The Fall of Gondolin

[crich70]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Again, most modern "high" fantasy is exists because of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. (Much of it derivative and not very good, but that's beside the point.) Using concepts and ideas (even worlds) as starting points is one thing — stealing someone's characters and worlds is another.

Example: Mysterious character in an inn from an ancient race of royal humans. Fine. A book titled "The Other Adventures of Strider" set in Tolkien's world with Tolkien's characters. Theft. (I don't know how I can make my point any clearer.)

There are no 'new ideas' just new ways of presenting the same ones. For example "Romeo & Juliet" and "West Side Story." They have the same idea at the heart of them. Also "High Noon" and "Outland." They also use the same idea at their hearts though the stories are worlds apart in terms of setting. Incidentally I understand that Shakespeare's play was the fourth version of the same story itself.
Tolkien's influences

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And said government has the right to set the terms of that time-limited monopoly.

Something we can agree on!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Something we can agree on!

And mutual respect when we disagree.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by leebase

I just don’t see why anybody else should be making money from Walt Disney's work, or Marry Shelley's work, or Dickens work than their descendants.

I can only assume you don't support and refuse to watch Disney's Snow White, Pinocchio, Song of the South, Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, Jungle Book, Robin Hood, The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Treasure Planet, Tangled or Frozen.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I can only assume you don't support and refuse to watch Disney's Snow White, Pinocchio, Song of the South, Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty, Jungle Book, Robin Hood, The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Treasure Planet, Tangled or Frozen.

On the contrary. Basing a NEW story on existing ideas and tales is completely unimpeeded by copyright. So many movies are just Romeo and Juliet retold. But you don’t need to name the characters Romeo and Juliet.

So make your own Snow White inspired book or movie. Just not the actual Snow White.

I’d make an exception for works abandoned by the author or publisher.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by shalym

You understand that the vast majority of grandchildren of business owners have to work to maintain the business, right? What do the grandchildren of famous authors have to do to maintain their ancestor's copyright? If they had to, at the very least, pay a fee to renew the copyright every few years, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

Shari

Disney's company is still putting huge work on Mickey Mouse. Nobody is watching the original Steamboat Willy cartoons. They are going to Disneyworld and buying Mickey Mouse ears and shirts etc. Just like the businesses Rockerfeller started.

And it’s the value of those ongoing characters today that people would want to reap the rewards from. If Mickey Mouse had stopped at Steamboat Willy, nobody would be interested as there would be no demand.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by leebase

Disney's company is still putting huge work on Mickey Mouse. Nobody is watching the original Steamboat Willy cartoons. They are going to Disneyworld and buying Mickey Mouse ears and shirts etc. Just like the businesses Rockerfeller started.

And it’s the value of those ongoing characters today that people would want to reap the rewards from. If Mickey Mouse had stopped at Steamboat Willy, nobody would be interested as there would be no demand.

...and even if Mickey had fallen into the public domain, they could *still* be selling those ears and shirts etc. All of the various Disney properties would still exist, and people would still be flocking to them every single day of the year.

Allowing IP to fall into the public domain doesn't mean that the original creator can't keep making money off of it, it just means that they no longer have an *exclusive* right to it.

Shari

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by leebase

So make your own Snow White inspired book or movie. Just not the actual Snow White.

But that is exactly what Disney did.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by shalym

...and even if Mickey had fallen into the public domain, they could *still* be selling those ears and shirts etc. All of the various Disney properties would still exist, and people would still be flocking to them every single day of the year.

Allowing IP to fall into the public domain doesn't mean that the original creator can't keep making money off of it, it just means that they no longer have an *exclusive* right to it.

Shari

Yep. Remember, the US didn't honor external copyrights until the 1970's. Ace books famously put out an unauthorized version of LOTR. That didn't mean that Tolkien couldn't license the book in the US and continue to make money off his work. He just couldn't use the power of the government to keep others from doing so. What caused Ace to pull that edition was moral disapproval, not the threat to take them to court. If the US reverted back to a 28 year + 28 year renewal tomorrow, it would have very little to no effect on the vast majority of authors.

It's a very rare book that is still making money some 56 years later. Does anyone think that J.K. Rowlings would suddenly become broke if the Harry Potter franchise went into public domain in 2063? Given that she would be 98 at that point, we would be talking about her children and grandchildren. They, of course, would have the millions that she's already earned. Really, in that case, estate taxes are more of a threat to their wealth than Harry Potter going into public domain.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by shalym

...and even if Mickey had fallen into the public domain, they could *still* be selling those ears and shirts etc. All of the various Disney properties would still exist, and people would still be flocking to them every single day of the year.

Allowing IP to fall into the public domain doesn't mean that the original creator can't keep making money off of it, it just means that they no longer have an *exclusive* right to it.

Shari

Every Tom Dick and Harry could be making and selling Mickey Mouse. Universal Studios could compete with Disney using Disney's own characters.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by leebase

Every Tom Dick and Harry could be making and selling Mickey Mouse. Universal Studios could compete with Disney using Disney's own characters.

Could, but would they? Most of these doomsday scenarios were both possible and legal in much of the world until fairly recently. Heck, there very little actual intellectual property protection is much of the world even now. You don't think you can buy fake mouse ears elsewhere in the world?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Seriously you are going on how Gandalf is an invention of Tolkien? He is not. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf_(mythology)

Yeah, Tolkien used the name, but the character in Norse mythology was a dwarf. Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings is not the same character you'll find in the Norse mythology. And this is a long, long way from someone writing a new Gandalf story based on Tolkien's unique characters and unique world.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Because Rockefeller's heirs are not still selling the exact same oil that Rockefeller sold. ...

Because all oil is so much different than all other oil? Sorry, Rockefeller created a company that produced a product that made money that he was able to pass down to his heirs. Tolkien created a world, a "product" that produces money. He should be able to pass down to his heirs as well. In the world of unique products, Tolkien's are much more unique than Rockefeller's.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ekbell

Why in the world would anyone deserve to be making money off their several times great grandfather's work? ...

Why in the world should anyone else be able to make money off someone's several-time great grandfather's work? If you want to make Tolkien's work Public Domain ... fine. Tell anyone who makes a derivative product from that world they can't sell it or profit from it — that their work is also in the public domain.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by crich70

There are no 'new ideas' just new ways of presenting the same ones. For example "Romeo & Juliet" and "West Side Story." They have the same idea at the heart of them. Also "High Noon" and "Outland." They also use the same idea at their hearts though the stories are worlds apart in terms of setting. Incidentally I understand that Shakespeare's play was the fourth version of the same story itself.
Tolkien's influences

Again, being influenced by someone's work and stealing someone else's work outright are two TOTALLY different things.