Tolkien Estate Says No Historical Fiction For JRR 337
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the estate of JRR Tolkien isn't just overprotective of his works, but of himself as well. The estate is in a bit of a legal spat with the author of a fictional work that includes JRR Tolkien as a character, and in part discusses his works. The estate is claiming that this infringes on Tolkien's publicity rights, but if that's the case, would it make almost all 'historical fiction' illegal?"
do-not-meddle-in-the-affairs-of-greedy-offspring (Score:5, Insightful)
That's really what it comes down to. The lawyers are just doing the bidding of Tolkien's offspring.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You could say that about anyone who inherits his dad's hardware store. It's not as if all Christopher Tolkien has been doing has been firing off lawsuits. In all likelihood nobody would have ever seen The Silmarillion were it not for him. How different would Middle-Earth fandom be then?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You could say that about anyone who inherits his dad's hardware store...
Except the hardware store would need to continue to be well run. Your analogy simply isn't good. The actual truth seems to be that current, over-extended, copyrights are just like family fortunes. In my opinion, wealth should be earned, not entitled. Indeed, I'd postulate that many of the world's problems are rooted in the undeserved transfer of the world's wealth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except the hardware store would need to continue to be well run.
Define "well run"? Christopher Tolkien has published some fifteen volumes of serious Tolkien scholarship, which is more books than J.R.R. himself published in his lifetime.
In my opinion, wealth should be earned, not entitled.
So if your father spends his whole life working his ass off in a coal mine to put food in his children's mouths, then dies of black lung disease when you're fourteen, his savings should all go to the state and your mom should have to go door-to-door looking for a job, huh? What is the incentive to earn wealth if you're not entitled to use
Re:do-not-meddle-in-the-affairs-of-greedy-offsprin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That analogy is absurd. With copyright, we're talking about the design of the book being protected, not the physical object.
A better analogy would be that you (and the rest of hi
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK this pretty much happens already.. You have death tax (haha even in death there is no escape) and then any inheritance has a huge tax on it too.
This is why you give all your assets to your offspring before you die.
I think inherit
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Even Warren Buffett, who is not generally in favor of big inheritances, has said he will leave his children enough money to do whatever they want (just "not nothing").
That is because Warren Buffet is a hypocrite. His children already have the benefit of having him as a father, i.e. access to top schools, access to high quality food, access to social connections, access to luxury clothing and accessories, access to technological items that make their lives easier, and probably a nice car... all courtesy of daddy. You cannot say they are disadvantaged if their dad leaves them nothing, because if they even put a half-assed effort in developing a skill or a career on their
Re:do-not-meddle-in-the-affairs-of-greedy-offsprin (Score:4, Insightful)
Your analogy is very bad. There is a difference between leaving your offspring the rights to a creative work they had absolutely nothing to do with and leaving them the money you made from it.
Why? Your creative work is a business, just like any other. If you had lived, you would have been able to keep operating that business, making money of the works you did in the past (and any new ones you choose to create). Why should you be able to hand your hardware store down to your heirs, but not a media business? And by your own logic, which is worse -- handing your kids a pile of money, or handing them a thriving business to operate? Are lottery winners happy? No -- generally, they piss it away and end up in debt. On the other hand, if your heirs materially participate in the business of managing your creative works (as Christopher Tolkien did while his father was alive, and continues to do long after his death), then they don't "have absolutely nothing to do with" the creative work, do they? Comments like yours just sound like sour grapes to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Because copyright is a bargain. We temporarily give up our right to copy an artist's work in exchange for that work eventually going into the public domain (and not just being squirreled away unread in an attic somewhere).
In the last generation, copyright holders have systematically broken this bargain, extending copyright terms to insane lengths, expanding copyright scope, stifling fair use, etc. Using the threat of legal harassment to deter new writers from writing about long-dead public figures i
Re:do-not-meddle-in-the-affairs-of-greedy-offsprin (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't think anyone has a problem with Christopher Tolkien having a copyright on his dad's stuff Christopher released, especially considering he had to do a hell of a lot of editing and whatnot.
The clock on unreleased works doesn't actually start ticking until released, anyway. Of course Christopher is entitled to that copyright, even if he did nothing. Copyright is incentive to publish works, he published a work that wasn't published, we aren't here to run around judging how much work it took, he gets a copyright.
