Copyright claim against Tolkien estate backfires on LOTR fanfiction author(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Copyright claim against Tolkien estate backfires on LOTR fanfiction author
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/dec/18/copyright-claim-against-tolkien-estate-backfires-on-lord-of-the-rings-fanfiction-author
129 comments
He was just 18 years ahead of his time...smh. 2040 is when Tolkien is slated for public domain.
Or next year if you live in NZ or have a production studio in NZ
And then sell to NZ market.
Much of (not most of) the world has that same copyright length: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright...
So where can I download a copy before it’s nuked?
I tried all the usual vendors and second hand suppliers but couldn’t find it still listed anywhere :(
It's on bn.com but it sounds pretty bad based on reddit comments.
I can't see a copy on any of the pirate sites.
For anyone that enjoyed LoTR/The Hobbit and thinks this new story might be interesting or entertaining, allow me to assure you it is not. The writing is meandering, unclear, futile expository. In a word "amateurish". Being as generous as possible, it is a poor tribute. Less generously, one might call it a lazy attempt to cash in on the legacy of JRR's universe of Middle Earth.
The writing bears no resemblance whatsoever to the grand, Elizabethan style of Tolkien.
See for yourself: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=iH6iEAAAQBAJ&source=...
The writing bears no resemblance whatsoever to the grand, Elizabethan style of Tolkien.
See for yourself: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=iH6iEAAAQBAJ&source=...
Oh my goodness. You weren't kidding -- this is awful.
Even if it weren't trying to fill Tolkien's boots it'd still be bad writing; the pretension just makes it look even worse by comparison.
Even if it weren't trying to fill Tolkien's boots it'd still be bad writing; the pretension just makes it look even worse by comparison.
Oh wow it’s so bad
I can’t get over HMS Samwise, like he’s a boat
I can’t get over HMS Samwise, like he’s a boat
If you are looking for such things, I thought that "The Shadow of Angmar" by Steelbadger does a mostly-good job of telling a story in a Tolkien-like style. It's a LOTR/Harry Potter crossover fanfic that is well regarded in its little niche. Unfortunately, it's not finished. The author says he hasn't given up on it, but there haven't been any updates in a while. There is enough to be quite a good read though. I would say it was/is intended to have three main arcs. The first two arcs are completed and online. I can imagine what was intended for the third, and it seems very difficult to do, which might explain why the author hasn't yet attempted it.
It'll probably be forever available since it was an exhibit in the lawsuit and US federal court proceedings are generally publicly available.
More specifically, it's currently available via RECAP[0], which is a free mirror-ish service for PACER.
[0]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.88...
More specifically, it's currently available via RECAP[0], which is a free mirror-ish service for PACER.
[0]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.88...
I am so sad there’s not more LoTR stories. Have written about this before: https://www.thecodedmessage.com/posts/tolkien/
Why? Write new stories.
Just keep them to yourself! lol!
This is where free expression and intellectual property butt heads. Had our subject merely distributed his writings openly (free), it would be much harder to shut him down.
This is where free expression and intellectual property butt heads. Had our subject merely distributed his writings openly (free), it would be much harder to shut him down.
Eh, just 20 years to go.
This is always my argument with "fangames", which frequently get nuked by the copyright/trademark owner. Like, you put years of effort into making a game from scratch, the code is all original, the design is new, why ruin all that by putting in Mega Man or whatever?
LOTR is great because it's a unique product of who Tolkien was, with his background in linguistics and experience in World War I and his Beowulf scholarship. Be your own interesting person and make your own stuff.
LOTR is great because it's a unique product of who Tolkien was, with his background in linguistics and experience in World War I and his Beowulf scholarship. Be your own interesting person and make your own stuff.
I never understood why people put so much effort into fangames, fanfiction, etc. I mean - great, they're inspired! No copyright infringement there. Share it with the world.
I feel like these days, real creativity is punished, and only 'meme'-able things get rewarded.
I feel like these days, real creativity is punished, and only 'meme'-able things get rewarded.
Fun. Because it's fun. Because we, as humans, generally like to tell stories, especially about shared culture. Making a tribute of an artifact is another way to appreciate it. It's another take, an amateur singer sharing a moment with their friends, singing a song from fiddler on the roof. I myself love recreating props from movies and games. It connects me to the author and other fans. I appreciate small details of its construction more. I perceive the steps the original craftsperson took. I understand, through a small window, the monumental effort it took to create the original greater creative work. I'm not saying not to create something new. Simply that it's fulfilling to some of us to experience our shared culture by contributing our own point of view.
A new thing is great, not saying it isn't. Certainly, tributes of recent works are not a good commercial strategy. I personally haven't truly appreciated a great work like lotr or Chrono Trigger or Jurassic Park or what have you until I've recreated a small part of it out of love. Of course, this rant is limited to fan derivatives made out of passion. Attempts to deceive are another thing.
I'm sorry if I'm rambling and come off as angry, I'm not and appreciate your point. But I find this suggestion to leave out the tribute part in fan works to kinda be missing the point. For my stuff I'd rather have made it and have it taken down, over not having made it at all.
A new thing is great, not saying it isn't. Certainly, tributes of recent works are not a good commercial strategy. I personally haven't truly appreciated a great work like lotr or Chrono Trigger or Jurassic Park or what have you until I've recreated a small part of it out of love. Of course, this rant is limited to fan derivatives made out of passion. Attempts to deceive are another thing.
I'm sorry if I'm rambling and come off as angry, I'm not and appreciate your point. But I find this suggestion to leave out the tribute part in fan works to kinda be missing the point. For my stuff I'd rather have made it and have it taken down, over not having made it at all.
LoTR itself drew heavily on existing culture, to the point that some at least hinted that Tolkien had plagiarised. Good cultural works don't happen in a vacuum, they build on what came before.
You can draw on the same sources. You can do it the same way Tolkien did; nobody is going to stop you. You can't sell Aragorn slash though.
Unfortunately I think it's extremely difficult for any writer today to really capture Tolkien's view of Middle-Earth, because Tolkien's sensibilities were so different from those of today. I get the idea of making things more accessible, but if you destroy the essence of the thing in the process, have you really gained anything?
