Christopher Tolkien at it again....

[Pitchwife]

I'm not quite sure whether this is real news or satire, but if the former, the matter is reaching undreamt-of heights of absurdity. Will the Estate's next legal action be an attempt to get maps of Great Britain banned?

Originally Posted by G55

Well, the badge doesn't seem to favour people who read Tolkien... If it said something like "Long Live Professor Tolkien!", I'm sure they would allow it.

Yep. Nobody seemed to mind those stickers saying "Frodo Lives" or "Gandalf for President" back in the 60s.
It's all very sad.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Nobody seemed to mind those stickers saying "Frodo Lives" or "Gandalf for President" back in the 60s.
It's all very sad.

The 60's were just a bit before my time, but back then the LOTR and Tolkien names did not readily lend themselves to Olympian heights of moneymaking potential. Now they do, largely thanks to PJ and Co.
I still believe that the difference between the reactions of the Estate to what they perceive as potential threats to the copyrights on Tolkien's work in the past few years, and the generally more liberal stance in earlier years might be an effect of the movies' aftermath. Not saying they're right to be so heavy-handed, but at least that could be an explanation for it.

[davem]

Well, the Tolkien Estate have managed to make themselves look dumb & alienate loads of fans.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...response.shtml

&

Get them here http://www.zazzle.com/Harpocrates

[skip spence]

Just a question...

Knowing very little about all this, I spontaneously doubt that Christopher Tolkien, who must be ancient by now, personally is the driving force behind these copyright cases. Isn't it more likely that the Estate hired a bunch of good (and with good I mean skilled) copyright lawyers and told then to do their thing and serve the organization? Or am I wrong?

[davem]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Just a question...

Knowing very little about all this, I spontaneously doubt that Christopher Tolkien, who must be ancient by now, personally is the driving force behind these copyright cases. Isn't it more likely that the Estate hired a bunch of good (and with good I mean skilled) copyright lawyers and told then to do their thing and serve the organization? Or am I wrong?

I don't think lawyers act unilaterally. Behind this is either CT or his son Adam - probably both. That said Adam is probably taking over the reigns. We can't blame Adam for the Drout/Beowulf episode, but we may be seeing more of his hand in current events. CT is the 'figurehead' though.

The problem, as I mentioned, is that this kind of behaviour (& we've seen similar things coming out of Disney, & Warner Bros re Harry Potter) makes an organisation look bullying & alienates fans. Fans usually have a sense that a particular book/film/tv show sort of 'belongs' to them - not in any 'legal' sense, obviously - but that they are part of a community of likeminded folk & who have come together around a particular story & set of characters. This is CT/AT/the Estate coming along & screeching 'THIS IS OURS! YOU GET AS MUCH OR AS LITTLE OF THIS AS WE PERMIT - & IF YOU DO ANYTHING WE DON'T LIKE WE WILL PUNISH YOU.' Every action like this is about emphasising that the world & characters you love belong to someone else - they may be in your mind & heart but they are owned by someone else - & you can only speak about or refer to them if the owners allow you to. In short, it gets fans' backs up & is massively counterproductive.

This is all about reputation - if the Estate get a reputation for bullying & pettiness they will lose a lot more than they could possibly gain financially from asserting their rights. Over the last few months I've lost a great deal of respect for the Estate & CT/AT & that's down to their behaviour & their treatment of people who have done nothing wrong - & I'm not the only one. I wonder if anyone still feels just as positively about them as they did - or at least feels the same as they did?

[garm]

Originally Posted by davem

I wonder if anyone still feels just as positively about them as they did - or at least feels the same as they did?

I do. I've changed my mind about davem in the last few months, though.

[davem]

Originally Posted by garm

I do. I've changed my mind about davem in the last few months, though.

Well, if was feeling facetious I could point out that I am not here to live up to your expectations.....

However. Let us not.....

Perhaps you could clarify your position - simply that you will support CT/The Estate no matter what they do - that as far as you are concerned whatever they do must be right simply because they are the ones doing it?

