Do J.R.R. Tolkien's Kids Deserve Money For The Lord Of The Rings Movies?
from the what-did-they-have-to-do-with-it dept
There are some competing opinion pieces in the LA Times, starting off with one siding with J.R.R. Tolkien's kids in their legal fight for royalties from the Lord of the Rings trilogy movies:Tolkien obviously isn't Peter Jackson, who directed the franchise, or Liv Tyler or Viggo Mortensen, who starred in it, or New Line Cinema, the studio that financed it, or Miramax, which owned the film rights for a second but couldn't get the movie made, or producer Saul Zaentz, who bought the rights in 1976. He's just the guy who dreamed up the cosmology, the whole shebang of hobbits and dwarfs, orcs, ents, wargs, trolls, whatnot.Then, there's the other side, pointing out that while it might be true that they legally deserve the money, it doesn't make any common sense:
I find it offensive to common sense to argue that the heirs of J.R.R. Tolkien (who are as dismayingly numerous as Kennedys in the court filing) are entitled to a shilling for work in which they had no hand and which was completed in 1949.Most of the essay focuses on the question of the length of copyright, which we all know has been expanded to ridiculous lengths. However, it does seem like a reasonable question to ask why the kids of Tolkien deserve money for a movie they had nothing to do with based on an idea they had nothing to do with.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, heirs, lord of the rings, tolkien
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Taste of her medicine
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&q=rowling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Estate
It would be like (car analogy coming) a distant relative of Henry Ford appearing and demanding money from the latest sales (if any) of the F-350.
The copyright issues are simply red (and sensationalized) herrings in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Estate
If you inherit a house, you get to live in it. If you inherit stock, you get dividends. If you inherit a laundromat, you get the quarters. If you inherit a copyright, you get royalties. It doesn't seem too complicated until the IRS comes to help you work out the taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Christopher Tolkien's contributions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Revising and Editing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Revising and Editing
The film rights contract was made in 1969, by JRR Tolkien, who was still alive. It vested rights to royalties with JRR and the trust he set up at the time. JRR willed his share to his children. The trust is still going. There's no question of inheritance there: one of the original holders of rights is still around, & not getting paid. The trust is the chief litigant, not the descendants.
According to the accounts filed with the Charities Commission (available online - took me 2 minutes with Google), of a total income of £945,457 in 2006-7, £902,357 was given to a long list of charities, & &22,131 was spent on managing the donations.
The accounts list as a "Contingent asset" a share of the revenues of the LOTR films. They reckon that amounts to at least $30 million up to 30th September 2005, which is as far as the trustees have been permitted to audit the film accounts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rights and money and such
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not? If people are getting things they don't deserve because of the law, doesn't that create a decent reason to question the law?
Or are laws unquestionable in your mind, no matter how ridiculous the results of those laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or are laws unquestionable in your mind, no matter how ridiculous the results of those laws?
Hmm, someone apparently has trouble picking up on sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, if they were given (by any legal means) rights to the copyrights, then I believe they have the right to expect that to be honored.
As far as the law governing this, if we as a people don't like it...we should work to change it and not be upset at those exercising their rights under such a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I always find this statement amusing: don't complain about the law if it's the law. Instead you have to change it.
Did it ever occur to you that complaining about those who profit unfairly from the law *is* a means to getting the law changed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see you are easily amused by placing words in a person's mouth, and then using it as a strawman to make a point.
By the way, is your reference to "profit unfairly" a general, "what if" comment, or is it meant to relate specifically to the above article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see you are easily amused by placing words in a person's mouth, and then using it as a strawman to make a point.
It shouldn't surprise you: this is how he responds to all criticisms of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What was incorrect about my statement?
You clearly stated that rather than complaining we should change the law. I pointed out why that was silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You clearly stated that rather than complaining we should change the law. I pointed out why that was silly.
No, he didn't. He specifically said that we should "not be upset at those exercising their rights under such a law." He said nothing about whether we should be upset at the law in the first place. In more colloquial terms, he basically said "don't hate the player; hate the game." You, however, misconstrued what he said and then constructed a strawman out of it. That's dishonest arguing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You complain about the law. You don't complain about the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only dishonest thing is you claiming that this is a strawman.
I'm not "hating" Tolkien's heirs. I'm pointing out what appears to be a bad outcome thanks to the law.
