Film Rights to First & Second Age

[Sauron the White]

People would do well to pick up a copy of LOTR and read the Appendicies. Right there in Appendix A, Section I The Numenorean Kings (1) Numenor, there is a wealth of information that gives a filmamker tons of material. The following are mentioned in this section of LOTR:
Feanor and some of his actions, the Eldar, the Silmarils, the Two Trees, Morgoth and some of his actions, Thangorodrim, the exile of Feanor and the emigration of his people to Middle-earth, the war of the Eldar and Edain against Morgoth, the coming of the Edain to Middle-earth. There is listing of Luthien and Beren, Idril and Tuor, the lineage of those people and some of their actions including the taking of a silmaril from the Iron Crown of Morgoth, Dior and Elwing and the keeping of the silmaril. Gondolin and some of its people are listed. There is information about Earendil and his activities.

and then it says this:

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

And a ton of more information, even more detailed follows.

Consider these dates of progression:
1955 Return of the King is published containing the above information.
1969 JRRT sells films rights to LOTR including the above information
1973 JRRT dies.
1977 Christopher Tolkien oversees publication of a book length SILMARILLION expanding on much of the above information with much more added.

Consider that the film rights to the above information now lie in the hands of New Line Cinema and then Saul Zaentz when they expire in a couple of years.

Consider that Appendix describes these events and directly mentions The Silmarillion as the source of this information.

Consider that JRRT - in his lifetime - never published anything, or copyrighted anything which would change the rights he sold away.

Consider that Christopher Tolkien had published and copyrighted THE SILMARALLION four years after his fathers death and some eight years after the film rights to that material were sold.

Is it not possible, that a sharp legal staff with some innovative thinking, could well claim that they own the films rights to that material and anything published later and made known to the public can be used by them as well since it only details material which they already owned and had use of?

Could it not be legally argued that CT causing to be published the SIL after his fathers death, was the unfair diminishing of rights his father had already sold and were legally owned by others?

Yes, this would indeed be pushing the envelope and an attempt to expand upon what many now believe the film rights are constituted of. And yes, it would be an end run around the idea that THE SILMARALLION cannot be touched by New Line, Zaentz, Jackson or anyone else. But could it happen?

[Lalwendë]

If they tried contesting the estate and used some sneaky way of making films out of the material then it would be no better than stealing.

Would it be worth it? Many Tolkien fans would be upset by something like that and wouldn't go to see the film. And bearing in mind that the material in the Sil is worlds away from the clear-cut narrative of Lord of the Rings (the plot is a gift to a scriptwriter, it's so finely crafted), there's no guarantee it would turn up a good story. Nor is there any guarantee that fantasy films will even be popular in a few years, they're already beginning to die back, that's the nature of fashion. Oh yes, and the impending Credit Crunch - not that many studios will be too keen on risky, expensive films if that hits.

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende... I guess I am asking people here to stop thinking like Tolkien fans for a moment and to put on the guise of an attorney and think legally. Could not a case be made that it was Christopher Tolkien who - in your words - "used some sneaky way" of attempting to take back what his father had already sold?

I am not arguing against his publishing of THE SILMARALLION. I am only asking people to open their minds to a different understanding of the rights that were sold and how they could be utilized.

you also said this

Nor is there any guarantee that fantasy films will even be popular in a few years, they're already beginning to die back, that's the nature of fashion. Oh yes, and the impending Credit Crunch - not that many studios will be too keen on risky, expensive films if that hits.

Fantasy films in the style like LOTR never really were popular in the sense of westerns as a genre in the 30's and 40's or detective films or murder mysteries as a long time Hollywood staple. LOTR was the exception to the rule. And as far as funding, I have a funny feeling that a Tolkien movie helmed by the same people who gave us the first three would have little trouble in garnering the necessary funds to make and market them.

[davem]

Tolkien sold the rights to TH & LOTR & that's all. Sorry - in a way I wish you were right, so that Jackson & New Line could churn out a few more trashy Middle-earth movies, make the money they so desperately need & then, in a few years, we could forget all about movie versions & just get back to the books.