The problem is twofold:
a) With copyright's irrational 'X years after death', this will result in a lot of stupidity. If Chris lives another 30 years, the copyright for LoTR will expire 70 years before the copyright on the Silmarillion, published only 20 years later, does.
Copyright needs to be for a set amount of time, period, and have nothing to do with how long anyone lives. That idea is just crazy. If we want to 'help their children', well, first off, 'children' do not need support for 75 years, and secondly, that's accomplished simply by having copyright be inheritable. I'd even be fine without taxing it. (Which we don't.)
And can I point out the inherent insanity of 'helping' orphaned dependents by having the clock start ticking on copyright's expiration? Even if the clock takes near-forever to run out, that really doesn't make sense in any logical manner.
b) Copyright is way too long to start with. Lord of the Rings should be public domain now. Hell, the Beatles should be. The Silmarillion should be bumping up against expiration if not already expired. 40 years is more than long enough to incentive people to make stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
You are talking about right of attribution, not copyright. That's actually a seperate [cornell.edu] thing from copyright (But included as part of copyright law)...you can lose the copyright on something but have the right to claim authorship. (In fact, you also have the right to demand that your name is removed from something...I keep waiting to see William Shakespeare's heirs running around demanding his name get removed from bad performances of his plays.)
If you want to demand that living artists remain credited, even
Re: (Score:3)
So Tolkien's son was 14 when he died of a writing-related illness after being forced into writing major pieces of fantasy literature? And then all the wealth he earned was stolen by the state before it could be inherited?
Poor analogy. A better one is, "So if your father spends a significant amount of his spare time lovingly crafting a fake world for his own enjoyment which unexpectedly turns out to be a big seller. Upon his death, his children (aged between 53 and 44 years of age) benefitted enormously from
Re: (Score:2)
"In my opinion, wealth should be earned, not entitled. "
Ditto here, my vote goes to a 100% estate tax, even if it means that Paris Hilton would have to flip my burgers.(ick)
Re: (Score:2)
In all likelihood nobody would have ever seen The Silmarillion were it not for him. How different would Middle-Earth fandom be then?
Only a select few would refer to Mithrandir by all his twenty three names.
Re:do-not-meddle-in-the-affairs-of-greedy-offsprin (Score:4, Funny)
Only a select few would refer to Mithrandir by all his twenty three names.
And this is different from current reality how?
Re: (Score:3)
It's a shame the way the estate treats his works as a revenue stream rather than an opus to be built upon.
Wait... so, say, Frank Herbert's Dune series as "an opus to be built upon"... this is a good thing?
Leave Tolkien's works well enough alone, I say. Christopher Tolkien's life's work has mostly been about cataloging, organizing, reconstructing, and re-presenting his father's original papers and fragments, and providing his own insights as one of the few people who were close enough to the source material to really have anything to add. If he had decided instead to pump out two or three trilogies filling in th
Re: (Score:2)
Please do be more specific about this one.
Re: (Score:2)
"If more of us valued food and cheer above hoarded gold, it would be a much merrier world."
— J.R.R. Tolkien
No historical fiction? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry Public Figure (Score:5, Insightful)
Tolkein was/is a public figure, feels like there isn't much to stand on here especially if its fiction and portrayed as such. Seems like this fall well within the fair use realm.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Tolkein was/is a public figure
I am not so sure about that.
A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figure---a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate---someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure --- for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.
Who Is A Public Figure [eff.org]
I don't know how quite how you frame an academic and author like Tolkien as the center of any great "public" controversy or event.
I think you do have a problem if you mimic the distinctive cover designs and typefaces of Tolkien's books. The cynic in me dislikes the notion of using fictionalized biography to shore up your literary criticism.
70 years + is too damn much (Score:5, Insightful)
More evidence that the copyright term is much too long.
Re:70 years + is too damn much (Score:4, Interesting)
The estate is claiming that this infringes on Tolkien's publicity rights, but if that's the case, would it make almost all 'historical fiction' illegal?
More evidence that the copyright term is much too long.
The Right of Publicity can be defined simply as the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity.
Maybe I'm missing something really obvious but I was always under the impression that publicity and privacy rights are separate from copyright. This lawsuit is bloody ridiculous and I hope the Tolkien estate loses but as far as I can tell it has very little to do with copyright law.
Re: (Score:3)
This individual is no more, he cannot protect this right anymore than he can rise from the grave and eat brains.