In other words 'rightness' in this context = whatever CT/the Estate choose to do - even if the law, say, decided that they were wrong to threaten legal action against a person/company who produced a jokey badge which mentioned Tolkien (noting, btw, that JRRT/CT are not the only writers of that name - Tolkien's other grandson, Simon, is also a published author), you would still claim that the law in that instance was wrong? Or if the courts decided that using Tolkien as a character in a historical novel (as has happened with numerous other historical figures - & which Tolkien himself did in NCP) was perfectly acceptable?

You see, its all well & good to go on the offensive (& kudos for the Garm = Domini Canes thing) but you haven't put a case, or defended their actions. Its hardly good enough to pop up & say 'Oh, davem, oh, I've changed my mind about davem'. The Estate have acted, they have changed things - books that have been written have been prevented from appearing, books that have appeared they are attempting to ban & have copies destroyed. Someone who makes a jokey badge is threatened & stopped. And your response to these moves is not to defend them or argue any justification, but to simply accept this behaviour & say you're disappointed in anyone who criticises them.

Maybe I expected better of them & you didn't?

[Bêthberry]

Apparently the Zazzle thing was not instigated by the Tolkien Estate after all.

Zazzle found the button "potentially infringing".

[Mister Underhill]

Here's a blog post with the emails between the guy who made the button and Zazzle after this dustup started:

http://www.giro.org/2011/03/01/the-zazzle-emails/

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Here's a blog post with the emails between the guy who made the button and Zazzle after this dustup started:

http://www.giro.org/2011/03/01/the-zazzle-emails/

Zazzle has loads of Tolkien stuff available - or did last time I looked. The idea that people there would suddenly pick this one to ban without any kind of official/semi-official contact is hard to believe.

Being a regular reader of Techdirt I've lost count of the number of stories about lawyers threatening action on behalf of their clients, negative publicity ensuing, & the clients then issuing a statement that it had nothing to do with them......

Awaiting a report that they didn't try & stop the books, really, truly.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

Zazzle has loads of Tolkien stuff available - or did last time I looked. The idea that people there would suddenly pick this one to ban without any kind of official/semi-official contact is hard to believe.

If the site has "loads" of stuff available, why would the Estate object to that one particular item, but no others?

I don't know anything about Zazzle, but sites like YouTube seem pretty arbitrary sometimes about what they block because of copyright concerns. Really, it seems rather unfair of you to lay this at the feet of the Estate with no evidence to back up your suspicion.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If the site has "loads" of stuff available, why would the Estate object to that one particular item, but no others?

If Zazzle has lots of Tolkien stuff (which it does http://www.zazzle.co.uk/tolkien+gifts ) then why would they remove just one of them unless 'someone' told them to?

Really, it seems rather unfair of you to lay this at the feet of the Estate with no evidence to back up your suspicion.

I posted links to the story.. And it was Zazzle themselves who stated that the Estate's lawyers had asked them to remove the product. And however this turns out the point of the thread - which is not in dispute - is the Estates's attempted censorship/banning of books.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Zazzle has loads of Tolkien stuff available - or did last time I looked. The idea that people there would suddenly pick this one to ban without any kind of official/semi-official contact is hard to believe.

Being a regular reader of Techdirt I've lost count of the number of stories about lawyers threatening action on behalf of their clients, negative publicity ensuing, & the clients then issuing a statement that it had nothing to do with them......

Awaiting a report that they didn't try & stop the books, really, truly.

Davem, have you ever considered you might be juuust the teeniest, tiniest bit... let's say, over-involved with this issue? And maybe you need to just, you know, take a few deep breaths and relax? Just a thought

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Davem, have you ever considered you might be juuust the teeniest, tiniest bit... let's say, over-involved with this issue? And maybe you need to just, you know, take a few deep breaths and relax? Just a thought

Honestly - I never get 'over-involved' on this forum. I argue for fun sometimes, or to challenge myself & others, even to explore an idea, to pick it up & run with it & see where we can get to, or what other people think. I can't recall ever getting angry or annoyed during a discussion.

