Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tolkien Estate Says No Historical Fiction For JRR

Posted by Soulskill on from the do-not-meddle-in-the-affairs-of-greedy-lawyers dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the estate of JRR Tolkien isn't just overprotective of his works, but of himself as well. The estate is in a bit of a legal spat with the author of a fictional work that includes JRR Tolkien as a character, and in part discusses his works. The estate is claiming that this infringes on Tolkien's publicity rights, but if that's the case, would it make almost all 'historical fiction' illegal?"

7 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. do-not-meddle-in-the-affairs-of-greedy-offspring by intellitech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's really what it comes down to. The lawyers are just doing the bidding of Tolkien's offspring.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
  2. Sorry Public Figure by Hangtime · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tolkein was/is a public figure, feels like there isn't much to stand on here especially if its fiction and portrayed as such. Seems like this fall well within the fair use realm.

  3. 70 years + is too damn much by mbone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More evidence that the copyright term is much too long.

    1. Re:70 years + is too damn much by bieber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's both. This should be legal under fair use and the copyrights should have expired a long, long, long time ago.

  4. my Tolkien account by FuckingNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once upon a time there was this fairly cool guy called JRR Tolkien who wrote some popular books. Then he had some descendants who were leeching cunts. The lawyers on all sides lived happily ever after. The end.

    This is OK because it's not fiction, right?

    1. Re:my Tolkien account by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except for the fact that there should be no Tolkien estate owning the rights to it. The idea that someone's heirs can say what you can and can't do with a piece of fiction written over 55 years ago written by someone who died 38 years ago is ridiculous. Copyright needs to be much, much, much more limited. When you look at the history of literature, all of it has been shaped through remixing and reusing ideas and stories of those who wrote before.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  5. Re:'historical fiction' ? by Homburg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mixing fact and fiction is quaintly known in civilized societies as lying.

    I'm not sure if you're joking; your argument would make all fiction mere "lying," because all fiction "mixes fact and fiction." Most fiction involves real places, and almost all involves a real species, i.e., human beings. A huge amount of fiction involves real people in one way or another, too, so readers will be familiar with the idea that claims made about real people in a work of fiction may not be true. It's only lying if you say things that are untrue with the intent that someone reading them believes them to be true, and that will not be true of anything which specifically calls itself "fiction."