The constant demands of movie fans (most of whom would freak out so badly if you actually handed them one of Tolkien's books to read that their brains would turn to jello & leak out of their ears) for a Hobbit movie & a Turin movie & a Beren & Luthien movie & a Gondolin movie & a (fill in the blank) movie get increasingly depressing.

I'm now so bored by these constant demands for more Middle-earth movies that I can't even summon up the energy to

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

Tolkien sold the rights to TH & LOTR & that's all. Sorry - in a way I wish you were right, so that Jackson & New Line could churn out a few more trashy Middle-earth movies, make the money they so desperately need & then, in a few years, we could forget all about movie versions & just get back to the books.

Is this a joke post?

Originally Posted by davem

The constant demands of movie fans (most of whom would freak out so badly if you actually handed them one of Tolkien's books to read that their brains would turn to jello & leak out of their ears)

My, my. What an accurate opinion you seem to have about non-purists. This kind of snobbishness is exactly what I dislike about purists. One does not have to be a purist in order to have read the books well(I've read them all multiple times and so far I haven't found any jello in my ears, thank you), and being a purist doesn't elevate you to a higher plane of existence so that you can judge others as you like.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm now so bored by these constant demands for more Middle-earth movies that I can't even summon up the energy to

To what, reply? Then don't.

[Sauron the White]

davem -- it is your knowledge of Tolkien that I respect more than almost any other on this site. In your post you dismissed my ideas saying

Tolkien sold the rights to TH & LOTR & that's all. Sorry

And are not the Appendicies with its clear and unmistakable mention of The Silmarallion and events part of LOTR?

While I do not have access to the original sales contracts between JRRT and the film company - UA I think - I imagine it included all pages of LOTR which would be inclusive of the Appendicies. And that includes lots of material from the First and Second Age as well as much Third Age material not in the body of either THE HOBBIT or LOTR itself. Is it your opinion that the currents rights holder does not legally hold those rights from the Appendicies? And what legally would you base that view on if it is your opinion?

[The Might]

Now, now, zxcvbn everyone is entitled to their opinion and there is no need to be rude.
I don't see this as snobbish, as I am myself aware of many people around me that like LotR, but really know nothing of what is behind it and just go like:
"Wow, cool CGI!"

Now these I really can't call LotR fans, but only LotR film fans, so I believe we must make a distinction here.

As far as what each group wishes it is clear. The film fans all want more films, and as for the ones that also enjoy Tolkien's universe the opinions differ.
I mean, I for one would like to see another movie of LotR, because I personally find them ok. Of course they are not the books, but when I think of many of the good scenes I am happy they were made.

[davem]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

Is this a joke post?

No, it was meant to ironic.

My, my. What an accurate opinion you seem to have about non-purists. This kind of snobbishness is exactly what I dislike about purists. One does not have to be a purist in order to have read the books well(I've read them all multiple times and so far I haven't found any jello in my ears, thank you), and being a purist doesn't elevate you to a higher plane of existence so that you can judge others as you like.

I'm sorry, I was posting a response to StW, part of a long running argument between us on the quality (or lack thereof) of the LotR movies & whether there should be any similar fiascos in future.

I am, of course, pleased to hear that you have read the books.

Originally Posted by StW

And are not the Appendicies with its clear and unmistakable mention of The Silmarallion and events part of LOTR?

While I do not have access to the original sales contracts between JRRT and the film company - UA I think - I imagine it included all pages of LOTR which would be inclusive of the Appendicies. And that includes lots of material from the First and Second Age as well as much Third Age material not in the body of either THE HOBBIT or LOTR itself. Is it your opinion that the currents rights holder does not legally hold those rights from the Appendicies? And what legally would you base that view on if it is your opinion?

They have a right to use the word 'Silmarillion' in any future adaptation, to mention that The Silmarillion exists, but they don't have the right to use any material not included between the covers of TH & LotR. There is a great deal of material they could use in there, but nothing that isn't in there.

