Slashdot Mirror
LoTR Lawsuit Threatens Hobbit Production
eyrieowl writes "J.R.R.'s heirs are suing for royalties on the LoTR films. Apparently they haven't gotten any money due to some creative accounting. Peter Jackson ought to understand...he had to sue the studio for much the same reason.
As for The Hobbit? FTFA: 'Tolkien's family and a British charity they head, the Tolkien Trust, seek more than $220 million in compensation...[and]...the option to terminate further rights to the author's work.'"
You know, if I were a Hobbit, I wouldn't let any lawsuit threaten my Hobbit-producing activities...
Bow-ties are cool.
These books should be public domain by now.
God damn extended copyright might kill another production.
Ob. quote:
"Is that a Hobbit over there?"
"No, it's a hobo and a rabbit, but they're making a hobbit."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Now I have to read the article itself, because I can't get the story from the "Funny" comments, that's how fresh it is.
...on the one hand, the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.
OTOH, the next of kin should not be in the picture here. These are works
that should be in the public domain now for a variety of reasons. The
worthless relatives should not have the ability to interfere with any of
the greedy schmucks. The fact that a charity is involved is just a nice
red herring to confuse things.
Imagine if the Bard's estate could screw around with people like this.
That's the direction we are headed.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This is going to sound wacky, but I really just want to think it through.
What if we made the kind of fraud that's apparently exercised by music and movie studio accountants, punishable by death?
How would that play out in society and culture?
wow - so yea... no more posting on slashdot while on major cold medicines... if only there were a delete feature.
Looks like the deal was done maybe 40 years ago:
Under the contract, New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts, after deducting 2.6 times the production costs, plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount, according to Eskenazi. (from TFA)
Nowadays it seems as though even the average slashdotter knows you take a portion of gross, because nothing involving MPAA or RIAA related-companies ever clears a 'net profit' (wink wink).
It looks like Tolkien & co where less saavy 40 years ago, and essentially signed up to get screwed. I hope the movies were profitable enough that they can still clear some money for the family, but 2.6 times production costs of those movies is a hell of a lot, and 'advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount'- especially if that amount was a 1969 dollar amount, and not a percent-well, they could really end up with a contractually dictated 'nothing.'
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Are you suggesting it's here to do battle with TimeWarner?
The MPAA is fighting to make sure the artists and copyright holders get what they are owed? Did they forget or is it just a bunch of BS and you should not feel bad about piracy and ignore them?
"Under the contract, New Line was to pay a percentage of all gross receipts, after deducting 2.6 times the production costs, plus advertising expenses in excess of a certain amount, according to Eskenazi." The simple lesson of hollywood accounting is this: you take a percentage of the gross - nothing more, nothing less. It might mean you get a smaller percentage, but there's nothing they can do to bury anything or remove anything.
Dragon Magazine had a cartoon bit about this ... apparently they weren't even allowed to use the word "ring" anymore...
"Hey, someone get the phone - its been circular metal band-ing off the hook!"
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
I think this belongs on boingboing
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/16/mystery-blob-devouri.html
You, good sir, are the first Troll in a thread about the Hobbit. Expect to be turned to stone.
How in the fuck did these guys in any way contribute to the LOTR films, or even the whole mythos itself?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
According to the studios, Spider-Man, Return of the Jedi and Forrest Gump all lost money and therefore no royalty on net income needs to be paid.
These people are simply criminals, and deserve to be locked up as such. However Hollywood is famous for making large political contributions, and their boys are in power at the moment. (not that the "other" party did anything about it either)
If it weren't for the deal that J.R.R. made with Saul Zaentz way back when, we wouldn't have any of the Lord of the Rings movies in the first place. Nor the Lord of the Rings Online game (which I happen to play). Nor any number of other things that may have first turned people on to Tolkien, including the old pen and paper Middle Earth RPG system.
Christopher Tolkien has had control over the rights to things like The Silmarillion, and is notoriously limited in what he'll allow people to do in relation to it. I'd hate to think of what would happen (or more to the point, not happen) if he were able to somehow get back control over The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings also.
...on the one hand, the studios are greedy schmucks out to screw everyone all around.