If people are bored with this one we can just stop?

[davem]

Do you know the most interesting thing about this badge thing - everyone, pro & anti, just believed it!

The 'anti-' side attacked the Estate for its intolerant, heavy handed behaviour, the 'pro-' side defended them while offering excuses, but no-one just came out & said 'There must be some mistake - they wouldn't behave like that - the story must be wrong!'

And maybe that should worry the Estate, because they now have that kind of reputation - people now believe that that kind of behaviour is perfectly typical of them.

Which, of course, is what happens when you repeatedly sic the lawyers on people. You may win the battles, but you lose the war.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

And it was Zazzle themselves who stated that the Estate's lawyers had asked them to remove the product. And however this turns out the point of the thread - which is not in dispute - is the Estates's attempted censorship/banning of books.

The purpose of this thread originally was to discuss the Mirkwood book, but it was you who brought up the Zazzle story.

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by davem

Do you know the most interesting thing about this badge thing - everyone, pro & anti, just believed it!

Speak for yourself! I was withholding judgment, and I still am, because both the Estate's interpretation and the "why go after this one?" interpretation are still believable to me. If people are willing to believe that the Estate is being a censor in the case of the buttons, I think that has a lot more to do with the narrative built up about the Estate in particular, and authors' estates in general, well before the Estate had done anything to justify that interpretation, than because its actions are now fitting closer to that pattern.

Regarding the book--could it be the reason that this book was targeted over other Inklings books is because this one uses the fictional Tolkien that Tolkien himself created, who translated the Red Book of Westmarch from the Westron?

In other words, the other Inklings books that I've heard of may use Tolkien in a fantasy type setting, but I don't think they've yet tried doing it in the sense of "Tolkien translated all of these manuscripts and Middle-earth was real in some way, shape, or form." This isn't what the news sources have said, but it would give the Estate's case of "copyright infringement" something to stand on. Of course, this would open up a whole, huge can of worms, over what the difference is between an author and the author's own fictional representations of himself, the difference between fact and fiction, etc. But it certainly makes the Estate's actions appear more logical, if not necessarily justifiable.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

In other words, the other Inklings books that I've heard of may use Tolkien in a fantasy type setting, but I don't think they've yet tried doing it in the sense of "Tolkien translated all of these manuscripts and Middle-earth was real in some way, shape, or form." This isn't what the news sources have said, but it would give the Estate's case of "copyright infringement" something to stand on. Of course, this would open up a whole, huge can of worms, over what the difference is between an author and the author's own fictional representations of himself, the difference between fact and fiction, etc. But it certainly makes the Estate's actions appear more logical, if not necessarily justifiable.

This says that besides the issue with the book's cover design, the Estate thinks the book

...."trivialises the name, personality and reputation of the late professor".

Maybe the Estate's being petty, but it's their right to challenge things like this if they feel it necessary. Leave it for the courts!
Now, my judgement may be colored by the fact that I really am not interested in reading the book at all, and wouldn't be even if the Estate had no objections to it, but I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[garm]

This issue has not caused nearly so much fuss on many of the other Tolkien sites I lurk on; but there was a small flurry of interest on Torn some time back.

http://newboards.theonering.net/foru...at+Mode#326938

One of the lawyers in the group gives an assessment of Hillaard's complaint, in a post titled 'I've read the cease and desist letter.

On the whole, I think the thread gives a well-balanced selection of views. The same can be said of the Wheelbarrows book - folk on other sites have discussed it in a reasonable way, including the book's other author, Neil Holford .

http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/...ode=0&start=10

[davem]

So.... what we have:

The Tolkien Estate has, over recent months prevented publication of at least a couple of non-fiction books (Books of Jonah & Wheelbarrows at Dawn), the publication of a fantasy series (cf the mention on Boing Boing - which the Estate's lawyers did not dispute), are attempting to ban & pulp an existing novel (self published & which without their intervention would probably have sold a few hundred copies & then vanished without trace, but which through their legal action has resulted in stories being run across the media, including major news sites like the Guardian & the Mail, & has even got a mention on the New York Times site: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/fashion/03Crib.html ). To top this catalogue of disasters off the cumulative effect of all this is that a story can be run stating that they have threatened legal action over the selling of a badge that mentions Tolkien's name - & even the Estate's strongest supporters believe that to be true based on the recent actions of the Estate & their lawyers.