BTW, if you want to know exactly what material is available to use in LotR you could ask zxcvbn - apparently he's read LotR numerous times.

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm sorry, I was posting a response to StW, part of a long running argument between us on the quality (or lack thereof) of the LotR movies & whether there should be any similar fiascos in future.

What I took offence to was you generalising the film lovers as people incapable of reading Tolkien Literature; it gave me the image of a self-proclaimed high-class fellow looking down on what he considered the unwashed masses.

Originally Posted by davem;539667BTW, if you want to know exactly what material is available to use in LotR you could ask [B

zxcvbn[/B] - apparently he's read LotR numerous times.

Glad to see you seem to value my knowledge; sadly I don't have anything more to add than what you've said.

Originally Posted by davem

They have a right to use the word 'Silmarillion' in any future adaptation, to mention that The Silmarillion exists, but they don't have the right to use any material not included between the covers of TH & LotR. There is a great deal of material they could use in there, but nothing that isn't in there.

[Nerwen]

Can I just remind everyone that in Sauron the White's original post he said this:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Consider that Christopher Tolkien had published and copyrighted THE SILMARALLION four years after his fathers death and some eight years after the film rights to that material were sold.

Is it not possible, that a sharp legal staff with some innovative thinking, could well claim that they own the films rights to that material and anything published later and made known to the public can be used by them as well since it only details material which they already owned and had use of?

Could it not be legally argued that CT causing to be published the SIL after his fathers death, was the unfair diminishing of rights his father had already sold and were legally owned by others?

Yes, this would indeed be pushing the envelope and an attempt to expand upon what many now believe the film rights are constituted of. And yes, it would be an end run around the idea that THE SILMARALLION cannot be touched by New Line, Zaentz, Jackson or anyone else. But could it happen?

So Sauron... you did start off talking about the legal aspect. Now you say that doesn't matter and it's a question of ethics.

Okay, fine. It's a question of ethics. We'll talk ethics now... but will you acknowledge that your original question has been answered?

[Sauron the White]

Nerwen .. when you accuse me of something, please stick to that when reposting my previous thoughts so we can see if you were correct or not. That is only fair.
There is a disturbing trend here - not only here but on other boards also - where instead of directly meeting a persons point head on, people like to rephrase, paraphrase, change the meaning or wordsthe person used in an attempt to twist the original argument to bettermeet their own response.

You accused me of

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

I replied

Please show me where I said the film rights holders can sue the Tolkien Estate for damages caused by publishing THE SIL. Please show me. I never said it. Some type of action may have come up in the discussion in passing over the last three pages but that was never my point.

Obviously you could not locate what I did not say and could back up your accusation. So today you come back with

So Sauron... you did start off talking about the legal aspect

Legal aspect? legal aspect? What in the world is a legal aspect? Sounds like the broadest possible term you could come up with that takes in nearly everything that has anything to do with contracts, rights or the law. It says nothing about me urging anyone to sue anybody else as you claimed wasthe cornerstone of my argument.

And all this about copyright. It has nothing to do with my main point. I am not arguing that JRRT did not own The Silmarillion. I am not arguing that he cannot produce a book about it or the events in it. I am not arguing that anybody but the Tolkien Estate owns The Silmarillion. Can we please get that straight.

The facts are simple.
1- JRRT sold the film rights to both THE HOBBIT and LOTR to UA in 1969.
2- Included in LOTR are the Appendicies, including accounts of events in The FIrst , Second and Third Ages. Among these items are

- Feanor is shown to be the greatest of the Eldar making the Silmarils filling them with the radiance of the Two Trees
- Morgoth stealing the Silmarils
-Morgoth destroying the Two Trees by poisoning them
- Morgoth retreating to his great fortress of Thangorodrim with the Silmarils
- Feanor leading his people into exile
- War between the Eldar and Edain against Morgoth and his forces
- the defeat of the Eldar and Edain
- the union of Beren and Luthien and their lineage
-Beren and Luthien steal a Silmaril from the Iron Crown of Morgoth
-Luthien becomes mortal and gives birth to Dior
-the city of Gondolin with Turgon as its king
-the wedding of Earendil to Elwing
-the overthrow of Morgoth
-the ship of Earendil is set into the heavens

3- UA sells these film rights to Saul Zaentz in 1976.
4- JRRT dies never completing his SILMARALLION leaving behind various versions of stories which are later combined into a book length narrative by his son CT.
5 - THE SILMARALLION is published in 1977. Since that time the SIL has sold over a million copies and has remained in print for the last thirty years in languages all around the world.