Remember that these "greedy schmucks" are the ones lobbying and influencing the law. You, I, the Slashdot community, we do not. But we are tax paying constituents. The only time we influence this is when we vote--and let's face it, it's not a voting issue.
When Sonny Bono and Walt Disney effectively controlled the government into changing these laws, they were done selfishly. Nowhere were we represented. To say that Senator Bono acted with only his constituents in mind is a joke.
So suddenly the double edged sword is coming back to cut one of the prime promoters today of these laws. Historically these term limits of enforceable copyright have only gotten longer. And their implications for the internet and digital media has been more than encumbering. I'm not saying these laws don't help the big companies and artists make more money. I'm only saying that it's getting to a ridiculous point. Time Warner/New Line Cinema might take it so hard from the Tolkien family that they realize their lost future profits 50 years from now is a small price to pay compared to all the material they could have in public domain to make movies and derivative works from.
Lastly, was anyone ever wondering why there was no Lord of the Rings movies officially for so long? It's because the Tolkein family was just looking for someone to get screwed by. They probably saw through all the other scams.
Hopefully this is a wake up call to those who have extended copyright for far too long. It will only start hurting themselves and actually inhibiting/endangering their profession.
My work here is dung.
The book is 72 years old. Smeg off you vultures!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit
Leegola: What else can we slay? Is that a hobbit over there?
Titanius Anglesmith: No, that's a hobo and a rabbit. But they're making a hobbit.
Yeah, especially that worthless leech Christopher Tolkien. What has HE ever published?
(For the humor-impaired: that was sarcasm. Yes, the contract was ass, but that doesn't mean it will necessarily hold up. Indeed, if the contract is worded such that the late Mr. Tolkien gave away the movie rights to his works for essentially nothing, there's a good bet the contract can be set aside or at least amended so a fair compensation can be had, which is no doubt precisely what the Tolkien Estate is counting on -- and good for them. Fuck all these whiny little fags who are baaaaaaawing because they may not get to sit in a cramped theater and watch their precious movie in their hobbit costumes -- it just makes you sound like commies and losers.)
"The" doesn't deserve capitalization any more than "of". You wouldn't capitalize the in the book title either. For abbreviations show all articles and prepositions as lower case. If you have an article or preposition at the beginning of the abbreviation, show it as lower case. Of Mice and Men would be oMaM.
By showing articles in lower case you give a clue to the reader that the letter represents something small and structural, rather than a 'real' word. LoTR would suggest Lord of Token Rings.
Side note: Not all abbreviations are acronyms. It's like rectangles and squares. All squares are rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. An acronym is a TYPE of abbreviation SPOKEN as a word, rather than spelled. SCUBA is, CIA is not. Some twat blithers, "but, but, the dictionary says...". Dictionaries record how words are USED (correctly or otherwise), not just what they mean. If acronym means abbreviation, why have two words? How do we communicate the lost specificity of the word acronym?
Here's where you call me a pedant/prescriptivist/grammar nazi so you don't have to learn.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
How come no one's going after "The Hunt for Gollum" fan movie?
See sig below.
Apparently J.R.R. Tolkien warned us in advance of the actions his heirs would take WRT copyright.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Aw crap. I've waited years for the right story to reference my sig, and then I waste the golden opportunity provided by this article on the measly parent to this post.
Well, make the same joke a little better...
Apparently Tolkien's heirs are Olog-hai (see sig below).
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
When is someone posting the extended version of LoTR box in 720p at PirateBay please?
Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Wouldn't that be cool if it were? 'Unknown organic blob swims to Hollywierd, eats Time-Warner, dies of toxic shock and insulin poisoning'.
Dibs on the copyright!!! WHERE'S MY MOVIE CONTRACT??