For example, I do not think the Peter Jackson movies, despite the monumental effort that went into them and Jackson's genuine interest in the material, actually capture what Tolkien was trying to capture. I have written about this here:
http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/tolkiens-ring.html
I have not even tried to watch the TV series (I didn't even watch Jackson's The Hobbit movies), because it just looks like an even worse job of capturing Tolkien's viewpoint.
For example, I do not think the Peter Jackson movies, despite the monumental effort that went into them and Jackson's genuine interest in the material, actually capture what Tolkien was trying to capture. I have written about this here:
http://blog.peterdonis.com/opinions/tolkiens-ring.html
I have not even tried to watch the TV series (I didn't even watch Jackson's The Hobbit movies), because it just looks like an even worse job of capturing Tolkien's viewpoint.
I wonder if even Tolkien's own works would preserve the 'essence' that people see in LotR...
Imagine you took someone who had just read _The Hobbit_, and you gave them a copy of the _Silmarillion_ carefully scrubbed of any identifying information and all of the critical apparatus, just the barebones fiction itself, and with a cover story like 'I got this off Ao3, you might like it'. I wonder how many people would realize it was even in the same fictional universe, much less by the same author?
Imagine you took someone who had just read _The Hobbit_, and you gave them a copy of the _Silmarillion_ carefully scrubbed of any identifying information and all of the critical apparatus, just the barebones fiction itself, and with a cover story like 'I got this off Ao3, you might like it'. I wonder how many people would realize it was even in the same fictional universe, much less by the same author?
Someone who had read only The Hobbit would have a hard time seeing the relationship, yes. That's because Tolkien himself didn't conceive it when he wrote The Hobbit, and even when he started working on LotR; the latter was originally just another story about hobbits, since people had told him they wanted more hobbit stories.
But, as he says in the foreword to LotR, that story got irresistibly drawn towards the older world, and became a story of its ending and passing away before its beginning and middle had been told. (I don't know if I'm giving what he said in the foreword word for word, but I think I'm pretty close.) So someone who read the LotR in its published form would see the connection, if for no other reason than some of the same characters (Elrond, Galadriel, Cirdan) appear in both works. And of course anyone who read the Appendices in detail would see even more connections, because Tolkien put them there on purpose.
(Btw, after the publication of LotR, Tolkien went back and reworked some parts of The Hobbit, notably the encounter with Gollum in Riddles In The Dark. That reworked version is what most people now have read. The really original version, published before LotR, is even less related to the legendarium.)
But, as he says in the foreword to LotR, that story got irresistibly drawn towards the older world, and became a story of its ending and passing away before its beginning and middle had been told. (I don't know if I'm giving what he said in the foreword word for word, but I think I'm pretty close.) So someone who read the LotR in its published form would see the connection, if for no other reason than some of the same characters (Elrond, Galadriel, Cirdan) appear in both works. And of course anyone who read the Appendices in detail would see even more connections, because Tolkien put them there on purpose.
(Btw, after the publication of LotR, Tolkien went back and reworked some parts of The Hobbit, notably the encounter with Gollum in Riddles In The Dark. That reworked version is what most people now have read. The really original version, published before LotR, is even less related to the legendarium.)
> I do not think the Peter Jackson movies, despite the monumental effort that went into them and Jackson's genuine interest in the material, actually capture what Tolkien was trying to capture.
I don't know why this remotely is a controversial opinion. When I went to the cinema, the audience laughed when Gollum fell into the volcano, as Jackson clearly wanted them to. Would Tolkien have wanted that?
We're treated to a long scene of Gollum falling with the camera following him and him waving his arms and kissing up to the ring. Then the ring (of gold) floats on the lava and Gollum (of hobbit flesh) sinks. It turned into pure cartoon in the most dramatic scene in the series. It's not the only scene in the film with a "90s computer game cutscene" feel to it either.
I don't know why this remotely is a controversial opinion. When I went to the cinema, the audience laughed when Gollum fell into the volcano, as Jackson clearly wanted them to. Would Tolkien have wanted that?
We're treated to a long scene of Gollum falling with the camera following him and him waving his arms and kissing up to the ring. Then the ring (of gold) floats on the lava and Gollum (of hobbit flesh) sinks. It turned into pure cartoon in the most dramatic scene in the series. It's not the only scene in the film with a "90s computer game cutscene" feel to it either.
> Would Tolkien have wanted that?
I can't imagine he would have, no.
Another scene from the books that is totally absent in the movie, which I didn't discuss in my blog post, is the one where Gollum comes upon the sleeping Frodo and almost caresses him, as if he's reconsidering his whole plan of sending the hobbits to Shelob and taking the Ring for himself--and then Sam blunders in and ruins it.
I can't imagine he would have, no.
Another scene from the books that is totally absent in the movie, which I didn't discuss in my blog post, is the one where Gollum comes upon the sleeping Frodo and almost caresses him, as if he's reconsidering his whole plan of sending the hobbits to Shelob and taking the Ring for himself--and then Sam blunders in and ruins it.
I skimmed over your blog post, and I think you should give The Rings of Power a look despite your feelings about Jackson's films. It's a polarizing series, and you might end up not liking it, but it's very different from the films. The visual style is heavily influenced by them, but the storytelling is much more nuanced and surprising IMO.
I can't really provide details without spoiling the series for you, but if you watch the first season to the end[1] and then review your own blog post, I think you'll at least understand why I thought you might really like it.
FWIW, although he didn't live to see the finished work, apparently Christopher Tolkien liked what he saw of the preproduction, despite his dislike of Jackson's films.
[1] This is important, but again, spoilers. Even if you end up disliking it, or disagreeing with some of the choices they made, I'm confident you'll agree that the writers love Tolkien's writing as much as you obviously do.
I can't really provide details without spoiling the series for you, but if you watch the first season to the end[1] and then review your own blog post, I think you'll at least understand why I thought you might really like it.
FWIW, although he didn't live to see the finished work, apparently Christopher Tolkien liked what he saw of the preproduction, despite his dislike of Jackson's films.