Does anyone find those facts to be in error? Please say so because if we cannot even agree on the facts we certainly cannot find any common ground on what they mean or their implications or effects.

I will await responses before discussing what I think are the imlications of these facts.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Sauron:

You're stalling. We've been over this again and again and again: the facts are stipulated; we're arguing the law as it applies to the facts.

Why don't you come out and tell us what claim or rights you think Zaentz/New Line have in The Silmarillion? And is your position any different from the one you started with,

they own the films rights to that material and anything published later and made known to the public can be used by them as well since it only details material which they already owned and had use of?

[Sauron the White]

WCH - so you agree to that facts as I have listed them here and above?
We should all get this straight before moving on to what we each thing these facts mean.

1- JRRT sold the film rights to both THE HOBBIT and LOTR to UA in 1969.
2- Included in LOTR are the Appendicies, including accounts of events in The FIrst , Second and Third Ages. Among these items are

- Feanor is shown to be the greatest of the Eldar making the Silmarils filling them with the radiance of the Two Trees
- Morgoth stealing the Silmarils
-Morgoth destroying the Two Trees by poisoning them
- Morgoth retreating to his great fortress of Thangorodrim with the Silmarils
- Feanor leading his people into exile
- War between the Eldar and Edain against Morgoth and his forces
- the defeat of the Eldar and Edain
- the union of Beren and Luthien and their lineage
-Beren and Luthien steal a Silmaril from the Iron Crown of Morgoth
-Luthien becomes mortal and gives birth to Dior
-the city of Gondolin with Turgon as its king
-the wedding of Earendil to Elwing
-the overthrow of Morgoth
-the ship of Earendil is set into the heavens

3- UA sells these film rights to Saul Zaentz in 1976.
4- JRRT dies never completing his SILMARALLION leaving behind various versions of stories which are later combined into a book length narrative by his son CT.
5 - THE SILMARALLION is published in 1977. Since that time the SIL has sold over a million copies and has remained in print for the last thirty years in languages all around the world.





-

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Nerwen .. when you accuse me of something, please stick to that when reposting my previous thoughts so we can see if you were correct or not. That is only fair.
There is a disturbing trend here - not only here but on other boards also - where instead of directly meeting a persons point head on, people like to rephrase, paraphrase, change the meaning or wordsthe person used in an attempt to twist the original argument to bettermeet their own response.

Sauron. I have never attempted to twist your words.

All I am doing is trying to find out what your current position actually is. You seem to change it constantly. So I state things in my own words and ask you if that's what you mean. That's all.

And I did quote you directly. In my last post I gave a lengthy quotation from you. Here it is again:

Is it not possible, that a sharp legal staff with some innovative thinking, could well claim that they own the films rights to that material and anything published later and made known to the public can be used by them as well since it only details material which they already owned and had use of?

Could it not be legally argued that CT causing to be published the SIL after his fathers death, was the unfair diminishing of rights his father had already sold and were legally owned by others?

You attack my use of the phrase "legal aspect" when referring to this quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Legal aspect? legal aspect? What in the world is a legal aspect? Sounds like the broadest possible term you could come up with that takes in nearly everything that has anything to do with contracts, rights or the law. It says nothing about me urging anyone to sue anybody else as you claimed wasthe cornerstone of my argument.

I did indeed want to be as broad as possible. I was sure that if I used any more specific term you would fall back on your usual tactic of claiming that's not what you meant... without having to state what you do mean.