You may have misinterpreted that as "hating" but I don't see how that is. If you're going to point out the bad results of a law in order to get people to think about why it should be changed, it's inevitable that you're going to point out how people are using the law in ways that make little common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two parties, each likely represented by able counsel, negotiated the terms of a business deal where neither party had a gun held to their head. They each likely compromised on key points, and then embodied their deal in a written document (contract). Under such circumstances I fail to see any unfairness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Facts: New Line and Tolkien's heirs formed an agreement that required New Line to pay Tolkien's heirs a percentage of the gross profits from the LotR film series. New Line has decided not to pay Tolkien's heirs said percentage, or has done so presumably by saying that New Line has made no gross profits from said film series. Tolkien's heirs sue for breach of contract, claiming that New Line has not met their end of the agreement.
Tell me again how this does not make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why were Tolkien's kids involved in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they, as heirs to Tolkien's estate, have a claim of right to any interests of the Tolkien estate, one of which being this agreement with New Line. It's just like how you would have claims to the monetary and property interests of your parents estate, whether it be land, furniture, jewelry, stock interests, or contractual interests. This happens to be a contractual interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, your reasoning is starting to get seriously slipshod in the process of promoting your point of view through these articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's tangible property that is passed on. This is about a totally different product based on an idea. It's quite different.
It may seem a little unfair that someone can inherit millions they had nothing to do with, just by being born to the right parents
This is not about inheriting. This about getting money from a new product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What about a musician who performs a remake of another musician's work? Doesn't the authoring musician have the right to request compensation in exchange for the use of their work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Problem is that copyrights were never meant to last as long as they do now, and they certainly were never meant to be passed through inheritance. The reasonable basis for copyrights was to allow artists to support themselves off their work, LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE MORE.
Now copyrights are automatic, permanent, and passable through inheritance. Automatic is probably a good idea, since creative people can be neglectful of minutiae outside their work. Permanent, I disagree with, but can live with. Passable through inheritance is a problem for me.
Eventually, all written works should pass to the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The argument that anyone has a right to anything "because it is property," is the most slipshod argument of all. The legal right exists, but the actual moral and philosophical right is what is being argued; it makes no sense whatsoever to point to rights that we ourselves defined, and then say claim that because we granted them the recipient has some kind of fundamental right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree with Alan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An eventual inheritance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
True. J.R.R. Tolkien is the master mind of it all but to say that his kids had nothing to do with it is stretching things beyond breaking point and is akin to claiming that Philip K. Dick had nothing to do with "Bladerunner".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lousy Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should get money for the work they've done
Mike, this is actually related to one of the most important points you bring up. Christopher Tolkien has created wonderful things for the world based almost solely on another individual's work (His Father's). He was lucky enough to be in a position to do this within the law.
The real question here is the right way to reward him for helping to swan (albeit it, with feet dragging), a highly successful film franchise. Is copyright law in its current incarnation the best way? probably not. However, until there is a replacement, to deny copyright on such a case would be a game of favorites which is probably worse than bad copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They should get money for the work they've done
Okay, but every fantasy story that Tolkein ever wrote had an impact on what Tolkein wrote. Do their kids get money, also? Where does it stop? Should Christopher get money for every story that was written by an author that was inspired by the fantasy of Tolkein? Once again, where does it stop?
The work is over fifty years old. Isn't the copyright expired?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They should get money for the work they've done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They should get money for the work they've done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They should get money for the work they've done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They should get money for the work they've done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do J.R.R. Tolkien's Kids Deserve Money For The Lord Of The Rings Movies?
My dead brother-in-law was the last Grimm of the fairytale family. He died broke.
Why should this green earth perpetuate the genes of genius when there's so many more thieves of intellectual property who are obviously more deserving in the eyes of our court system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bastards...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bastards...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost Tales, Silmarillion don't count.
But let us be clear, they are not springing out of the woodwork after the movie and claiming some vague inheritance rights. They had a signed contract they are trying to get honored. Totally different issue. Copyright exists and as such it can be transferred/bought/sold. In this case it stayed with the relatives.
Now I absolutely agree copyright lasts way too ridiculously long. Copyright was not meant to enrich people/corporations throughout time. They were meant to encourage production of works. In which case a term of 20 years would be completely sufficient. Any longer and they discourage production of new works, stifle production of derivative works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lost Tales, Silmarillion don't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lost Tales, Silmarillion don't count.
(sorry for accidental empty post above, feel free to delete that one)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lost Tales, Silmarillion don't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate perpetual copyrights
I'd say that sums it up. You don't change the deal after the deal was made.