[1] This is important, but again, spoilers. Even if you end up disliking it, or disagreeing with some of the choices they made, I'm confident you'll agree that the writers love Tolkien's writing as much as you obviously do.
Interesting info, I'll consider it.
Follow-up to my previous reply: after looking through what's available online about The Rings of Power, I realized that this is the series where (a) Galadriel takes a ship back to Valinor, but then changes her mind and jumps overboard just before it arrives, and swims back towards Middle-Earth; and (b) Galadriel is picked up by Elendil and taken to Numenor, meaning that the whole story of the Rings of Power now happens near the end of the Second Age. (And don't even get me started about a "Stranger" falling to Middle-Earth on a meteor who is obviously intended to be Gandalf.)
I had heard of those things before, and my reaction was "ick", and it still is. (a) is completely inconsistent with everything Tolkien wrote about Galadriel. (b) is a huge change in the timeline of the Second Age, for no good reason that I can see except that TV audiences are not supposed to be able to follow a story that covers such a long expanse of time. Which I think Tolkien would have had the same "ick" reaction to that I have. (I'm not sure what to make of Christopher Tolkien's reaction, but I suspect his reaction was much more nuanced, or else he didn't see enough of the preproduction.)
I get that people like to, so to speak, play around with an imaginary world they like. I have no objection whatever to people watching Jackson's films and liking them, or watching this series and liking it. I just don't think the world they are seeing portrayed in Jackson's films is the same world that Tolkien imagined and wrote about. And based on the above, I suspect I would feel the same about The Rings of Power.
As far as loving Tolkien's writing goes, there are many different ways of doing that. I have no doubt that Jackson sincerely loves Tolkien's work. He just doesn't in the same way I do, since what he did with it is nothing like what I would have done. And again, based on the above, I suspect I would feel the same about the people who made The Rings of Power.
I had heard of those things before, and my reaction was "ick", and it still is. (a) is completely inconsistent with everything Tolkien wrote about Galadriel. (b) is a huge change in the timeline of the Second Age, for no good reason that I can see except that TV audiences are not supposed to be able to follow a story that covers such a long expanse of time. Which I think Tolkien would have had the same "ick" reaction to that I have. (I'm not sure what to make of Christopher Tolkien's reaction, but I suspect his reaction was much more nuanced, or else he didn't see enough of the preproduction.)
I get that people like to, so to speak, play around with an imaginary world they like. I have no objection whatever to people watching Jackson's films and liking them, or watching this series and liking it. I just don't think the world they are seeing portrayed in Jackson's films is the same world that Tolkien imagined and wrote about. And based on the above, I suspect I would feel the same about The Rings of Power.
As far as loving Tolkien's writing goes, there are many different ways of doing that. I have no doubt that Jackson sincerely loves Tolkien's work. He just doesn't in the same way I do, since what he did with it is nothing like what I would have done. And again, based on the above, I suspect I would feel the same about the people who made The Rings of Power.
[deleted]
Have you seen https://rustbucket.net/leithian/index.html?
What, why would he do that? Seems like a marketing ploy gone wrong.
FWIW though I rather enjoyed The Last Ringbearer.
FWIW though I rather enjoyed The Last Ringbearer.
There was no way they were going to make seven unlicensed books without getting sued into oblivion. It's reasonable to summize that they always intended to become an official work.
They likely sent scripts/drafts in the past looking to become officially licensed and failed. So, they launched anyways, hoping to become a commercial success and resume talks. Then when they saw perceived similarity between the later released Amazon prequel they saw a chance to force deal. Ideally, Amazon/Tolkien estate settle with the book series becoming officially licensed works.
They likely sent scripts/drafts in the past looking to become officially licensed and failed. So, they launched anyways, hoping to become a commercial success and resume talks. Then when they saw perceived similarity between the later released Amazon prequel they saw a chance to force deal. Ideally, Amazon/Tolkien estate settle with the book series becoming officially licensed works.
I haven't read these books of course, but we all probably would have been better off if they had become the basis of Amazon's series instead of what we got.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I absolutely love The Rings of Power.
Personally, I think the show's creators did a good job with the resources they had and the huge limitations that were imposed on them. The production values were excellent, the costumes (particularly for the orcs) were amazing, the casting and acting seemed good, but the script was really weak. This was probably because of the Tolkein estate: they only allowed them to use the appendices from The Return of the King, and for some weird reason wouldn't let them use the material from the Silmarillion. The show could have been so much better if they had access to that.
I can't imagine it was any better if there was enough perceived similarly between the prequel and the sequel that they sued.
Further, it says something about the writer that they didn't foresee how this would play out.
Further, it says something about the writer that they didn't foresee how this would play out.
Maybe they sued because it was too good.
But then, you're right about the second point. But even here, why would you assume that someone who's a talented fantasy fiction author would also be a talented businessperson? So conversely, if he's a bad businessperson, this doesn't make him necessarily a bad author. I don't have any other examples for authors, but I can name a bunch of rock stars off the top of my head who were fantastic and gifted musicians but totally clueless about business (and many other things too).
But then, you're right about the second point. But even here, why would you assume that someone who's a talented fantasy fiction author would also be a talented businessperson? So conversely, if he's a bad businessperson, this doesn't make him necessarily a bad author. I don't have any other examples for authors, but I can name a bunch of rock stars off the top of my head who were fantastic and gifted musicians but totally clueless about business (and many other things too).
> It's reasonable to surmise that they always intended to become an official work.
Realistically, that was never going to happen either.
It is exceedingly uncommon for any media franchise to accept story submissions "on spec", even in franchises which are less author-focused like films or TV series. For a literary series like LotR? Forget it. You might as well ask the Pope if you can write a new book of the Bible.
(This isn't to say that licensed works aren't a thing -- far from it! But they're almost always commissioned by the owner of the franchise, not on spec. There's rarely any lack of authors willing to write for a high-profile franchise.)
Realistically, that was never going to happen either.
It is exceedingly uncommon for any media franchise to accept story submissions "on spec", even in franchises which are less author-focused like films or TV series. For a literary series like LotR? Forget it. You might as well ask the Pope if you can write a new book of the Bible.