You are clearly nitpicking in order to evade my main point. Do you deny that you were talking about law in this post? I drew attention to it because you have recently started claiming that the question is a purely ethical one.

I challenge you to find anywhere that I said you were urging lawsuits. For someone who claims other people are twisting his words, you seem rather adept at it yourself.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Please show me where I said the film rights holders can sue the Tolkien Estate for damages caused by publishing THE SIL. Please show me. I never said it. Some type of action may have come up in the discussion in passing over the last three pages but that was never my point.

Obviously you could not locate what I did not say and could back up your accusation.

It wasn't an accusation. I was asking you if that's what you meant. At that stage you were still talking about Christopher Tolkien having harmed Zaentz/New Line by diminishing the value of their film rights to LotR.

Edit: X'd with Sauron the White and The Saucepan Man.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by STW

My entire thrust was to say that given that the currents rights holders are between a rock and a hard place in depicting many Appendicies events accurately, it would be in everyones interest to sit down like two civilized parties and try to reach some steps to improve the situation.

Well, that's something on which we can all have an opinion. Personally, I am decidedly less excited about the prospects of a film of the Silm material than I was about the LotR films and am about the prospective TH film, and I wonder whether, generally, such a film would be likely to generate anything like as much interest (and, thus, revenue). But it is not an issue which we can really come to a conclusion on. Only the parties involved themselves can do that. And, while I can see that there might be some benefit to Zaentz and co in pursuing it, I fail to see any incentive for the Estate to go along with it.

[The Saucepan Man]

STW, much as I admire your spirited efforts in sticking up for Jackson and the LotR films and share your discomfort with some of the more strident negative opinions expressed here in respect of them, I am afraid that you are on a very sticky wicket on this one.

Originally Posted by STW

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

The law makes a distinction between substantive and procedural matters. The former (in this context) concern rights, while the latter relate to the ability to enforce such rights. Substantively, there is no difference between the copyright which comes into existence when a work is created and a legally registered copyright. So, WCH is correct to say that the rights of the Estate and UA/Zaentz are no different now than they were when the film rights were first sold. All that registration does is make it easier to enforce those rights.

Originally Posted by WCH

Copyright is a form of intellectual property. Copyright law is a branch of property law. Now, what is property? Property is any thing, real or personal, tangible or intangible, which one person may possess to the exclusion of all others. Copyright is the right of an author to reproduce his own work, and (most importantly) exclude anyone else from doing so.

Like all property, copyright is alienable: it gan be given, bartered, sold etcetera. It is divisible: one can sell a part of a copyright and retain the rest. With me so far?

If the author sells film rights, he is actually selling a license under which the purchaser has the right to make film adaptations. After selling that small piece, however, the author retains all the remaining copyright. It's still his, to do with as he wants.

That might include writing a sequel or other work related to the first work in such a way that it might be classed as 'derivative' were another person to do so. But of course the author owns his characters, incidents and settings and can do with them whatever he bloody well likes. He *owns* them: the sequel is derivative of the primary copyright, not the alienated film license. If he writes a sequel, then it is a new work, and the owner maintains absolute copyright ownership of that too.

No problems so far?

Now, notice that all of this is concerned strictly with *ownership*- it is, after all, property law. "Value" simply doesn't enter in. Property law is only concerned with who owns what, not what it's worth. If the author writes a sequel, it doesn't matter a fart in a tornado whether it might negatively affect the value of film rights he's already sold. His right is exclusive and unaffected- which is to say that the film-rights buyer of Book 1 has no claim nor restraint on the sequel just because the value of his property might be affected. It doesn't matter. The law only looks to ownership, not value.

Suppose that I own a large tract of land, and you approach me to buy one acre on the corner to build a house. We agree on a price and close the sale. (Assume no restrictive covenants or zoning laws, or verbal undertakings)

A few years later on, I elect to develop the rest of my tract as a combination hog-farm/sewage treatment plant/toxic waste dump. Would your house value be affected? Yep. Down the toilet. Would you have a claim against me? Absolutely none whatsoever. I sold you one acre and one acre you own. End of story.