Re:70 years + is too damn much (Score:4, Interesting)
But this story suggests this is not a copyrights issue, but rather a "publicity rights" issue.
the Tolkien estate, ... alleged that it had a property right to commercially exploit the name and likeness of J.R.R. Tolkien. The estate also alleged that the cover art and typefaces in "Mirkwood" were similar to Tolkien's work to a degree that it would provoke unfair competition.
They are inventing a new right, apparently out of whole cloth, but certainly not based on copyright law.
One can't copyright one's existence, and thereby prevent, say, a biography, a news report, or tabloid coverage.
Privacy + trademark = right of publicity (Score:2)
They are inventing a new right, apparently out of whole cloth, but certainly not based on copyright law.
As I understand it, it's not entirely whole cloth: it comes out of the intersection of privacy and trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
One can't copyright one's existence, and thereby prevent, say, a biography, a news report, or tabloid coverage.
But what if you write an autobiography? Are you not then a character in your own book, making other biographies a derivative work?
Re: (Score:3)
It's about Right of Publicity [wikipedia.org]. If you're not bored reading my comment yet, it says that no one can commercialize your persona without your permission. This is a good thing: if it didn't exist, Nike wouldn't have to pay Michael Jordan to use his name, and neither would anyone else. Now, it's probably being taken too f
Re:70 years + is too damn much (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Which does not change that fact that it is too long. If you guarantee someone a paycheck for their own life + 50 you are already reducing their need to produce further works. No amount of future protection will make JRR Tolkien rise from his grave and write more novels.
Name change (Score:5, Interesting)
Just change the character's name to R.J.R. Token (Ronald John Token), clearly explain on the cover the Token is a fictional character inspired by J.R.R. Tolkien and then tell the estate to get stuffed.
"The Estate Of" (Score:3, Insightful)
How come there isn't an Estate of George Washington? Is every dead person entitled to a perpetual corporate entity?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference between "filed a suit" and "won a lawsuit for". Until someone follows through to the end and gets this issue more or less written into law, the chilling effect will continue. As far as I know, publicity rights end when you die. You can publish about the dead all you like, and it doesn't become an issue unless you're defaming someone who's currently alive.
-Restil
my Tolkien account (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time there was this fairly cool guy called JRR Tolkien who wrote some popular books. Then he had some descendants who were leeching cunts. The lawyers on all sides lived happily ever after. The end.
This is OK because it's not fiction, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Pay up. Fact or fiction isn't the issue.
They are claiming a right to manage their own publicity. I have no idea where they got the idea such a right exists, but according to the summary and TFA, that is exactly what they care claiming.
Re: (Score:2)
They are claiming a right to manage their own publicity. I have no idea where they got the idea such a right exists
The notion of "right to publicity" has ample precedent. It's used every day, and it's why you can't use a picture of Steve Jobs in your own advertisement or product without getting his permission.
Re: (Score:3)
But you can write a book or an article about Steve Jobs, and you can write w work of fiction that includes Steve Jobs as a central character.
This is done every day of the week.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Like hell I can't, ask TMZ not to post a pick of a sickly Steve Jobs with some hookers and we'll see how that stacks up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Editorial = Commercial.
Only internet bloggers work for free.
Re: (Score:2)
But you can use Marilyn Monroe all you want. Since she died in NY, she no longer has any publicity rights.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They are claiming a right to manage their own publicity. I have no idea where they got the idea such a right exists, but according to the summary and TFA, that is exactly what they care claiming.
You can't market a soft drink called Cock-Cola whether you claim it's a parody or not. Also, it's pretty common these days for celebrities to trademark their own names -- Sarah Palin did it the other day. This is all so they can manage their own publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
Cock-Cola you probably could get away with, since it is another word. Trademarking your name does not protect you from parody or being in the new. For instance I can say Sarah Palin is a moron who should perhaps see if she can get her own daughter to keep her legs shut before suggesting that as a solution to teen pregnancy.
Re: (Score:3)
You could probably get away with making a picture of a can of Cock-Cola, but I guarantee you could not sell an actual can of soda with that name, especially if you modeled the trade dress after Coca-Cola. Ceci n'est pas une pipe, but whether you call it a parody or not, that can really is a can of soda, and that's what Coca-Cola's trademark protects. (And, actually, I'm sure they've filed trademarks protecting a variety of other uses.)
In the other case, yes, you could say Sarah Palin is a moron. What you co
Re: (Score:2)
What if you call it The unauthorized Sarah Palin cockbook ?