(This isn't to say that licensed works aren't a thing -- far from it! But they're almost always commissioned by the owner of the franchise, not on spec. There's rarely any lack of authors willing to write for a high-profile franchise.)
Indeed, that's kinda my point. It seems like a desperate attempt to force licensing talks, it was never going to happen without getting licensed, and licensing was probably never going to happen organically.
It seems they were hoping they could win the suit and force licensing as part of the settlement, which would return the derivative work under Tolkien estate and allow Amazon to use it. In the other case, they were going to get shot down, but then they hoped that the lengthy process of examining the work would convince the estate it was a worthy sequel, and the Tolkien estate would take a cut of the book sales in return for officially licensing it.
This was always going to end up in the courts, they probably thought suing first for infringement would be favorable to them rather than wait to get sued later.
It seems they were hoping they could win the suit and force licensing as part of the settlement, which would return the derivative work under Tolkien estate and allow Amazon to use it. In the other case, they were going to get shot down, but then they hoped that the lengthy process of examining the work would convince the estate it was a worthy sequel, and the Tolkien estate would take a cut of the book sales in return for officially licensing it.
This was always going to end up in the courts, they probably thought suing first for infringement would be favorable to them rather than wait to get sued later.
Last Ringbearer was a decent read
> The Tolkien estate then filed a separate lawsuit against Polychron for all physical and digital copies of The Fellowship of the King to be destroyed
Huh, is this a thing? You can have someone's personal copy on their hard drive destroyed even beyond stopping them from publishing it?
Huh, is this a thing? You can have someone's personal copy on their hard drive destroyed even beyond stopping them from publishing it?
And they will take it from your kindle
...like they did with Orwell's 1984. Of all the books it had to happen to, it had to be that one.
Well you see, you bring the copies up to a heavily fortified volcano city, and you simply throw them in. No you can't use eagles, yes you should consider the courier with much care. Good luck.
(which is to say, the idea of digital eradication is imaginary).
(which is to say, the idea of digital eradication is imaginary).
He sued the Tolkien Estate and Amazon? Why?? After doing that, I’m not surprised they want to shut him down.
Because authors have not even the first clue about how copyright works. This is at least partially by design, because if they did, nobody would sign ownership away to a publisher. The reason why publishers want ownership is specifically because they get paid way more in the derivative works market than by selling copies of a book.
Derivatives are also the reason why the plaintiff lost. Fun fact: fan fiction is not copyrightable, so if you make a derivative work without permission you own nothing. Yes this means it's legal for the original author to just resell your fan work as their own, as the plaintiff alleges (even if it didn't actually happen here).
Derivatives are also the reason why the plaintiff lost. Fun fact: fan fiction is not copyrightable, so if you make a derivative work without permission you own nothing. Yes this means it's legal for the original author to just resell your fan work as their own, as the plaintiff alleges (even if it didn't actually happen here).
> fan fiction is not copyrightable, so if you make a derivative work without permission you own nothing
This is false. It's possible for both you and the original author to simultaneously infringe each other's copyrights. This is unintuitive but true due to the simple fact that you own all the original parts of your work.
This is false. It's possible for both you and the original author to simultaneously infringe each other's copyrights. This is unintuitive but true due to the simple fact that you own all the original parts of your work.
Certainly in the UK it seems you have to have permission from the original rights holder to create the derivative work in the first place. If they didn't have this permission they weren't entitled to create the work and therefore their claim of copyright in the original parts of that work would be moot. I'd be surprised if that were not the case elsewhere https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_work...
This aligns with what I was taught in my U.S. Intellectual property class a few years ago
It's also the case in Japan.
Japan's very lucrative doujinshi (read: fan novels) and fan art scenes exist purely because most of the creators and publishers turn a blind eye to them (it's free marketing and good will from fans of their works). They only start caring if the fan works are being sold for profit or harming the original IPs.
Comiket exists thanks to everyone knowing and respecting where the invisible lines in the sand are drawn.
Japan's very lucrative doujinshi (read: fan novels) and fan art scenes exist purely because most of the creators and publishers turn a blind eye to them (it's free marketing and good will from fans of their works). They only start caring if the fan works are being sold for profit or harming the original IPs.
Comiket exists thanks to everyone knowing and respecting where the invisible lines in the sand are drawn.
That's the opposite: you don't need permission from the author to do anything. Only if you make trouble, the author may slap you.
No, you do need their permissions. It's just most creators and publishers choose to ignore the otherwise flagrant violations of their copyright, because most of the time everyone wins.
They make fanfiction without permission, and it works fine, so they don't need permission.
Not obtaining permission and not needing permission are two very different things.
Permission is absolutely required in Japan, legally speaking. In practice, the requirement for permission is ignored under gentlemen's agreements.
Permission is absolutely required in Japan, legally speaking. In practice, the requirement for permission is ignored under gentlemen's agreements.
Did you not study Pickett v Prince in your class?
That is what Picket vs Prince says is it not?
http://www.pelosolaw.com/casebriefs/copyright/pickett.html
http://www.pelosolaw.com/casebriefs/copyright/pickett.html
You are absolutely correct, I mistakenly thought you were responding to a different comment.
Note that the author of the unauthorised derivative work 'B', based on the 'original' work 'A', still retains copyright over their own (unauthorised) work B. Even if a court compels the author of B to stop distributing their infringing work B this fact doesn't change, B doesn't go out of copyright, and the author of A (or anybody else for that matter) doesn't have any additional rights to the use the work B.
In this particular case the Guardian article doesn't answer the question, but it's almost certainly the case that the courts found that Tolkien's estate didn't infringe upon Polychron's unauthorised work. In the UK (and much of the world), the bar for creating an original work is incredibly low, currently it's the EU approach where the author needs to express (creative) originality through choice, selection, or arrangement of a work. Previously the UK had the 'sweat of the brow' rule where the bar was even lower, only requiring 'labour, skill or judgement' in producing a work. The UK also explicitly protects derivative works from being considered infringement if they're found to be a parody, caricature, or pastiche, but this obviously isn't the case here.