This is spot on and merits restatement. Tolkien owned the rights to all works created by him. He sold an aspect of those rights, the right to make films of TH and LotR (plus associated merchandising rights) to UA. He, and the Estate as his successor, retained the publishing rights to these two books plus all the unpublished material that was not included in the sale. CT was therefore entirely free to publish the Silmarilion (and other) material. Legally, there is no issue.

You state that this leaves Zaentz (or his licensee) in a position whereby he either fills in the gaps in the Silm material contained in the Appendices and invites ridicule or risks infringing the Estate’s copyright. That is correct. And, as others have said, tough.

You seem to suggest that this is somehow unfair on Zaentz. I happen to agree with others that he has done quite well out of the whole deal already thank you and that neither UA nor he were likely to have been interested in the Silm rights anyway until fairly recently, if at all. But putting that aside, in a situation where two parties freely enter into a contract, fairness doesn’t enter into it, unless there is some suggestion that one party was in an inferior bargaining position (which consumer law largely addresses) or was improperly induced to enter into the contract. It seems to me that, if anyone was in a lesser bargaining position when Tolkien sold the film rights to UA, it was Tolkien himself.

In any event, freedom of contract is the reason that parties (of relatively equal bargaining power) pay loads of lolly to lawyers like WCH and me to make sure that their interests are protected.

Originally Posted by davem

Thus, whether it was UA, or Saul Zaentz, if they didn't take the time to find out that this reference in RotK to 'The Silmarillion' was to an actual work in progress they are entirely at fault

Originally Posted by STW

That is the most amazing statement I have ever heard from you - and I have heard more than my share. Lets see if I get this right. UA was suppose to look into the future and know that JRRT would someday publish a book that he had been working on for decades and decades and was in little better condition that stacks of unsorted papers and notes?

Again, I’m sorry, but davem is right. It is not an amazing statement at all. If UA were at all interested in the rights to the Silm, they could have insisted that such rights be included in the deal or that Tolkien agree not to publish the Silm material in the future. If Tolkien did not agree, then they could have reduced the amount paid to reflect the (perceived) lower value of what they were buying. If they were not aware of all the Silm material that had already been written by Tolkien and of his future intention to publish it, then (assuming that they were at all interested in it) they (or their lawyers) did not do their due diligence properly.

Similarly, when Zaentz purchased the rights from UA, if he was at all interested in the Silm rights, he should have made sure that he was aware of how the publication of the Silm might affect them and, if appropriate, negotiate a lower purchase price.

[Sauron the White]

I would remind everyone here that when I started this thread my intention was not to build a case for legal action or litigation taken against Christopher Tolkien, The Tolkien Estate or anyone else. It was motivated by a desire for future filmmakers to , as far as is possible withing the confines of changing mediums from one art form to another, "get it right".

Over the last several pages we have become enmeshed in legal arguements about copyright, enforcement, penalites and other "legal aspects" as one poster put it. I have stated several times that I am not a lawyer, did not attend law school and am at a disadvantage in arguing the technical legalities of a situation.

There are going to be two more movies about Middle-earth. Like it or hate it that is now the reality of the situation. It has been announced that one will be of THE HOBBIT while the second will use material from the Appendicies to bridge the gap of years betweent HOBBIT and LOTR. This caused the usual speculation about what can be used and portrayed and what cannot be portrayed in a film.

I stated here that I do not want to be here five or ten years from now arguing about the rightness or wrongness of what was placed in those movies. Did they confine themselves strictly to the Appendicies or did they go beyond and include material they could only have gotten from other Tolkien sources outside of HOBBIT and LOTR? I would like to avoid that if possible.