I'd say the Estate's reputation is looking pretty poor, & that they've no-one to blame but themselves.

And now, let's ask what harm, exactly, would have resulted from letting Jonah & Wheelbarrows go ahead, & ignoring Mirkwood? None at all. The Estate have been stupid & shot themselves in the foot repeatedly..

[garm]

Here's another discussion page -

http://www.lotrplaza.com/forum/forum...asp?TID=239504

-the 2nd post by 'Findegil' is of particular interest.

[davem]

Originally Posted by garm

Here's another discussion page -

http://www.lotrplaza.com/forum/forum...asp?TID=239504

-the 2nd post by 'Findegil' is of particular interest.

Yes, what they ignore is the harm that is done when a perfectly harmless book, produced by a couple of dedicated Tolkien fans & scholars, is stopped from being published - at best it makes them look overly litigious & at worst like they've got something to hide - or at lest that they don't want to be made public. The 'copyright' allocation issue they bring up is a bit of a red herring to my mind & should have been overlooked or forgiven - to use it as ammunition against them to stop publication of WaD is a bit off - even if technically legal.

The Mirkwood thing is frankly silly (as is the book, tbh) & the absolutely worst move they could have made as they've given the guy massive publicity & they will probably lose as the fact that the cover illustration is a 'bit like' a previous Tolkien book & that the name Tolkien is prominent on the cover is likely to be laughed out of court - did the lawyers take a look at the fantasy section in their local Waterstones? "Comparable to TOLKIEN at his best" etc, etc. on the covers of numerous fantasy novels. All they've done is make themselves look like they will drag people through the courts at the drop of a hat & lose public sympathy next time the really do have a case.

They have behaved stupidly over these issues & would have been better just letting them go - the point is none of these authors (or the author of the Book of Jonah volume) behaved in any way maliciously. Yes, they should have just let the books go ahead, because frankly whatever outlandish story comes out now about the Estate attempting to ban this or that is going to be given more credence than it will deserve. I read the badge story & thought (based on the things they have done recently) 'Well, they're at it again....' I wonder, did anyone - even among their staunchest supporters - doubt the story was true? And if they didn't & just accepted the story as true doesn't that say a lot about the effect of lawyering up so eagerly?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

To top this catalogue of disasters off the cumulative effect of all this is that a story can be run stating that they have threatened legal action over the selling of a badge that mentions Tolkien's name - & even the Estate's strongest supporters believe that to be true based on the recent actions of the Estate & their lawyers.

Or perhaps based on your own vehemence on the subject:

Originally Posted by davem

*****AND YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS*****

THE TOLKIEN ESTATE HAVE BANNED A BADGE (BUTTON) THAT MENTIONS THE NAME TOLKIEN http://www.boingboing.net/2011/02/25...ate-censo.html

Yes. They have banned someone selling a badge with the name Tolkien on it.

I mean, you did announce it as a FACT, IN CAPITALS.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Or perhaps based on your own vehemence on the subject:



I mean, you did announce it as a FACT, IN CAPITALS.

THE SKY IS FALLING & A MARTIAN ASSAULT FLEET HAS LANDED IN TIMES SQUARE!!!!!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by davem

THE SKY IS FALLING & A MARTIAN ASSAULT FLEET HAS LANDED IN TIMES SQUARE!!!!!

And you could hardly have got more worked up over that.

Seriously: what do you think you're proving, here, davem? Of course nobody (well, barring a few alien-conspiracy nuts) is going to put "X sues Y" on the same level of improbability as "Martian invasion". But that says nothing about the character or history of either X or Y.