Also note that 'copyright service' is a private company that sells copyright protection as a service through registering a work. The UK, unlike some countries, has no register of copyrighted works so you don't need to register a work for it to receive copyright protection in the UK.
In this particular case the Guardian article doesn't answer the question, but it's almost certainly the case that the courts found that Tolkien's estate didn't infringe upon Polychron's unauthorised work. In the UK (and much of the world), the bar for creating an original work is incredibly low, currently it's the EU approach where the author needs to express (creative) originality through choice, selection, or arrangement of a work. Previously the UK had the 'sweat of the brow' rule where the bar was even lower, only requiring 'labour, skill or judgement' in producing a work. The UK also explicitly protects derivative works from being considered infringement if they're found to be a parody, caricature, or pastiche, but this obviously isn't the case here.
Also note that 'copyright service' is a private company that sells copyright protection as a service through registering a work. The UK, unlike some countries, has no register of copyrighted works so you don't need to register a work for it to receive copyright protection in the UK.
To the the contrary, in the US, there is caselaw that, if your unauthorized derivative work is infringing, then you do not own the original elements of that work either. See Pickett v Prince.
What were the original elements there? That it was made into a guitar? What other part of the work was creative?
I'm honestly asking because I can't find anything that goes as far as the claim you're making regarding original elements. I'm not even sure what original/severable elements could exist in that particular case.
I'm honestly asking because I can't find anything that goes as far as the claim you're making regarding original elements. I'm not even sure what original/severable elements could exist in that particular case.
Pickett argued there were original elements, not me. But whether they existed didn’t matter to the court. From the decision:
“We need not pursue the issue of originality of derivative works. The Copyright Act grants the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. […] So Pickett could not make a derivative work based on the Prince symbol without Prince's authorization even if Pickett's guitar had a smidgeon of originality.”
“We need not pursue the issue of originality of derivative works. The Copyright Act grants the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. […] So Pickett could not make a derivative work based on the Prince symbol without Prince's authorization even if Pickett's guitar had a smidgeon of originality.”
Wait, so the Lord of the Rings, being a derivative fan fiction work of mythology, is not copyrightable? Cool beans.
I assume the same is true of all of Disney's works too.
I assume the same is true of all of Disney's works too.
That's a rather daft take.
“Derivative work” is a term of art and does not just mean “inspired by” or “influenced by”.
The only thing it doesn't meet, is that the things they stole are not copyrightable, because they came too early to be copyrighted.
They stole first, and then got protected by law.
They stole first, and then got protected by law.
It depends.
The original snow white story as written down by the Brothers Grimm is not under copyright and Disney can't do anything to stop you using it.
But lot's of what is associated with that is actually original stuff by the Mouse and therefore (still) copyrighted or trademarked.
In particular the well known blue-yellow dress, red bow in her hair, the dwarves appaerences and names are all not part of the traditional fairy tale.
Also in that story snow white is a child roughly 7 years old.
The original snow white story as written down by the Brothers Grimm is not under copyright and Disney can't do anything to stop you using it.
But lot's of what is associated with that is actually original stuff by the Mouse and therefore (still) copyrighted or trademarked.
In particular the well known blue-yellow dress, red bow in her hair, the dwarves appaerences and names are all not part of the traditional fairy tale.
Also in that story snow white is a child roughly 7 years old.
yeah, just because they change things in their fanfic doesn't make it original.
No, because the mythology is public domain.
Though it would be peak copyright brain - and hilarious - to dissolve the copyright on everything until we can find the first human that ever told a story and trace their lineage down to all their modern descendants.
Though it would be peak copyright brain - and hilarious - to dissolve the copyright on everything until we can find the first human that ever told a story and trace their lineage down to all their modern descendants.
What? The Lord of the Rings is absolutely under copyright. "The mythology" may be public domain but the specific implementation of mythology containing unique characters, plot points, locations and elements created by Tolkien most definitely isn't.
Copyright is about the text, not the idea. I'm not sure of the legal basis for claiming a sequel is a copyright violation.
Copyright covers derivative works.
There was an interesting weird area of copyright law that comes up every few years; early Sherlock Holmes are in the public domain, but not the final Sherlock Holmes stories [but maybe now? It's been a few years].
So it was legal to create a derivative work based on the early stories, like a movie or your own sequels or whatever, but if you referenced the final canon works, the estate would have you.
There was an interesting weird area of copyright law that comes up every few years; early Sherlock Holmes are in the public domain, but not the final Sherlock Holmes stories [but maybe now? It's been a few years].
So it was legal to create a derivative work based on the early stories, like a movie or your own sequels or whatever, but if you referenced the final canon works, the estate would have you.
> Copyright covers derivative works
This is so dumb. If early math has been copyrighted all math would be 1000 late by now
This is so dumb. If early math has been copyrighted all math would be 1000 late by now
Copyright only protects "unnecessary", i.e. creative work. If there's only one way to do something (eg. maths), it can't be protected by copyright. If copyright is an obstacle to somebody creating something, they always have the freedom to create something different and just as good instead.
Similarly to how recipes can't be copyrighted, but the text prefacing it can be.
The infringement can go in both directions though. The fanfic obviously infringes Tolkien but it's not so obvious that Amazon doesn't infringe the fanfic. That was a common scenario with unsolicited scripts for TV shows. Some Star Trek viewer writes a script where the Enterprise is turned into a pumpkin, sends it to Paramount for consideration, Paramount says no thanks. Next thing you know there is a Star Trek episode with the Enterprise being turned into a pumpkin and oops, the amateur scriptwriter sues. The script is a work derived from ST, but the episode with the pumpkin is potentially derived from the slushpile script. So now there is a fight about whether Paramount developed the idea independently.
For that reason studios are very careful about exactly how and when they will accept script submissions from outside their usual stable of writers.
For that reason studios are very careful about exactly how and when they will accept script submissions from outside their usual stable of writers.
What's a derivative work, exactly? To my layman thinking, I imagine it to be a modification of an existing work, like a translation, or a condensed version, or an "editor's cut", etc. I wouldn't think my from-scratch new work set in another work's universe would could as a derivative work. By analogy, a fork of a software project is a derivative work, but making a work-alike would not be.