I said there now exists a situation where the current film rights holders could make a movie containing the following events taken from the Appendicies:

- Feanor is shown to be the greatest of the Eldar making the Silmarils filling them with the radiance of the Two Trees
- Morgoth stealing the Silmarils
-Morgoth destroying the Two Trees by poisoning them
- Morgoth retreating to his great fortress of Thangorodrim with the Silmarils
- Feanor leading his people into exile
- War between the Eldar and Edain against Morgoth and his forces
- the defeat of the Eldar and Edain
- the union of Beren and Luthien and their lineage
-Beren and Luthien steal a Silmaril from the Iron Crown of Morgoth
-Luthien becomes mortal and gives birth to Dior
-the city of Gondolin with Turgon as its king
-the wedding of Earendil to Elwing
-the overthrow of Morgoth
-the ship of Earendil is set into the heavens

At the same time, the Estate owns all rights to THE SIL and that would include potential film rights to those exact same events plus more. So we have an area of overlapping rights.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg since the Appendicies go on for many more pages giving accounts of far more Middle-earth history than just those major First Age events. Again, the right to include all that in a film in held by New Line Cinema.

I said more than once that I think everyone would benefit if both parties, the Estate and current film rights holders sat down like two civilized people and said lets see what we can do about this. Is there a way that material can be shown on screen taken from the Appendicies but do it in such a way so that it is as accurate as possible when compared to the larger Tolkien writings that many people know so well?

I believe that if this could be done, the movies would be more accurate, be better and everyone wins. I agree that they will never be as accurate or as faithful as some people want them to be. When you change from one art form to another, things are lost, things are changed, things are added, things are gained - in short its not the same thing.

My entire thrust was to say that given that the currents rights holders are between a rock and a hard place in depicting many Appendicies events accurately, it would be in everyones interest to sit down like two civilized parties and try to reach some steps to improve the situation.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

I would remind everyone here that when I started this thread my intention was not to build a case for legal action or litigation taken against Christopher Tolkien, The Tolkien Estate or anyone else. It was motivated by a desire for future filmmakers to , as far as is possible withing the confines of changing mediums from one art form to another, "get it right".

Over the last several pages we have become enmeshed in legal arguements about copyright, enforcement, penalites and other "legal aspects" as one poster put it. I have stated several times that I am not a lawyer, did not attend law school and am at a disadvantage in arguing the technical legalities of a situation.

But you started the legal arguments. You started them in your very first post. Here's that quote for the third time:

Is it not possible, that a sharp legal staff with some innovative thinking, could well claim that they own the films rights to that material and anything published later and made known to the public can be used by them as well since it only details material which they already owned and had use of?

Could it not be legally argued that CT causing to be published the SIL after his fathers death, was the unfair diminishing of rights his father had already sold and were legally owned by others?

Subsequently you insisted on the validity of your own interpretation of copyright law over everyone else's– including a lawyer's. Your arguments showed that you knew nothing about the subject, but that didn't stop you nitpicking on every possible point and refusing to back down. It seems to me that you never had any intention of accepting an answer to the question you posed, unless it was one you wanted to hear.

At any time you were free to drop the whole copyright issue– by conceding defeat– and move on to what you say is your main point.

Well, then, how about it?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

What lies at the back of this, I think, is that you, StW, are bummed that Peter Jackson doesn't have film rights to all of Middle-earth; and you have an enormous chip on your shoulder vis-a-vis Christopher Tolkien because he won't play ball.

I'm sorry, Sauron, but JRR Tolkien did not dedicate his entire life to creating first drafts of screenplays for Peter Jackson. If Jackson wants to make a fool of himself trying to stretch a page and a half of Appendix B into a 'bridge' movie, that's his problem, and I see no reason at all why Tolkien's family should deign to bail him out.

[Thenamir]

With the highly informative posting of one of the Downs' most repected legal minds (thank you, SPM), I am calling a time-out. This conversation is beginning to look like a time-lapse photograph of a dog chasing its tail. The levels of friction-generated heat are beginning to be greater than the light being shone upon the subject.

I am, for a short period, closing this thread in hopes that all involved will go back and re-read (and hopefully digest and reconsider) all the relevant information posted here. When the thread re-opens (in a relatively short but intentionally vague number of days), let us see if cooler heads and better information will prevail.

[Thenamir]

Let's see if anyone notices.