Re: (Score:2)
euh, I meant cookbook, damm you cock-cola !
Re: (Score:2)
Cock-Cola you probably could get away with, since it is another word.
You'e mad, Wongberger! That would never fly!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:my Tolkien account (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:my Tolkien account (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still not seeing how the descendants, in particular Christopher Tolkien are leaching. CJRT put about three decades effort into organizing and publishing the vast amount of unpublished material than JRRT had written between 1916-17 and his death in 1973 available. CJRT actually was an Oxford professor himself and then spent a good chunk of his own retirement on this organization effort. A good many Tolkien scholars are very grateful for CJRT's efforts.
Tolkien's works were a lot more extensive than just The Hobbit and LOTR.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time there was this fairly cool guy called JRR Tolkien who wrote some popular books. Then he had some descendants who were leeching cunts. The lawyers on all sides lived happily ever after. The end.
This is OK because it's not fiction, right?
Let me abbreviate that for you.
leeching cunts! it's not fiction, right?
I'd like to see the original complaint (Score:5, Informative)
The Scribd document contains the text of Hilliard's court filing, but not what the Tolkien Estate said in its original cease-and-desist letter. It says it includes a copy of the Tolkien Estate's letter as Exhibit B, but there is no Exhibit B in the Scribd document. Until we can see the original language used in the cease-and-desist, it's hard to say whether there might be any valid complaint there. I get the gist of line 17 of this document, which amounts to "I can say whatever I want because of the First Amendment," but that's not strictly true, and it's usually a bad idea to go straight for the Constitution as your first line of defense. Case law could easily support the Tolkien Estate's position.
I'm sure there will be countless posts about the evils of intellectual property law, but I, for one, see no reason why this complaint and counter-complaint should not be weighed in the courts.
Re:I'd like to see the original complaint (Score:4, Informative)
I wouldn't really be surprised about any such claims coming from Tolkien Estate specifically - anyone who is seriously involved in fandom around Tolkien's works knows how litigious they can be, and how insane [theregister.co.uk] their demands often sound.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, your link talks about a lawsuit filed not by the Tolkien Estate, but by the companies that own the film rights to the books. That certainly seems like a stretch.
But what the lawsuit in TFA is about is the Tolkien Estate's claim that it owns publicity rights to Tolkien's name. To what extent is that true? I don't know. I mean, imagine: Say your father died a few years ago, and someone who lived up the street from you when you were a kid writes a novel in which your father is a character, and your f
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, imagine: Say your father died a few years ago, and someone who lived up the street from you when you were a kid writes a novel in which your father is a character, and your father is portrayed as a pedophile and serial rapist. You argue that this is a complete fabrication, but the author shrugs and says, "What can I say, it's fiction. I'm exploring the ramifications for the neighborhood if your father had been a rapist. Obviously people shouldn't take this as a work of scholarship." Wouldn't you at least wish you had some recourse to stop publication of that book?
Depending on how clear it is that the book in question is fiction, there may be grounds for a libel suit in such a situation (and in the case from TFA, if they are unhappy about how Tolkien is portrayed). And I don't just mean disclaimers, but if most readers of the book assume that it is non-fiction - i.e. if there is actual harm to reputation caused by it - then it should probably apply.
Aside from that... I certainly wouldn't want to be in a situation you describe, and it would probably irk me - but I do
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I don't see why it is unethical to capitalize on someone else's popularity, so long as the work in question has inherent creative merit
OK, ummm, total hypothetical here. Let's say you have this thing you built -- call it a widget -- and someday someone sees it and says, "Wow, that's a really amazing little gadget. I have never seen anything like it!" And it turns out this person is a TV producer, and they put you on the evening news.
All of a sudden you start getting calls about this widget you've built -- "Where can I get one?" And you reply that, gosh, you hadn't ever really thought of mass-producing them, but if enough people seem intere
Re: (Score:2)
But here's the kicker -- the guy building the fake widgets put your name and face on the box, saying "Here is the famous widget, as invented by shutdown -p now." Would that be ethical?
No, because that would be a misrepresentation (as the widget is, as you describe, not actually "as invented by ..."). Furthermore, putting name and face on the box is likely to be interpreted by customers as an official endorsement by me, which can potentially be damaging to my reputation. From customers' perspective, this would also likely be fraud.