Am I misunderstanding?
(I could look this up. It's more fun to discuss it, and other people might find it interesting.)
Am I misunderstanding?
(I could look this up. It's more fun to discuss it, and other people might find it interesting.)
AFAIK, in-the-same-universe is covered; Enola Holmes would be an example of a derivative work. There's a carve out for parody, which usually involves filing off the serial numbers as well as making fun of the original work.
But it's not my area of expertise.
But it's not my area of expertise.
Copyright can sometimes cover the characters in a fictional work, so that another author using those characters in a different story can be an infringement.
In the US there are a couple of things courts look at when deciding if a character can be copyrighted. One is how well delineated the character is. Another is whether the story is about the character or the character is just a means to move the story forward.
Wikipedia has decent coverage of this here [1] if you want more detail.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_fic...
In the US there are a couple of things courts look at when deciding if a character can be copyrighted. One is how well delineated the character is. Another is whether the story is about the character or the character is just a means to move the story forward.
Wikipedia has decent coverage of this here [1] if you want more detail.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_protection_for_fic...
In practice it's a fairly broad test. Any character with even a shred of personality or backstory is likely to be protected.
Book review here (March 2023): https://indiereader.com/book_review/the-fellowship-of-the-ki...
It was being sold commercially on amazon. What a doofus.
It is gone from amazon but still on bn: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/book/1142895065
It was being sold commercially on amazon. What a doofus.
It is gone from amazon but still on bn: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/book/1142895065
Glad to hear the copyright troll got his comeuppance. I just wouldn't have expected a large estate to be in the receiving end of the trolling.
I'm totally fine with fan fiction and derivative works. Just mark it as such. If some quality stuff arises, great.
Would you be fine if they were derivative of your work and their sales (in the case of a commercial project like the one in this article) cut into your bottom line?
We could ask JRR himself what he thinks about getting ripped of by 90% of the fantasy genre.
A lot of sold works are comparable to badly written fanfiction with inly a thin pretense of originality.
A lot of sold works are comparable to badly written fanfiction with inly a thin pretense of originality.
Beyond the use of the "Hero's Journey" meta, I'm not sure what 90% of fantasy rips off from JRR. Not even Tolkien invented the concept.
> I'm not sure what 90% of fantasy rips off from JRR.
Popular conceptions of fantasy races (elves, dwarves, goblins, orcs, trolls, etc) are heavily indebted to Tolkien's portrayals of them in his works. While many of them were based on concepts from European (and especially Scandinavian) folklore, Tolkien's representations of those races were much more specific and different in character.
For instance, folkloric "elves" ranged anywhere from midgets to fairies to demons. Tolkien's nature-attuned immortals were a substantial departure from these traditions, and have suffused popular culture to the degree that they're now the default interpretation of "elf" in most contexts outside Christmas. The "orc" is an even more extreme example; the word was attested in some Old English texts but was long extinct in English by the time he borrowed it for a race of evil creatures in The Hobbit.
Popular conceptions of fantasy races (elves, dwarves, goblins, orcs, trolls, etc) are heavily indebted to Tolkien's portrayals of them in his works. While many of them were based on concepts from European (and especially Scandinavian) folklore, Tolkien's representations of those races were much more specific and different in character.
For instance, folkloric "elves" ranged anywhere from midgets to fairies to demons. Tolkien's nature-attuned immortals were a substantial departure from these traditions, and have suffused popular culture to the degree that they're now the default interpretation of "elf" in most contexts outside Christmas. The "orc" is an even more extreme example; the word was attested in some Old English texts but was long extinct in English by the time he borrowed it for a race of evil creatures in The Hobbit.
But Tolkien doesn't have a copyright on the concept of fantasy races... he has a copyright on the fantasy races he wrote about. And even then, only in their specifics, not their generalities. That's the entire point of copyright. No one can copyright love stories, they can only copyright their love story.
How would fanfic/other derivative works cut into sales of the source material? I don't know much about the world, but I would blindly wager that 99% of people who consume content like this have already consumed 100% of the source material, and are just itching for more.
A movie/tv show adaption of a book would be considered a derivative work. I could see that cutting into the sales of the source material, especially if it's bad.
Pokemon games are a great example of people buying it for the (copyrighted) characters, while the (not-copyrightable) gameplay constantly gets criticized. A game that copies the monster designs while improving on the gameplay would cut into sales. Other games inspired by Pokemon never have as good monster designs.
Pokemon games are a great example of people buying it for the (copyrighted) characters, while the (not-copyrightable) gameplay constantly gets criticized. A game that copies the monster designs while improving on the gameplay would cut into sales. Other games inspired by Pokemon never have as good monster designs.
It's not just that it cuts into sales of the original, it's that the author should maintain control of their work. If I write a book, a movie adaptation doesn't cut into the sales of the original. If anything, it'd probably increase them. But it's my story so I should be able to control who gets to make the movie adaptation. Otherwise I can write a book and anyone can immediately turn around and make it into a movie, owing me nothing. Heck, a third person could come and make a sequel to the movie, paying nothing to me or the first filmmaker. I think the only exception to this is the statutory licensing for music rights. Not the sound recordings, mind you. But that composition rights. Anyone can cover Taylor Swift (like Ryan Adams) so long as they pay her the compulsory license fee.
Has there ever been a case where a fan fic cuts into the bottom line of the original???
A fan fic is ultimately just a subpar copy.
A fan fic is ultimately just a subpar copy.
Good fan art is neither sub-par nor copy - what it ultimately is is derivative, generally in the sense that relies on the audience’s prior experience with the source material. You don’t have to go to all the trouble to establish and introduce a world and characters, the audience is already familiar with all that - you can get right down to the alterations that characterize your spin on the story. Transformative works are not illegitimate.
Dismissing works like A Fox In Space (aka Starfox The Animated Series) as ‘a subpar copy’ is ridiculously ignorant.
Dismissing works like A Fox In Space (aka Starfox The Animated Series) as ‘a subpar copy’ is ridiculously ignorant.