As a matter of fact, I do agree that the Tolkien Estate– and copyright holders in general– are quite often heavy-handed about protecting their "property"– but the particular argument you're using here doesn't support that at all. In fact, I have to tell you that, whatever your intention may be, it actually *looks* rather like you're just trying a bit of damage-control.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

As a matter of fact, I do agree that the Tolkien Estate– and copyright holders in general– are quite often heavy-handed about protecting their "property"– but the particular argument you're using here doesn't support that at all. In fact, I have to tell you that, whatever your intention may be, it actually *looks* rather like you're just trying a bit of damage-control.

That would only work if the badge thing was the point of the thread - which it wasn't. The book thing is the point of the thread - & that is still straight fact. The 'facts' re the badge thing are - the guy behind the badge was specifically told by Zazzle that the Tolkien Estate had contacted them, informed them that the product infringed copyright, & that story was run by Associated Content, Boing Boing & Techdirt. The recipient of the emails from Zazzle has reproduced them, so you can read them for yourself (see Mr. U's link above). The story was accepted as true by all concerned & by many readers of those sites & here on the Downs, & fir many of them that acceptance was based either wholly or in part on the actions taken by the Estate re copyright ownership over the past few months/years, because the Estate has come to be seen as a bit too eager to resort to legal actions.

So far as we now know the Estate was not responsible for the badge incident, but if you think that it is not significant that so many people believed that that was just the kind of thing they would do then I think you are missing something important. And I would point out that I did not do any shouting on all the other sites that ran the story, so I can't be held responsible for what happened over there.

EDIT

What we have re the Badge - from the Zazzle email http://www.giro.org/2011/03/01/the-zazzle-emails/ :

With regards to details of the infringement, all legal documents are confidential therefore I cannot release this undisclosed information. But we ask that you do acknowledge the fact that we were contacted by The J.R.R. Tolkien Estate, and at their request to prevent and remove any unauthorized and infringing third-party uses of their copyrights, trademarks and intellectual properties.

From Boing Boing (statement from Estate Lawyers re the badge http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/01...ien-estat.html :

According to Maier, "Zazzle has confirmed that it took down the link of its own accord, because its content management department came across the product and deemed it to be potentially infringing."

From the Zazzle emails :

After corresponding with representatives from the Tolkien Estate, it’s been brought to our attention that the design was removed inadvertently due to a miscommunication on our part.

So the sequence of events seems to be

1) Tolkien Estate Lawyers contact Zazzle & tell them to

"prevent and remove any unauthorized and infringing third-party uses of their copyrights, trademarks and intellectual properties.

2) Zazzle over-react & pull the badge because someone there decides that because it mentions Tolkien's name it may potentially infringe - ie, 'miscommunication on their part'

3) story is run on various sites

4) Tolkien Estate respond by stating that they never demanded this particular item to be removed.

So, the Estate contact Zazzle (as has not been denied - & there would be no need for them to do so as they are within their rights to do so) ask them to remove anything dodgy, Zazzle pulls the badge because they think it does, Tolkien Estate gets in touch & tells them they weren't referring to stuff like the badge.

Or that's my take on events.

So, I accept that the Estate didn't ask for this particular item to be taken down & that Zazzle messed up - probably because they were afraid of potential legal action from the Estate.

Now, I find it significant that no-one doubted that the Estate would behave in the way initially stated & I put that down to the series of legal actions they have recently instigated or threatened to instigate (which may have inspired Zazzle's overreaction).

You find it not to be significant that so many people just accepted that the Estate would behave that way. I can't see that particular tangent leading us anywhere so I'm happy to return to the main point of the thread.

EDIT ADDENDUM

I'm going to be a bit busy for a few days so won't be popping up on here - just pointing that out in case the thread runs on & anyone thinks I'm running from the fight... :P

[davem]

Worth a read & makes some very interesting points

http://theblogthattimeforgot.blogspo...ood-novel.html

I'm now about 3/4 of the way through the book. Its fun but highly improbable - & tbh it does sail a bit close to the wind as far as 'infringing' goes.... But I've enjoyed it as a guilty pleasure & frankly there's no way it could harm Tolkien's work & should have just been ignored. The Estate (or their lawyers) have been really dumb here, because even if they had a case technically, they look petty & bullying.