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
pharmaceutical companies make plenty fine income, with very short patents on the use of drugs, because of the clear and moral trepidation of life-saving drugs being bound in financial chicanery. the same holds true for cultural output, but since the consequences of artificially extended ownership are less obvious and onerous, the impoverishment of OUR culture is less clear, even though it is real and horrible
the same holds true for any book, movie, song, or anything else, created by anyone
after awhile, that piece is part of YOUR culture, and is owned by YOU
your grandad wrote a good pop song? good for him. you want money for it? fuck you
what creators will get, and will always get, is fame, and that has lots of avenues for capitalization
but i am fucking sick of this idea that you write a song, or a book, or a movie, and somehow you get to decide how it is used for all time
no: fuck you. we love you for what you made, but your control is artificially extended by greedy bastards and broken laws
there is no reason why have to pay someone to sing happy birthday. there is no reason i can't use the image of some stupid cartoon mouse created 70 years ago however i like if i want to. of course, there ARE reasons, but they are all morally broken and extended only by corporate greed
fuck the idea of intellectual property. the story of the 21st century will or should be about the downfall of the logical and philosophical and therefore legal assumptions that allow this malignant idea to persist
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...then it needs to change on the front end as well. An author's overall compensation comes down to: "Lookit, we're going to pay you a teensy-weensy amount now so that you can stay breathing long enough to write a sequel, but don't worry, if this thing is really as good as you think it is, you'll make it all up on the back-end residuals."
So if you IP crusaders want to shorten the time it takes for a book to enter public domain (presumably so you all can post your fan fiction without fear of a C&D letter), then make sure the publishers all get the memo to pay authors more up front. Anything else is a bait and switch. To put it into a cube-dweller analogy, it would be as if you were hired at a low base pay but told you would make it up in your end of year bonus. When end-of-year came around, you were told, sorry, we don't do bonuses anymore, oh, and by the way, you're working Christmas, too.
Who dug this up? This story is over a year old...
http://movies.ign.com/articles/852/852192p1.html
February 14, 2008 - Earlier this week, the estate of author J.R.R. Tolkien sued New Line Cinema over profits from the studio's Oscar-winning, blockbuster Lord of the Rings trilogy, a move that cast doubt on the possibility of their feature film adaptation of Tolkien's The Hobbit.
Or just google "Hobbit lawsuit"
sheeesh.
"Apparently they haven't gotten any money due to some creative accounting."
I believe the term is "standard Hollywood accounting practice".
Oh, and I'll bet any royalty litigation subsequent to the film's release is probably in there as a "production cost" too.
LoTR was a great work by someone who really spent time and effort writing the book. Does he (or even his family) not deserve to reap the rewards of his efforts that we are all enjoying? Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS. Communism?
On a separate but related note.... if Hollywood studios came up with their OWN IDEAS instead of just using comics / books / other movies as a basis for new scripts, they WOULD NOT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS. Screenwriters need to start coming up with original ideas, not just remakes of movies from the 50s or childrens cartoons from the 80s.
take into account potential sales lost to piracy?
After all it would have been revenue for the Company (at least that's what they tell us)..
*slow clap*
Good work.
We need Eminent Domain for intangible properties as well. With that the government can nationalize the rights to LoTR and ensure seamless production of 'The Hobbit' films. The government can request to the Supreme Court that this lawsuit is considered "hindrance to the advancement of humanities" and therefore should grant eminent domain rights.
New Economic Perspectives
LOL NOT RLY
Just 15 years.
If you can't get a profit to live off while writing in 15 years, YOU SUCK.
And if it's the "looking for a publisher" then NDA's last forever.
Burn your copy of the Silmarilian (posthumous release, due to the Publisher's cowardice). I certainly don't agree with indefinite copyright, or even the absurd life + 90 they have at the moment. Life =OR= 50 years from publication, whichever is the longer, is perfectly adequate to cover most situations.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Remember that these "greedy schmucks" are the ones lobbying and influencing the law. You, I, the Slashdot community, we do not. But we are tax paying constituents. The only time we influence this is when we vote--and let's face it, it's not a voting issue.
Speak for yourself. I call or write my elected representatives all the time about issues. I donate money to nonprofits who have professional lobbyists just like the RIAA does--but working for what I want.
Want to see the power of citizen lobbying? We're not drilling in ANWR, despite 6 years during which the Republican party controlled the White House and most of Congress. Whether you think that's good or not, it certainly demonstrates that corporate interests are not the only players in Washington.