>cut into your bottom line?
How does that work? Are you suggesting people will buy this book instead of lotr?
But to answer your question. I'd be fine with my great grand kids making their own way in life rather than living off my creation to the detriment of the rest of society.
How does that work? Are you suggesting people will buy this book instead of lotr?
But to answer your question. I'd be fine with my great grand kids making their own way in life rather than living off my creation to the detriment of the rest of society.
If I was in Tolkien's shoes I don't think I'd care a whole heck of a lot considering I'd be dead.
Honestly yes. I believe once I create art and present it to the public, it belongs to humanity. I would be honored if someone else took my art as a jumping off point to inspire their own. I would have my own opinions about its quality of course, but art is not sacred, and I would never discourage someone from creating.
[deleted]
The rich stay rich, and control our culture. Tolkien has long since left this and Middle Earth.
Are they rich?
Regardless, something has gone wrong when a creator’s retirement aged grandchildren win lawsuits regarding rights to their grandparents creation.
Most of us should earn more from the long tail benefits from our work, but the copyright situation is just ridiculous.
Regardless, something has gone wrong when a creator’s retirement aged grandchildren win lawsuits regarding rights to their grandparents creation.
Most of us should earn more from the long tail benefits from our work, but the copyright situation is just ridiculous.
Pretty sure the Tolkien Estate is managed by Saul Zaentz, and he was a fool to try to sue him. He has a _very_ long record of defending the IP very very strenuously.
No Saul Zaentz (who has been dead for almost 10 years) used to own Middle Earth Enterprises (previously Tolkien Enterprises) which was a division of the Saul Zaentz Company but now is owned by the Embracer Group. Zaentz bought the Worldwide Exclusive film and tv rights to the Hobbit and LotR from United Artists which bought them from Tolkien.
All of which is separate from the Tolkien Estate and the Tolkien Trust which is managed by Tolkien’s family.
All of which is separate from the Tolkien Estate and the Tolkien Trust which is managed by Tolkien’s family.
call yourself book perfect and try to shame on author's kids is very different.
Perhaps this will provide the incentive J.R.R. Tolkien needs to write some more books.
He’s probably happy resting on his laurels and cashing the checks.
/me can't tell if this is parody.
As, apparently, nor can this fanfic writer, with their parody of a pen-name.
Just for a laugh: JRRT would be 131 if he were still alive. He published 45 books; he wasn't slacking.
His son Christopher, whom I met once, spent his whole adult life editing together his late father's works, and would have been 100 next year... and he nearly made it.
As, apparently, nor can this fanfic writer, with their parody of a pen-name.
Just for a laugh: JRRT would be 131 if he were still alive. He published 45 books; he wasn't slacking.
His son Christopher, whom I met once, spent his whole adult life editing together his late father's works, and would have been 100 next year... and he nearly made it.
I suppose this would sway the masses if by giving copyright many more years after death, it caused long deasceaded authors to unearth themselves in order to squeeze out one last work.
I get the snark, but are you seriously going to argue that an author has no interest in providing a livelihood to their family and/or offspring, even past their own lives? That seems absurd and in defiance of the economic system we live under.
That's a system that has been lobbied into existence in the last 100 years. I think it's a bad thing for society, and society has a lousy lobby.
The term of copyright has been extended recently, yes. But copyright is in the US constitution and has existed for much longer than 100 years. As to doing well for one's offspring? I think that is a concept that is older than 100 years...
I didn't say copyright only existed for 100 years. I said the "system", as you eluded to, has only existed for the last 100 years.
It's a lot less than 100 years, actually. I put it at the 1976 copyright extension act where things went totally off the rails.
(You could argue the 1909 act, which was accompanied by discussion in the Senate re: benefiting copyright holders in their old age and providing for their descendants was where things went wrong. The term didn't become outrageous at that time though. The 1909 act also required registration of copyrights as a balancing feature-- a requirement that would be removed subsequently.)
re: terms and the lobby
The original term of copyright in the US (1790 copyright act) was 14 years w/ an optional single renewal to 28 years (drawing inspiration from the Statute of Anne).
The 1831 copyright act increased the term to 28 years with an optional 14 year renewal. Noah Webster, cited by some as the first copyright lobbyist in the US, had an influence on this act (as did European copyright terms and "normalization" of US copyrights to match Europe-- a theme that repeats).
Samuel Clemens suggested copyright terms should be perpetual in an appearance in 1906 before the British House of Lords. Presumably he was voicing the same opinion in the US. He wrote about how any "reasonable author" would like copyright to "take care of his children" and "let the grand-children take care of themselves". (Why the children of copyright holders should be entitled to a "free ride" while others' children are not is a topic worthy of debate. Being the child of a copyright holder doesn't confer some inability to make one's own way in the world, to my mind.)
In 1909 the term of the optional renewal was extended to 28 years.
Up to and including 1909 US copyright seems fairly reasonable to me. It certainly seems capable of providing incentive to creators. A 56 year term is longer than I'd like, personally, but it isn't ridiculous. The public domain is still enriched and creators have the opportunity to create new derivative works.
In 1976 the term was extended again to either 75 years (works for hire) or life of the author plus 50 years. This is where, in my mind, the "social contract" became radically and unfairly stilted in favor of copyright holders (not necessarily creators-- since work-for-hire was codified in 1909 and became a normalized practice between '09 and '76). Corporate interests lobbied hard for the '76 changes and again for the Sonny Bono extension act in 1998 (Disney figuring in both times, for example).
I regard the '76 copyright extension as nothing other than a "pull up the ladder" action, and the '98 extension as even more so. So much of human creation is derivative. The '76 extension robbed significantly from the public domain. The '98 act changed the rules retroactively again, pushing the ability of creators to make new derivative works out to ridiculous future dates.
To my mind everything after the 1909 act has been serving the interests of copyright holders w/o regard for balancing the good of society.
Society has a shitty lobby (and post Citizens United money equals speech). It's never going back to being a fair system.
re: doing well for one's offspring - Consolidation of wealth and generational wealth are concepts worthy of debate. I don't think they're an unalloyed good, nor do I think I'm alone in that thinking.
