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.'"

19 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. Damn leeches by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Damn leeches by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they didn't have extended copyright, they wouldn't have needed a contract to begin with. That's what he's saying.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:Damn leeches by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These books should be public domain by now.
      God damn extended copyright might kill another production.

      I agree the books should be in the public domain. But let's be honest here -- it's the usual movie production studio douchebaggery that is going to kill this production, not copyright. You know damn well they aren't thinking "Gee if only there were reasonable terms for copyright we wouldn't have to deal with the estate!" No, they are fully on board with life + infinite arithmetic progression copyright terms, they just want to twist the rules so they're the only ones who benefit. They've made their bed, and now they are trying to weasel their way out of sleeping in it.

      Well, fuck them I say. I'd rather everyone who was contractually owed money for those movies gets it even if in my ideal universe they wouldn't be owed anything, rather than let the fuckers responsible for the current situation get away with this shit.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Damn leeches by megamerican · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet, I'm sure you saw all 3 LOTR movies in the theater at least once as you'll probably see the Hobbit (not to mention other movies made by that studio) which will allow them to continue their screwing over of people who may or may not deserve a cut in the money.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    4. Re:Damn leeches by TeXMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These books should be public domain by now. God damn extended copyright might kill another production.

      The irony being that the movie companies are the big $$$ behind the ridiculous copyright extensions that are preventing them from not having to go through the JRR descendants to make movies.

      I guess the next copyright legislature will make book copyright shorter than music or movie copyright.

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    5. Re:Damn leeches by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because there would be NO ONE to screw if not for artificially long copyright periods.

      The man is dead. He's been dead since 1973. You know... 36 years. The last book was published in 1955. 54 years.

      Copyrights are not going to incent him to write any more books.

      Copyrights as currently implemented primarily benefit corporations. Not human beings who are dead long before the copyrights run out.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:Damn leeches by Bemopolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Under what bizarro universe does the public have more right to an author's work than the author (or their estate)?

      The one where the rights of private property and public good are balanced. The one where the rights of personal works and public culture coexist. Also, the one established in the FUCKING CONSTITUTION, where Congress is given the duty (emphasis mine) "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" .

      Notice also that it explicitly says authors and inventors, and not the estates thereof, but that is a side issue. What is important is that the time be Limited. Unless you want to get a shovel and go excavate Ugg the fucking Caveman and pay him back royalties for your use of fire and the wheel. Pelts only.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    7. Re:Damn leeches by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It still amazes me how respondents in this forum think that there is some level on which it's acceptable to STEAL.

      I don't, which is why I'm arguing that the studio needs to pay the estate the money that they are owed.

      Under what bizarro universe does the public have more right to an author's work than the author (or their estate)?

      In the bizarro universe where the purpose of copyrights was to promote the arts and thus enrich our culture, and its protections were for a limited time only with the express purpose of enriching the public domain. So, basically, the bizarre universe of the United States prior the year 1976.

      For two hundred years, copyright served the purpose I describe and not the one you describe. This notion that an author's work is supposed to provide a life-long revenue stream for their children and their children's children is a recent invention, and contrary to the purpose of copyright, which is to encourage more works to be written. What has Christopher Tolkien done other than package up his dad's work? Maybe if he was operating under the same laws that his dad did when he wrote his books, then he'd have had to produce something of his own.

      Sorry, I just don't buy that argument under any circumstance.

      Okay, but the only reason author's have any right to an unnatural monopoly is because we, the people, agreed to compromise with them. The argument was the one that ruled the day from the authoring of our Constitution through to the Sonny Bono Copyright Act.

      The discussion here seems centered on whether the studio should get the spoils or the public.

      What a silly thing to say in a reply to my post where I argued that the "spoils" should go to the estate as contractually required. I think copyright law should be changed to match its original purpose, but that doesn't mean I think the movie studios, the very ones who lobbied for these ridiculous copyright laws, should be exempt from them! So basically it sounds like you missed my whole point. And I'm not the only one making this point. So pay more attention to the discussion, maybe?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Damn leeches by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, is that strictly true? Children of Huron was published a good deal more recently than that. In fact, IIRC, four times as many books have been published by JRRT since he died than when he was alive. Not to mention the audio tapes (which include JRRT reading from his work and singing Elvish poetry that doesn't otherwise survive).

      This is all new material. Yes, technically it was all written before JRRT died, but not one scrap of it would have been released if there was no incentive by either Christopher Tolkien OR (more importantly) the publishing house to publish it.

      This new material included such gems as The Silmarilian, one of the all-time greatest works of JRRT, and the one he put the most effort into. That was never published in his lifetime. Not because it was no good, but because the publisher didn't realize the market for High Fantasy was as extensive as it proved to be. The other material, likewise, was often not held back by the author, it was held back by the publishers.

      I'm not saying extended copyrights are always good, but there ARE special circumstances where they are valuable.

      Another example would be the repair and restoration of crates upon crates of Hemmingway material that was left, abandoned, in his house after his death. Most of it is damaged by fungus and rot, but it is salvageable. The costs for the repairs are all being covered by the value of the material being salvaged.

      These are exceptional circumstances, you won't find anything remotely similar in the majority of cases, but the exceptions SHOULD be covered by law no less than the general rule.

      --
      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)
  2. Bad news all around by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.
  3. Thought experiment by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  4. but but the MPAA is for the artists? by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:but but the MPAA is for the artists? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      When they say "artists" they mean their accountants.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  5. This is common in Hollywood by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

  6. Something Good Could Come of It by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.
  7. Re:They crossed up their net and gross reciepts... by Foolicious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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]

    --
    Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
  8. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kinda makes all their protestations about piracy ring hollow. How dare someone else screw them out of a profit.

  9. Re:Threatening Hobbit Production... by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Brought to you by the same people who are so deeply concerned that someone might copy a movie without paying for it. Of course, the whole industry in Hollywood started out dodging Edison's patent royalties.

  10. The agreement was made 40 years ago. by Noren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.