawyers are doing & are just giving the carte blanche to threaten legal action, in which case the fault is theirs...

Interesting responses from some here (not yourself, btw) - when its something that can be interpreted as being the fault of the other side ("the authors of these books must have known they were in the wrong"," they must have been intending to publish something that would have adversely affected the family", etc) then the Estate knew all about it & were just defending their rights, but when its something that can't be interpreted as being the fault of the other side (threat to drag the organisers of a children's summer camp through the courts) then 'most probably' the Estate knew nothing about it & its all down to over-eager lawyers.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by davem

& that applies even more to stories- which also "become part of the language of our cultural conversations, and as a part of that language it then has meaning that can be used in the sorts of compressed and symbolic ways that culture and art thrive on." And therefore to 'remove the stories from this language in the absence of payment for their use would substantially damage our culture' infinitely more.

Speaking of language, one thing that concerns me is that, eventually the estate will decide the languages and grammars Tolkein created are themselves part of the estates property, and prohibit thier use without sanction (i.e. trying to learn how to speak Quenya or Sindarin, or write or translate into it, will become itself a prosecutable/suable act.) They might also start going after anyone who uses any of the written forms. I know for a fact that there are several Japanese animes that have used Tolkein's runes at one time or another (Yes Tolkien did not create runes, but if I recall Tolkinian Dwarvish includes some runes not found in actual Norse, and I've seen some of those runes used in anime.) Also since (as far as anyone knows) Tolkien created the world "orc" they may start going after all of the roleplaying games that use that word for a race. In short, I'm worried that this is just the opening salvo of an attempt by the estate to ultimately gain control over all fantasy that they can.

[Galadriel55]

What will they ban next? Will the public be prohibited from reading LOTR because Tolkien wrote it?

[davem]

The Copyright notice in the books states that it is prohibited to reproduce, store or transmit in any form, by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission of the publishers.

Any copyright holder could prevent public reading of their work if they wanted. Again, its interesting to read in Carpenter's biography & elsewhere of Tolkien's 'inspirations' - we all know about The Kalevala, The Eddas, Beowulf & The Mabinogion, etc, but he was also 'inspired' by more contemporary works thoughout his life - from Andrew Lang's Fairy books, William Morris' works & Wyke-Smith's Marvellous Land of Snergs http://www.tolkiencollector.com/snergs.htm - read this piece because I think its important to see how much Tolkien drew on the stories he & his children grew up with.

However,while Tolkien was 'inspired' by the works of earlier writers, those who follow him are 'ripping him off'. Copyright is certainly being pushed by a number of holders, to be extended both in time & in what is actually covered. What cases like these do is not simply stop the 'offenders' (the writers of Hilary's bio & Hillard as well as those who run camps like this one) but they also attempt to scare others out of doing the same thing - or even risking becoming a target. And its always small groups or organisations who get targeted by large copyright holders in order to set an 'example'.

This is certainly not something that the Tolkien Estate is alone in doing, & its not the worst, but it does seem to be getting worse. If control of the Estate at some point in the future falls into the hands of individuals who do care only about exploiting Tolkien's works for money then we could find it becomes less & less tolerant of any use of Tolkien's work that they don't benefit from. If they set up an official Tolkien Forum, with either membership fees, or which earns a lot from advertising they may decide that sites like this one infringe their copyright & send out a cease & desist letter - & I doubt the Barrow Wight would have enough cash to fight them in court over whether the Downs constitutes 'fair use' (& different countries have different definitions of 'fair use' - actually it doesn't legally exist in the UK as far as I'm aware).

[davem]

Well, you've probably all seen this already via TORn

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...dispute-184053 "JRR Tolkien Estate Settles Dispute Over Novel Featuring Tolkien As Character "

After the Tolkien estate learned of the book, it sent Hilliard a cease-and-desist letter, threatening a lawsuit if he didn't cease publishing the novel and destroy all copies.
According to the settlement, the book will now be released with a modified reference to Tolkien on the cover and will also include the disclaimer, "This is a work of fiction which is neither endorsed nor connected with The JRR Tolkien Estate or its publisher."
As a result of the settlement, Hilliard is dismissing his lawsuit in Texas.
"The settlement terms are confidential, but the agreement adequately addresses the Estate's concerns about Mr. Hillard's book," says Aaron Moss, attorney for the Tolkien Estate.

So the Estate have gone from

" threatening a lawsuit if he didn't cease publishing the novel and destroy all copies."

to

"a modified reference to Tolkien on the cover and will also include the disclaimer, "This is a work of fiction which is neither endorsed nor connected with The JRR Tolkien Estate or its publisher."

Which looks to me very like the Estate backing down after Hillard called their bluff. Clearly they never had a leg to stand on legally but expected Hillard to back down in the face of their threats. Maybe others who have been on the receiving end of their bullying should stand up to them as well?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, you've probably all seen this already via TORn

No, as a matter of fact, on the new Middle-earth social network.

Maybe others who have been on the receiving end of their bullying should stand up to them as well?

Every legal case depends on the details, where, despite sayings to the contrary, God may not always be, as I've never thought of him as a barrister/solicitor but more on the judicial end of things.

Seriously, each case may depend on a different matter. This one was so clearly a situation of a legitimate historical fiction that obviously the Estate didn't have much to stand on. Also, it probably helped matters considerably that the case was set to be heard in North America, which has a substantially different legal milieu, and where the author would be quite a long arm's away from British retribution.

[davem]

Shocking to me that the Estate have cowed others with the threat of legal action - I think its fairly obvious that if the children's camp had also called the Estate's bluff they would have lost there too. The authors/publisher of the Hilary Tolkien bio would maybe find they too had a stronger position than they think.

Actually, the most shocking thing here is that the Estate must have known they were in the wrong & were just attempting to bully this author into destroying his book. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the Tolkien Estate are not alone in behaving in this way. The Estate tried to get a book destroyed by threatening an author with legal action & if he hadn't been brave enough to stand up to them that book would have been destroyed even though it didn't infringe in any way.

Its not a 'great' book - its a fun, lightweight piece, with some interesting ideas scattered throughout it - but this guy wrote it, stayed within the law, & was threatened with being dragged through the courts unless he destroyed it.