It's a lot less than 100 years, actually. I put it at the 1976 copyright extension act where things went totally off the rails.
(You could argue the 1909 act, which was accompanied by discussion in the Senate re: benefiting copyright holders in their old age and providing for their descendants was where things went wrong. The term didn't become outrageous at that time though. The 1909 act also required registration of copyrights as a balancing feature-- a requirement that would be removed subsequently.)
re: terms and the lobby
The original term of copyright in the US (1790 copyright act) was 14 years w/ an optional single renewal to 28 years (drawing inspiration from the Statute of Anne).
The 1831 copyright act increased the term to 28 years with an optional 14 year renewal. Noah Webster, cited by some as the first copyright lobbyist in the US, had an influence on this act (as did European copyright terms and "normalization" of US copyrights to match Europe-- a theme that repeats).
Samuel Clemens suggested copyright terms should be perpetual in an appearance in 1906 before the British House of Lords. Presumably he was voicing the same opinion in the US. He wrote about how any "reasonable author" would like copyright to "take care of his children" and "let the grand-children take care of themselves". (Why the children of copyright holders should be entitled to a "free ride" while others' children are not is a topic worthy of debate. Being the child of a copyright holder doesn't confer some inability to make one's own way in the world, to my mind.)
In 1909 the term of the optional renewal was extended to 28 years.
Up to and including 1909 US copyright seems fairly reasonable to me. It certainly seems capable of providing incentive to creators. A 56 year term is longer than I'd like, personally, but it isn't ridiculous. The public domain is still enriched and creators have the opportunity to create new derivative works.
In 1976 the term was extended again to either 75 years (works for hire) or life of the author plus 50 years. This is where, in my mind, the "social contract" became radically and unfairly stilted in favor of copyright holders (not necessarily creators-- since work-for-hire was codified in 1909 and became a normalized practice between '09 and '76). Corporate interests lobbied hard for the '76 changes and again for the Sonny Bono extension act in 1998 (Disney figuring in both times, for example).
I regard the '76 copyright extension as nothing other than a "pull up the ladder" action, and the '98 extension as even more so. So much of human creation is derivative. The '76 extension robbed significantly from the public domain. The '98 act changed the rules retroactively again, pushing the ability of creators to make new derivative works out to ridiculous future dates.
To my mind everything after the 1909 act has been serving the interests of copyright holders w/o regard for balancing the good of society.
Society has a shitty lobby (and post Citizens United money equals speech). It's never going back to being a fair system.
re: doing well for one's offspring - Consolidation of wealth and generational wealth are concepts worthy of debate. I don't think they're an unalloyed good, nor do I think I'm alone in that thinking.
>re: doing well for one's offspring - Consolidation of wealth and generational wealth are concepts worthy of debate. I don't think they're an unalloyed good, nor do I think I'm alone in that thinking.
That wasn't the question. The question was whether or not the ability to maintain control of an author's work for a period of time after their death would or would not be a motivating reason for them to obtain a copyright. It obviously is, how could you dispute that?
That wasn't the question. The question was whether or not the ability to maintain control of an author's work for a period of time after their death would or would not be a motivating reason for them to obtain a copyright. It obviously is, how could you dispute that?
I don't believe J.R.R. Tolkien, personally, would have lacked motivation to produce and publish his works if his future estate would have been unable to act in a rent-seeking manner 50 years after his death. He published under the pre-1976 regime in the US anyway.
Would some choose not to create works because they wouldn't get that deal in a hypothetical world where we reigned-in copyright terms to pre-1976 durations and life-plus clause? Yeah-- maybe. I don't think the effect would be terribly chilling. There was a lot of work made available under the 1909-1976 regime.
I certainly don't think we got an explosion of new work because of the 1976 act. It was a windfall for existing rightholders and a method to limit future competition.
Would some choose not to create works because they wouldn't get that deal in a hypothetical world where we reigned-in copyright terms to pre-1976 durations and life-plus clause? Yeah-- maybe. I don't think the effect would be terribly chilling. There was a lot of work made available under the 1909-1976 regime.
I certainly don't think we got an explosion of new work because of the 1976 act. It was a windfall for existing rightholders and a method to limit future competition.
It's a very simple question, telling that you refuse to answer it:
"but are you seriously going to argue that an author has no interest in providing a livelihood to their family and/or offspring, even past their own lives? That seems absurd and in defiance of the economic system we live under"
"but are you seriously going to argue that an author has no interest in providing a livelihood to their family and/or offspring, even past their own lives? That seems absurd and in defiance of the economic system we live under"
You're killing me here. Yes, most humans seek to maximize their returns. Or course. I never argued they wouldn't.
Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them.
My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now.
That's an argument, to me, against the "necessity" of this regime. It serves to show that this regime is rent seeking, a windfall for existing copyright holders, and an impediment to competition.
Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them.
My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now.
That's an argument, to me, against the "necessity" of this regime. It serves to show that this regime is rent seeking, a windfall for existing copyright holders, and an impediment to competition.
"You're killing me here. Yes, most humans seek to maximize their returns. Or course. I never argued they wouldn't."
You kinda did
>My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now.
It's a pointless observation. No one said that works would never be created without the extensions.
>Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them.
No one argued that.
You kinda did
>My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now.
It's a pointless observation. No one said that works would never be created without the extensions.
>Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them.
No one argued that.
Then what the hell is your argument?
Thank you.
I never made an argument, I asked a really simple question that the other poster spent this entire thread avoiding answering
On does not simply take on the Tolkien Estate in a copyright lawsuit. It is folly.
Slightly amused, I did some research and came across the case of Marion Zimmer Bradley, who once had to defend herself against the ghosts she herself had conjured.
https://fanlore.org/wiki/Marion_Zimmer_Bradley_Fanfiction_Co...
My precious.
There must be some LotR/Darkover crossover out there somewhere.
https://fanlore.org/wiki/Marion_Zimmer_Bradley_Fanfiction_Co...
My precious.
There must be some LotR/Darkover crossover out there somewhere.
Should Tolkien sue the Danish mythologists, or should another derivative work sue Tolkien?