Still - the piece linked to offers a very good case for the defence.

[davem]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...-culture.shtml original article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/op...pagewanted=all

Einstein is not the only example. While we might think of people like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., George Patton, Rosa Parks, Frank Lloyd Wright and Babe Ruth as part of our cultural heritage, available for all to use, the identities of each of them, and thousands more, are claimed as private property, usable only with permission and for a fee.

This phenomenon is fairly recent — and it’s getting out of control. For most of this country’s history, a person’s identity was not something that could be owned. While the unauthorized use of someone’s name or image was sometimes barred as an invasion of privacy, the right belonged to that person alone and could not be assigned to others. ,,,

This so-called descendible right of publicity has created a new kind of business: corporations that acquire and market dead people. So Rosa Parks sells Chevy trucks and Albert Einstein peddles everything from baby products to Apple computers. (And who knows how Elizabeth Taylor might be put to work now that she has gone to the other side?)

But say you wanted to write a play about a chance meeting between these two historic figures. Could you? While the play itself may be protected by the First Amendment, that doesn’t mean that the companies that manage Parks and Einstein might not attempt to assert control. Hebrew University has aggressively defended Einstein’s image, even blocking its use on a book called “Everything’s Relative.” And don’t expect to sell programs, posters, T-shirts or the other paraphernalia that might support your play without getting approval and paying whatever fee the owners of Parks’s and Einstein’s rights of publicity demand.

Contrary to what the owners of these identities claim, a right of publicity that continues after death does little to protect the reputations of the deceased.

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

So, this is much bigger than whether a writer should be able to use a dead person as a character in their book/play. Its about restricting our culture in what are potentially very damaging ways. Its about our freedom to use our shared culture. Culture grows & develops by people being free to play around with ideas/concepts received from the culture around them. So, this author produces a piece of nonsense involving Tolkien & many Tolkien fans find that a bit off - especially when Tolkien's heirs are leading the objection...but

This is just a tiny part of a massive cultural shift. If these kinds of moves succeed then not only will increasingly large parts of our culture be off limits for discussion unless we pay the rights holder, but even we were to offer to pay, we would be restricted in the way we could use those elements. And the other side is - as the articles point out, if a dead person becomes property then the owner of that property can decide what happens to it. In other words, you might be 100% behind the Tolkien Family in their attempt to prevent Tolkien being used in this way in this book, but if they, & the other Estates out there, succeed, then you may well see down the line less responsible owners of these persons doing things with their images that you don't approve of. Maybe in 20 or 30 years we'll see the owners of Tolkien's image using it to promote/advertise things you don't like - & it won't be possible for you or anyone else to counter that portrayal by presenting Tolkien in a different way. Currently someone could write a novel/play that has Tolkien doing something you don't approve of but you could respond by writing a novel/play that presented the opposite view. If these moves succeed you couldn't do that - the only way Tolkien or any other dead person could be presented is the way the people who owned him allowed.

[davem]

For anyone who's still interested:

In J.R.R. Tolkien's epic The Lord of the Rings, Rivendell provides a "Middle-earth" refuge for hobbits fleeing their enemy, the Ringwraiths.

Until recently, Bragg Creek, west of Calgary, also had a Rivendell, a summer refuge for kids from the city.

But the Bragg Creek Community Association was forced to rename the day camp after lawyers for Tolkien's estate decided it didn't like the use of the trademarked name.

The U.K.-based lawyers sent the community association a cease and desist letter.

"While our clients do not believe that you intended to infringe their intellectual property rights, you will understand that they have an obligation to protect these valuable rights and carefully to preserve the integrity of the Tolkien works," the letter reads.

Community program director Peggy Rupert said the estate's objection surprised her.