I happen to have a set of "Lord of the Rings" Mass-Market Paperbacks published by Ace Books, Inc. Apparently, Houghton Mifflin Company had failed to secure the paperback rights for a short period before they were sold to Ballantine. So, Ace was able to publish the trilogy under Public Domain for a very short window. I'm sure someone has a better account of what actually went on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do we see the descendants of the Wright Bros. suing anybody?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So my point is if kids don't have a claim on even having a father, then their claim on something the father did a long time ago seems pretty thin to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, I forgot. This is techdirt's blog site. My mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, you may want to post a clarification to that statement. Otherwise you're making it sound like all the value is in the idea, and the grunt work of compiling and editing masses of notes and letters is meaningless.
Asserting none of the children have anything to do with the continued success of LOTR in print and in film is distracting from the real discussions around this issue.
If "copyright" inheritance is the discussion you wanted to have, unfortunately this is the wrong case to base it on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would we pay royalties to Picasso? Einstein? Da Vinci? Shakespeare? and many many many other heirs?
I respect copyright and people's work and their proper credit, but this is getting ridiculous....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They sold the rights!
It was probably a pittance, but I'll just bet Tolkien needed the money at the time.
Same reason we'll never have a Neuromancer movie.
Same reason (though not the only one) that Johnny Mneumonic sucked so hard.
The guy who invented the paperclip gave it away to pay off a loan. Should his kids come wandering back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
READ THE ARTICLE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, after reading the story, I think Tolkien's children do deserve 7.5% of the earnings. Chris Tolkien did contribute, and even if he hadn't, the value of the LOTR books is a direct inheritance from his father, which his children are entitled. I don't think JRR Tolkien's grandchildren or great grandchildren deserve anything if the films are remade (for whatever reason), but Christopher Tolkien (and her sister) definitely should get the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
contracts
Mike - if they have that contract, then COPYRIGHT is irrelevant, wouldn't you agree? What matters is the substance of that particular contract. If New Line agreed to the 7.5%, then they should pay up.
I'm not arguing the underlying point here - only the matter of the contract.
And, I agree that, in law, DESERVES has nothing to do with it. You can argue whether is SHOULD or not (and get very little argument from me) - but the simple fact of the law is that what someone deserves is irrelevant to the law. Just as what is RIGHT is irrelevant - all that matters is what is legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: contracts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
7.5% of Gross?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the estate...
17USC304 says that length of copyright for Tolkien's work published in '54-55 is 28 years (if copyright not renewed) or 95 years after publication for works published 1923-1963 (Copyrights prior to 1923 have expired.)
The copyrights are still owned by the estate, and they don't disappear after death, they disappear after publication date. Newer works (since '78) do go 95 years after death.
Point is, the estate has every right to nail Warner to a wall. They still own the copyright, they still had a signed contract, entitling them to 7.5%. They'll get it. And then, they'll disburse it to needy organizations: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ShowCharity.asp?RegNo=273615
Look starting on page 11:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts%5CEnds15%5C0000273615_ ac_20070405_e_c.pdf
And if, you look further down, you can see that the trustees take a very nominal stipend from it. Not the millions the estate takes in. Ya'll need to do some damn research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do they deserve it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do they deserve it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The wrong question
Its also a reasonable question to ask why a studio is trying to avoid paying anyone for a series of movies that they made billions of dollars from, including people like Jackson and Zaentz who had pivitol roles in its creation.
This isn't an issue of copyright, its an issue of yet another publisher fiddling the books so it gets to keep more of the pie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Line is just holding on to the cash with tight fists
Doesn’t matter if you don’t like it, it’s what was already agreed on legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anytime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as it doesn't end up in the government's hands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Tolkien were still alive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RTFA
He sold the rights yes, accourding to the article:
"Tolkien licensed motion picture rights to United Artists back in 1969 for a low six-figure sum and 7.5% of the "gross receipts." Gross receipts are the money the distributor actually gets from the theaters and ancillary markets."
The money became too big to just give what was owed. Same with Jackson. This kina money causes sudden legal manuvers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: JRR's kids
Besides that, it has to be said that the movies (and consequently, those involved with them) are not separate products, but an interpretation or retelling of the original story. In fact, you could look at the movie as the child of the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost every response post on this article is obvious bitterness from the responders personal life.
Who SHOULD be making the money off Tolken's work? JUST the MOVIE industry? JUST the book publishers? No one in the family should see any money; yet companies that truly did had nothing to do with the creation and are just making money off someone else's idea; should?
I'd rather give some of the money to the family that the wonderful idea came from than give more money that the can use to hunt more people down kthx.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point point in the very end of the article...