If members of Congress received 10 calls every day about copyright issues, they would listen. A call is worth 10 letters because it interrupts what they're doing--they can't put if off or ignore it.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The rights were sold 40 years ago, per the article. At the time, the Tolkien estate did not exist- the author himself was alive to negotiate the conditions under which his works would be used. So, it is your opinion that Tolkien was 'naive' to not have spelled out in detail who would be entitled to what percentage of the DVD sales revenue when he negotiated the deal in 1969?
If anything, it looks like he did pretty well for an agreement made in 1969 by trying to require a percentage of the gross, but he did permit certain expenses to be deducted which were then gamed by Hollywood accounting.
Not exactly - he's safe in the darkness of his parents' basement.
The word you are looking for is an "initialism", which is like an acronym that you pronounce as individual letters.
However, I'm not sure about ones like JPEG or MSDOS that are part initialism and part acronym.
You also have ones like SQL which some people treat as an initialism (S-Q-L) and others as an acronym (sequal).
Finally, you have ones like AAA, IEEE, or NAACP which are neither pronounced as a word or as the individual letters (triple-A, I-triple-E, N-double-A-C-P, etc.).
How about we just call them all acronyms and get over it. Do we really need single words to describe each case?
www.pirate-party.us
I have my problmes with ye olde party, but I really can't stand much more of this BS. Somebody is going to have to do something.
I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
Courtney Love, Joni Mitchell the list goes on.
Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol, a stroke of genius because the contract he was under said he could use his own name if he jumped ship. He became "the artist formerly known as Prince".
Courtney Love got hosed and wrote about how a band with a platinum album could end up scraping by on whatever a record company threw them.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
Joni Mitchell got hosed, and put an article about it up on the web.
(can't find the link)
Michelle Shocked couldn't record an album for 10 years due to a bad contract.
Beck accepted the lowest contract offer he got because it gave him the most control.
It's not just the movie companies.
Book publishers too. God help you if you accept an advance or or go on a book tour. The charge backs can be horrific. Don't ever let them buy you anything. They'll overcharge you for any and all services. the limo to the airport or the venue might seem nice, but they will charge you back for it.
The opening night gala for the movie opening, book openings. Etc.
The word "pimps" comes to mind.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Q
x
5 cockatrice eggs in quiver.
f
8
It looks like Tolkien & co where less saavy 40 years ago, and essentially signed up to get screwed.
Less savvy or just not very forward thinking in terms of technology.
[nerd-speak]
Tolkien pretty much gave away the movie rights because he (and whom else ever in his camp) never thought you could even make a movie out the LOTR. Would you have wanted to see a film adaptation using early 1970's film technology? Not as fun to watch if the Balrog looks Godzilla and the Nazgûl like some kind of Medieval Mothras, not to mention Treebeard looking worse than he even did in the films, or primitive miniatures making the cities of Middle Earth look like something made of Lego(s).
Technology may have been Saruman's downfall, but it allowed for a pretty cool set of movies.
[/nerd-speak]
I'm going to pretty much shoot down your argument with a link to The Hobbit, circa 1977. There was also The Lord of the Rings (1978) and The Return of the King (1980).
While these movies weren't, by any means, great (although I thoroughly enjoyed The Hobbit movie as a kid). With a story that good, and popular, I have a hard time being convinced that they believed there would be no possibility of a good selling LOTR universe movie being created. To the point that they would just say, "Hey screw it lets give it away."
I'm pretty sure they just screwed up if they signed a "net profit" contract.
wow. some serious gymnastics in your fucked up mind translated this into an excuse to get free movies. This must be slashdot / torrentfreak.
Set that graph to 10years and you can see the tech bubble pop :)
my band is more brutal techno punk than yours
Why do US citizens have guns if not for that?
How big a crime does it take before people stand up and say: "This BS stops now, or else."
LOTR apparently made over 2 billion dollars. _Who_ took the money?
Procura o cara.
Good luck with that: PRODUCT ALERT: "The Lord of the Rings (Extended Editions)" is scheduled to be released on Blu-ray in 2011 or 2012. from http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0026L7H20 So until then, I dont know how else you would get a source for the extended cuts in HD. Sorry.
Even under the pre-1976 copyright rules , the lotr books would still have been under copyright for another 1-2 years.
You are going to ahve to link a cite.