Overall, I don't see how the situation you describe is even closely similar to this case - unless the author of this book uses Tolkien-related imagery or symbol
Re:I'd like to see the original complaint (Score:4, Informative)
Overall, I don't see how the situation you describe is even closely similar to this case - unless the author of this book uses Tolkien-related imagery or symbols prominently on cover, while advertising the book etc.
Check TFA -- that's what they're claiming.
Re: (Score:3)
Or you think Stalin's grandson should sue the arse off Westwood Studios for producing C&C series?
Difference there being that Stalin is a political figure (assuming we're applying the standards of U.S. law). Tolkien is not strictly a "public figure" in that sense. He was a private individual who traded on his own name to make a living, through writing books. His estate is established to preserve and protect his legacy. There's every possibility that nothing will come of the Tolkien Estate's claims in this case, I don't think we can automatically assume its claims are invalid.
Oh no, not my erotic fan fiction! (Score:5, Funny)
Eyeing the half dead orc, J R R Tolkien discreetly scanned the surrounding for those who might be watching. Once satisfied that the two were alone, he made quick work of his pants. Mounting the orcs lacerated leg, Tolkien muttered "Oh yes, my precious, your leg shall be mine. Oh yes". The orc said nothing and simply stared in quiet horror. His eyes said everything that could possibly be said.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think I preferred the Tolkien/CS Lewis slash fiction.
Kids these days gore up everything, it's because of 4chan isn't it?
Dead people have publicity rights??? (Score:3)
Seriously, do they? I never knew that. I never knew that publicity rights could be inherited. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe the estate is 100% full of it and thought they could pick on some who would just give up immediately.
Seriously, according to the article this is not about copyright, which does persist after death and can be inherited. Publicity rights? Good grief...
Re: (Score:3)
So I can make movies with a digitally-simulated model of James Dean as my lead actor, and nobody has any say in the matter? Or forget movies: TV commercials, that's where the real cash is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dead people have publicity rights??? (Score:4, Informative)
You make my point perfectly. Pause the video right at the very beginning. You'll see text at the bottom stating not only that "Gene Kelly" is a trademark, but that the images are copyright the Gene Kelly Image Trust. If Gene Kelly's estate wanted to put the kibosh on the whole project, it could have.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
He is dead, he cannot be harmed by your actions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He is dead, he cannot be harmed by your actions.
No? What if it was commercials of a computer-simulated Martin Luther King, urging everyone to vote Republican?
What if it was a porno featuring Marilyn Monroe doing a "2 boys 1 cup" with Bobby and JFK? Should none of their families and loved ones have any say in the matter?
Are we ghouls, that we can exhume the bodies of the dead for whatever purpose we choose? Do historical figures have no right to their own legacy at all?
Re: (Score:2)
'historical fiction' ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes me think I have the write to arrange some letters from the alphabet in a certain way? The audacity!
Surely the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict such rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict such rights.
Hahahaha! No. If you dream up fictional stuff on someone/something, and pretend that it is 'factual', then the burden of proof of that is on you, pal.
Re: (Score:2)
Not one is pretending it is factual. Besides I can say anything I want about anyone, they then must prove I should not be allowed to say it, via slander or other laws.
Re: (Score:2)
The right way to do that is in an essay, actually critiquing "the (perceived) lack of female characters in Tolkien's works" not by making things up about the person.
Why? Why isn't fiction a legitimate way to explore real issues and put forward a critique? Should Tolkein have written an essay critiquing historical developments since the middle ages, rather than writing the Lord of the Rings?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, what makes you think that *you* have the right to include 'real' people into your fake fictional works ?
Indeed. Mixing fact and fiction is quaintly known in civilized societies as lying. Making up a genre called "historical fiction" doesn't change the simple fact that Hilliard is being dishonest -- saying things about a real person that he knows are untrue. If his sincere intent was " literary criticism [hollywoodreporter.com]" as his lawyers now claim, then he would have written an essay, not a novel. They're entirely different categories of prose and I hope the court can appreciate that "fictionalizing" events of real people's
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, what makes you think that *you* have the right to include 'real' people into your fake fictional works ?
Indeed. Mixing fact and fiction is quaintly known in civilized societies as lying. Making up a genre called "historical fiction" doesn't change the simple fact that Hilliard is being dishonest -- saying things about a real person that he knows are untrue. If his sincere intent was "literary criticism [hollywoodreporter.com]" as his lawyers now claim, then he would have written an essay, not a novel. They're entirely different categories of prose and I hope the court can appreciate that "fictionalizing" events of real people's lives is not literary critique, it's literally lying. And if any of the made-up events are in any way insulting, it's slander.