"It was just kind of funny," she said. "I actually find it kind of amusing. I've kept the letter as a memento." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...kids-camp.html

In an e-mail response to the Herald Tuesday, Maier countered the proliferation of Internet sites that accuse the Tolkien Estate of being a tad on the litigious side. "It is incorrect to say that the Tolkien Estate is litigious, as it is very rarely involved in court proceedings," he wrote.

"The Tolkien Estate only pursues legal action in the very rare cases of parties who, for whatever reason, are determined to deny the Estate's entitlement to protect its property." http://www.calgaryherald.com/technol...252/story.html

"It is incorrect to say that the Tolkien Estate is litigious, as it is very rarely involved in court proceedings," is good - it is true that the Estate is 'very rarely involved in court proceedings' - but it does seem to threaten to instigate them rather a lot.

Still, thank goodness a non profit organisation has been stopped from encouraging kids to play at Elves & Hobbits.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

Still, thank goodness a non profit organisation has been stopped from encouraging kids to play at Elves & Hobbits.

Look, I'm not defending the Estate here because I see no harm in the use of "Rivendell" in this case. But really, davem, you act as if the Estate has a lock on Trademark Infringement legal actions. This sort of thing goes on all the time.

I cannot credit the Estate with perfect judgement 100% of the time, but at least I think their intentions are on the pure side. That's more than one can say for a lot of other trademark holders who threaten litigation.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I cannot credit the Estate with perfect judgement 100% of the time, but at least I think their intentions are on the pure side.

I side with Zil here. It is ridicuuos how many things were stopped because of the Estate, but I see their side too. Their "protection of Tolkien's words" is quite understandable, because quite a lot of people see LOTR the way PJ made it, and maybe even worse. (The Estate should thank PJ for that.)

If I would say "hobbit" to a random person on the street, I bet that the image s/he will have in mind is an idiotic hairy drunken midget (unless they've really read the books). That is not what Tolkien means hobbits to be! This applies to just about everything. It's not really the Estate's fault if it is over-paranoid.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I cannot credit the Estate with perfect judgement 100% of the time, but at least I think their intentions are on the pure side. That's more than one can say for a lot of other trademark holders who threaten litigation.

OK - but.

First, this looks petty ('Taking candy from a baby' springs to mind) - & its exactly this kind of thing that makes people believe the stories about the Estate threatening legal action against people selling badges which mention 'Tolkien'. Second, as I pointed out, its a bit disingenuous to state that the Estate is rarely involved in court action, because its clearly not backwards at coming forwards when it comes to threatening legal action - & it always seems to be individuals who are a lot less wealthy & therefore unable to go to court against the Estate who get threatened.

The main issue for me here is the group on the receiving end of this letter - a children's camp. Now, it would seem to me that something like this would be likely to lead kids to discover & come to love Tolkien's world - & that this kind of action would be likely to engender the opposite feeling. Tolkien, we know, loved children (though one gets the feeling that CT wishes his father had written his works in a mix of Elvish & Anglo-Saxon, where it could be the preserve of academics). This is a camp where children would play at being Hobbits, Elves & Dwarves with their friends. I think Tolkien would have thought it a wonderful thing, but it looks like his family would rather protect their 'imaginary property' than let the children play. I have to say that the current behaviour of the Estate is souring Tolkien's creation for me.

I think anyone who has read my posts on this forum over the years will know how much Tolkien's work means to me, & how much time I've 'spent' in Middle-earth. I have shelves ful of books by & about Tolkien. I met my partner through this forum & our little boy is only here because of our shared love of Tolkien - we wouldn't have met otherwise. If anyone thinks I'm just on some petty minded vendetta against the Tolkien Estate - sorry, you're wrong. I do think we all owe a debt to Christopher Tolkien, but I also think that the recent behaviour of the Estate & its lawyers is unpleasant.

The kind of thing that this camp was doing was a perfect counterbalance to the simplistic movies & increasingly violent & dumb video games that Middle-earth is becoming in the popular imagination.