Plus, it isn't a loophole. The Constitution specifically says congress can create copyright if they want to, but they don't have to.
It's an option.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I mean think of how "creatively" those accountants are cooking those books, it should be considered art.
"This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
I completely agree copyrights have been extended far too many times and too many years into the future. However, as a father, there is little doubt in my mind that I would do nearly anything in my power to provide for my children even after death. Of course there is a gray area in this matter, but to curse the children or grandchildren of someone simply because they are taking advantage of the fruits of their family's labor seems a little harsh. I'd die happy knowing that my family and even extended family was provided for due to my creative works. It gets murky with great-grandchildren and so on, but at least I'd like to know the people I knew in life were taken care of when I die.
Under what bizarro universe does the public have more right to an author's work than the author (or their estate)?
Please understand that when the government enforces a private monopoly, the taxpayers incur direct costs. The "private monopoly" in this case is the author's sole distribution right over his work. The enforcement of that right means that real tax dollars get spent on investigations into copyright infringement violations, as well as the imposition of legal consequences.
So, that means that if you are an author, the rest of us (even those who do not buy copies of your work) are paying out-of-pocket to enforce your monopoly on your behalf.
What do we get in return for this? The privilege of being able to pay even more money if we want to experience your work? Do you really think this is balanced?
The reason why copyright law has a term limit is to try and strike this (otherwise missing) balance. In return for spending our money to protect your private monopoly for a period of years, we eventually get your work for free, in the public domain. Thus, you have your incentive to create secured (in the form of a protected period of sole distribution rights), and we get a ROI on all the tax money we spent to give you that (specifically, the work for free, eventually).
The problem that frustrates many posters on Slashdot is that the term of copyright is now so long that it is no longer balanced. In response to this perceived injustice, many people feel justified in dishonoring the private monopoly, and obtaining the work for free.
Whether or not they actually are justified is a debate in which I am presently remaining silent (though I won't deny an obvious bias). However, I will state that the current copyright law is not at all balanced, and the public good is getting the losing end of the deal. There is clearly an injustice being perpetuated by copyright holders and lobbies at the present time.
As an aside, copyright infringement is illegal and (arguably) immoral. However, it is not theft. Theft is generally defined in terms of the harm done to the victim, rather than the benefit to the perpetrator. Finding an un-owned object and claiming it for one's self is not theft, even though one got something without paying for it. However, depriving the rightful owner of access to his property is theft, and that wording is often used in legal proceedings involving theft.
In the case of copyright infringement, the rightful owner still has full access and full control over his own work. You have a duplicate of the work, but since you haven't deprived the owner of the work, you have not "stolen" it. You have merely copied it.
To use the ever-popular car analogy...if I see your car on your driveway, and I build myself a separate car just like it....you still have your car. I have not stolen it. Though my copy of it might still be illegal.
But don't take my word for it. The supreme court already ruled that copyright infringement is not theft. Read all about it.
Trolls only turn to stone in daylight - and, well, this is Slashdot...
That really tells you all you need to know about them. I can understand that you want to get the money you deserve, which by the way they don't, since they didn't write the Lord of the Rings, nor the Silmarillion, nor the Hobbit, but even if they did, the fact alone that they want to prevent the creation of derivative works tells you they deserve neither the rights nor the profits.
Of course, reading about the wet fingertip accounting tactics, that pretty much amount to "oops, I came on the balance sheet, what was here before, I think it was: profit: $2,-" didn't make me feel very sympathetic to the studio either.
I am sick of LARPer's and LoTRer's. Go outside and get some air, they are just some freaking books made into pretty neat movies. No, I am not a troll, I just play one on TV.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
I totally disagree with those of you who think that Tolkien's works should be in the public domain. His heirs are still alive, he was ripped off repeatedly by pirates during his own lifetime here in America and their agreement with Time/Warner was a rock-solid percentage despite how successful the movies were. There's a line, people, to the extent that you can personally gain from the genius of others. Tolkien worked his entire adult life on that marvelous story. I don't think it's asking too much at all that I (and the rip-off artists who run the entertainment industry) pay for the privilege of sharing that genius.