Very true... Mod parent up, please.... ?
Re:'historical fiction' ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mixing fact and fiction is quaintly known in civilized societies as lying.
I'm not sure if you're joking; your argument would make all fiction mere "lying," because all fiction "mixes fact and fiction." Most fiction involves real places, and almost all involves a real species, i.e., human beings. A huge amount of fiction involves real people in one way or another, too, so readers will be familiar with the idea that claims made about real people in a work of fiction may not be true. It's only lying if you say things that are untrue with the intent that someone reading them believes them to be true, and that will not be true of anything which specifically calls itself "fiction."
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think you have the right to control what I put in my fictional works?
Just then Lincoln shot big bird with his ray gun and all the children were covered in a shower of feathers and candy.
Why should I not be allowed to write the above?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I not be allowed to write the above?
Uhhmmm... Because you pretend that this fiction is fact ? Lying ? Slander ? ...
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think you have the right to control what I put in my fictional works?
Just then Lincoln shot big bird with his ray gun and all the children were covered in a shower of feathers and candy.
Why should I not be allowed to write the above?
Because Big Bird is not a candy ass?
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. The next time one of the Rambo/Red Dawn-sort of US movies will come out, have the directors get a permission from the Communist Party of Russian Federation. Because, like, the CPSU (and its descendants) can manage their own publicity.
I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with 'factual' works... Just with 'fictional/imaginary' works ... Just saying ...
Am I a character of my own creation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would feel odd if my real life character had less legal protection than a fictional character I create.
A 100 % percent agreed...
How about? (Score:2)
It sure would drive innovation and what are heirs/patent-right owners actually contributing? They just rub their hands - how lucky I am to have this ancestor or made the investment.
Dreaming on...
Re: (Score:3)
Short, reasonable, fixed durations are the answer - like, say 15 years automatically, then another 20 if you provide a DRM-free copy and $1 to the government.
90% of content would be free in 15 years and, for the rest, an archive would ensure the works aren't lost forever.
Meanwhile, I don't care if this means someone who's a brilliant author at age 23 loses all copyright protection at age 58. That's what retirement savi
Re: (Score:2)
from: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/expiration.html [ivanhoffman.com]: "Under the current law, if a work was first published in the United States on or before December 31, 1922, then it is likely to be in the public domain."
Hobbit apparently 1936
Lord of the Rings 1954/55
T. died 73 + 70 = 2043
You should try it (Score:2)
California Civil Code: Deceased Personalities (Score:4, Informative)
In addition to trademark and unfair competition issues the complaint includes: "(t)he Estate claims that it holds the rights of publicity to exclude others from the use of the name and personality of J.R.R. Tolkien in a fictional novel, and those rights include the right to preclude Hillard from authoring and Cruel Rune from publishing Mirkwood."
California has an unusually strong statute for "deceased personalities": California Civil Code Section 990 Deceased Personality's Name, Voice, Signature, Photograph, or Likeness in Advertising or Soliciting [findlaw.com]
Although it prohibits some commercial uses of a "deceased personality" there's an exception for "(a) play, book, magazine, newspaper, musical composition, film, radio or television program, other than an advertisement or commercial announcement ... " [emphasis added] From the complaint it's not clear what their argument is then re. "the rights of publicity" referred to in the complaint ...
IANAL
Put together, the obvious conclusion is chilling (Score:2)
Item 1: JRR Tolkien's children are claiming a story that includes his character violates his "publicity rights".
Item 2: A dead person typically has no ability to control much of anything.
Conclusion: JRR Tolkien now walks the earth as a ZOMBIE! AAAHHHHH!!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pirates of the Silicone Valley
Isn't that a porn movie?
Assuming: Pirates of Silicon Valley. And the answer is no. Gates loves that movie, it makes him look like a business genius. Jobs is the one who comes off as a fucktard.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Jobs is the one who comes off as a fucktard."
So it's historically accurate?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently you misread...
That's "TOLKIEN" not "TOKING"... one involves the manifest results of the epic imbibing of hallucinogenic substances and the other pot. I hope that clears things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Parody is protected, so just make Tolkin, Toking, and turn him into an old doobie smoking proto-hippie.
Been There. Done That. [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
--J.J. Jameson, Spider-Man