[Formendacil]

Since I hail from that part of the world... and since my extended family includes 4 or 5 cousins who've actually been to Camp Rivendell, I am finding myself inclined to agree with Davem at this point... at least regarding the Estate. I'm not really sure one can say that Christopher Tolkien is personally responsible... I mean, for one thing, how would he have found out about the camp? I really can't picture him trolling the Internet (and if so, Hookbill should watch out).

It's rather interesting to consider what Tolkien's own attitude in The Letters is to the borrowing of names:

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 258 To Rayner Unwin

I wish that 'Copyright' could protect names, as well as extracts. It is a form of invention that I take a great deal of trouble over, and pleasure in; and really it is quite as difficult (often more so) as, say, lines of verse. I must say I was piqued by the 'christening' of that monstrous 'hydrofoil' Shadowfax – without so much as 'by your leave' – to which several correspondents drew my attention (some with indignation). I am getting used to Rivendells, Loriens, Imladris etc. as house-names – though maybe they are more frequent than the letters which say 'by your leave'.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

I think anyone who has read my posts on this forum over the years will know how much Tolkien's work means to me, & how much time I've 'spent' in Middle-earth. I have shelves ful of books by & about Tolkien. I met my partner through this forum & our little boy is only here because of our shared love of Tolkien - we wouldn't have met otherwise. If anyone thinks I'm just on some petty minded vendetta against the Tolkien Estate - sorry, you're wrong. I do think we all owe a debt to Christopher Tolkien, but I also think that the recent behaviour of the Estate & its lawyers is unpleasant.

First, I don't recall questioning your appreciation of the books. I would not presume to do so, even if I saw reason for it, which I do not.

Second, I've already said I agree that the reaction to the children's camp was, to the extent of my limited knowledge of the situation, in my judgement unwarranted.

Here's where we diverge, though, apparently. Things like the children's camp story earn an eye-roll from me, maybe a head-shake. That's the end of it. The Estate's actions don't affect my enjoyment of anything Tolkien created. If Peter Jackson's ham-fisted treatment of LOTR, with head-scratching mis-characterizations of Elrond, Arwen, and most infuriatingly, Faramir, could not sour the works for me, that isn't going to be accomplished by the sometime knee-jerk reactions from a few old men at the Estate, especially when I don't see any intentional malice behind it all; just questionable judgement.

Originally Posted by davem

The kind of thing that this camp was doing was a perfect counterbalance to the simplistic movies & increasingly violent & dumb video games that Middle-earth is becoming in the popular imagination.

Perhaps it's things like those "violent and dumb video games" that have led to the hypersensitivity of the Estate, and they're now unable to see the sheep among the goats.

It seems we have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding how seriously matters such as the ones you introduce here should be taken. I believe I've said all I can really say about this, so I'm respectfully retiring from this thread.

Cheers.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Since I hail from that part of the world... and since my extended family includes 4 or 5 cousins who've actually been to Camp Rivendell, I am finding myself inclined to agree with Davem at this point... at least regarding the Estate. I'm not really sure one can say that Christopher Tolkien is personally responsible... I mean, for one thing, how would he have found out about the camp? I really can't picture him trolling the Internet (and if so, Hookbill should watch out).

I'm inclined to agree with Formendacil here. It's a bit much to go after a little children's camp that's probably a non-profit organisation. However, such a target suggests to me that this is most likely lawyer's trawling. I suspect that the legal beagles have simply been given carte blanche to undertake a defense of Tolkien's copyright. In which case, one wonders if and when they will take to teh interwebs and insist that the Barrow Downs cease and desist. We knew we were wraiths, but pirates too?

It's rather interesting to consider what Tolkien's own attitude in The Letters is to the borrowing of names:

Names, like each word of Tolkien's invented language, would of course be very special to Tolkien, given how much his writing began with his philological explorations. Yet he himself took up "Mirkwood" from old lore and not a few dwarven names from Scandinavian literature.

Tolkien's work is spreading into cultural consciousness and how differentiate that from greedy attempts to cash in on the Tolkien name?

[davem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

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

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

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

[Galadriel55]

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