Oh, and by-the-by, Gary Gygax was an evil piece of Balrog Shite. LONG LIVE THE JUDGE'S GUILD, SIR HUEY AND DAVE HARGRAVE!!!
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
Even slashdot trolls have to resupply for coding and gaming.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
It may be only 97 seconds long, but it does star one of the most recognizable SF actors. out there.
Seriously. It doesn't get much better than that.
You stereotypers are all the same...
we can just cut back on the tolkien shit totally, and you can shove up the now never-to-be-made profits you were going to make from your deceased father's creation up your butt. the country you are in is already fucked up regarding copyright laws, dont prove its critics wrong. or, rather, go ahead and prove it.
Read radical news here
Easy, too. The author, once his works "take off", even past a much shorter copyright period, contracts with another publisher for a print run, adds a new forward and a new epilogue, plus hand autographs every copy. Given a choice of the same $7.95 paperback or $24.95 hardcover, one that is the author's new version and signed, as opposed to brand x publisher's "out of copyright" version, which would most people buy then?
The RIAA does music, though they're clearly on board with what the MPAA (who does movies) is up to and they do their own version of Hollywood Accounting.
So the MAFIAA as a whole is hypocritical, yes, but the RIAA doesn't have much to do with this story.
Time Warner should have stuck to their original plans and produced the Lord of the Dance trilogy instead. I tried to tell them but did they listen? Shame.
I can just imagine the testimony now:
Lawyer: So you lost money on the LOTR films? ... . er, I mean no wa. . . er, , , umm, . . . , well, you know, . . . , it's hard to know with these movies, . . ., um ., why are you making more? Is "losing money", as you say that most films like LOTR do, really as good as "really great sex"?
Studio: That's right. It says so right in our documents.
Lawyer: But didn't a lot of people go to see it? Didn't you sell a lot of DVDs? And merchandise?
Studio: Well, yes, but we had a lot of expenses. Salaries. Marketing promotions? Directors and producers aren't cheap.
Lawyer: I see. Aren't you planning on making another Tolkien film? The Hobbit?
Studio: Yes, we're very excited. It will be the most exciting film since the LOTR series. And it will be bigger. And better. It's going to be fantastic.
Lawyer: Would you say that you're thrilled about it?
Studio: Are you kidding? It's freakin' awesome. It's going to be like really fantastic sex.
Audience: Chuckles
Lawyer: Will you promote it?
Studio: Oh yes. We've started planning for the marketing campaign already. Burger King will be doing a promotion. Mattel is doing the toys. Marvel will be doing a comic book. Dateline, Oprah, Today -- well, you name it, they're all planning on doing full shows on it.
Lawyer: I see. But it can't be as good, can it. I mean, Peter Jackson was the original director/producer.
Studio: Oh, Peter Jackson will be involved again. He'll be the executive producer.
Lawyer: Are you paying him?
Studio: Chuckle. Oh yes. Most movies that get made have budgets smaller than what Jackson will make.
Lawyer: Do you plan on making any money on The Hobbit?
Studio: Oh definit
Lawyer: I'm just asking, because, you know, you didn't make any on the last films, and well, I was wondering, well, if you lost money on the last series, . . . , well, . .
Audience: Hilarious non-stop laughter that lasts for 5 minutes.
I'm a direct descendant of Geoffrey Chaucer and am thinking of suing. I mean if the J.R.R. family can still have these rights, then so should I. Yes, I know it's the estate that got the rights, and it's a company that lives forever, blah, blah, blah, but that's just fricken wrong. I'm owned some serious money.
...suppose another film copy, not party to the original contract, decided to make LOTR. If it were no longer protected by copyright, there's not a damn thing Tolkien's estate could do about it. They would have to argue that by entering in a contract with New Line they effectively extended their copyright forever. Lucky for them, Sonny bono took care of that.
Of course, IANAL.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
My brother played that song for me a few Xmas's ago and I nearly pee'd myself. Follow it up with Shatner's Mr. Tambourine Man and I'm toast.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I wondered if anyone knew what projects are lined up for Allen? I know he and his girlfriend were at the Irish Film awards a few weeks ago. I'd be surprised if ROME doesnt result in a lot of work for him. harie real estate