But ya'll can sit around and bicker about why they want millions of dollars for charities if you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do it?
I guess "Gandalf would have wanted it that way." wouldn't hold up in court?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tolkien's Heirs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
100% Estate tax?
Writing was Tolkien's life work. I can't think of any reason why his heirs should not get the fruit of that work any more than heirs of an industrialist or entrepreneur should not reap the benefits. If someone starts out and builds a company should that company become owned by the government (the public) when they die? What role did the kids have in that person's building of the company.
As for the length of the copyright, I totally disagree with the notion that the length of the copyright is a ridiculous length. I believe for literary works it is 100% appropriate. It was his genius to be able to write and tell a story that still resonates with us some 50+ years later. What harm comes from maintaining a copyright for a lengthy time? I don't know the specific detail of the Tolkien and New Cinema case, but is the concern that movie studios profits will be somewhat reduced because they will have to give the legitimate owners of the copyright royalties?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tolkien Heirs vs. New Line Laid Off Employees
Trott Felipe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright terms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright terms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple
1. Were they involved in the creation, direction and/or production of the original Lord of the Rings?
If Yes, then collect money.
2. Are they just trying to make money off of their dead father's work, without having any personal professional connection to the works created, so you can afford that other BMW and a few new homes or whatever you spend your money on?
If Yes, then go away, get a life and stop bothering people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point
This is just another example of the entertainment industry wanting to have it both ways. It's not alright to sue them for not paying what they promised for copyrighted materials, but it's ok for them to sue the hell out of anyone who they deem owes them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Question
I do, by the way, think that the life span of a copyright has become ridiculous. Fifteen years from the time of first publication should be plenty. But, that's another topic, it's a different issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, JRR Tolkien's kids don't deserve money for Lord of the Rings. All they've got coming is any money their Dad left them.
Trying to enforce a copyright after the author is dead is obscene. The idea of "intellectual property" is supposed to encourage creativity. How do you encourage creativity of a dead person? If Tolkien's kids want money, let them write their own books. Maybe it's time to stop trying to squeeze a dollar out of your daddy's corpse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Side note
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=twotowers.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movi es/?id=returnoftheking.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fellowshipofthering.htm
7.5% of all of that isn't some crazy amount
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
because I want it ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Villagers with Pitchforks
When your copyrights become worthless, it is easy join the throng and claim that intellectual property should be open sourced wholesale.
This happens to be one of the distinctions between that has prospered the US. By putting a value on intellectual property (transferrable at the will of its owner) and protecting that value for its owner, we encourage people with ideas to bring them into the light. Otherwise, imagine the wasted time and effort people would spend trying to maintain the secrecy until they could effect their coup.
Let me save you the keystrokes and bandwidth and say it for you..."Byron you're an idiot. You wrong on so many levels that I need a mega dose of ritalin to slow me down so I can grab onto one of them and start in on you."
There...feel better? I do ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolute nonsense
LoTR was published well before JRR Tolkein's death. I'm not 100% sure but it may have been published before Christopher's birth. I am sure that it was published before his majority."
Absolute nonsense. The guy *read drafts of the books* to his children. Christopher Tolkien DREW THE ORIGINAL MAPS. They exchanged letters on it while he was in the airforce. He was well past majority when they were published in the 50s. Good lord, you're on the internet, use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's really getting rich for nothing
The only rights-holder entitled to gross proceeds is the Saul Zaentz Company, who purchased the 1969 contract from UA in 1976 for a discount price. Zaentz & Co. can negotiate whatever licensing terms they like with the benefit of hindsight and has been making many hundred of millions off the propery ever since. So who's really getting rich for doing nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My opinion mixed with some facts
"Last time, you said Bilbo's front door was blue, and you said Thorin had a golden tassel on his hood, but you've just said that Bilbo's front door was green and that Thorin's hood was silver"
-- Christopher Tolkien, foreword to The Hobbit
It says in the place I got this from that he did much more than just that, he corrected much of his fathers work, he devoted his life to his fathers work.
My Opinion: I think he is entitled to his to some of the earnings, I did not read his other childrens Biography's as I did not have the time.
Fact: He was paid for each corrections he made.
My Opinion: I believe he deserves some money from what the BOOK made but not the MOVIE because the movie was only BASED on the book but not actually created by J.R.R. Tolkien.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Above comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tolkien's Family
All Art Would belong to those who love it.
It's not that Tolkien's Work has any Real Value, its just that It is Loved
very strongly and part of that is from it's message: take pleasure in simple values and good freinds, not family, power and money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money and Art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]