The Fall of Gondolin

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Conan46

That was my thought exactly. I would love to see how much--what percentage--of the Disney empire is based upon public domain stories and characters.
We have had so many wonderful books, stories, and movies based upon "Robin Hood" that would not exist if the original story had been copyrighted forever.

To a great extent that is my point. The is a very rich collection of works that is based on such things - legends, old myths, old works and the like.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I'm not a crank on this subject and don't plan to go on forever with it ... but this seems like a specious argument to me. Words are not random. By creating a character and story, the writer has produced something unique. Not only should he own (and be able to sell) his own UNIQUE production but he should have the right to control how his creation is used by others — and he should have the ability to pass his production (his creation) down to his children.

As for building a chair that can't be copied... Manufacturers can patent specific designs that can't be copied.

And those expire in about 20 years, not life + 70.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by meeera

And those expire in about 20 years, not life + 70.

And the uniqueness of a chair is constrained by a chair's function (for sitting), whereas story creation ("sub-creation" is Tolkien's term) is constrained only by imagination. In my opinion that means that the created story and its unique characters should have a much, much higher level of protection (due to their uniqueness) than a chair should have.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by meeera

And those expire in about 20 years, not life + 70.

And that in general is the purpose of copyright and patents. A limited time monopoly so the author or inventor can profit, then into the public domain for the benefit of society. It's a two way street, rather than a one way street. In the US both copyright and patents have been stretched far beyond what they were originally considered, but in different ways. Copyright has been extended far, far beyond what was originally considered to be a fair exclusive period, at first 14 years. Patents were originally suppose to be very narrow in scope. Until very recently, you could only patent a specific working device, now it's common to patent very broad concepts that may or may not be actually tied to any specific mechanism.

[rcentros]

Finished The Fall of Gondolin. Just a couple comments. I wish the Last Version had been completed (the detail was amazing in the part that was finished). Second comment ... I think I'm done with these Tolkien "histories" for a while. It's kind of like some SF stories that are better before the inevitable "explanations" of how it all works. Sometimes I would just as soon let the the "magic" be "magical."

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And that in general is the purpose of copyright and patents. A limited time monopoly so the author or inventor can profit, then into the public domain for the benefit of society. ...

It's not the profit aspect that bothers me the most with someone stealing another's "world" or characters -- it's the theft that bothers me. Why can't writers create their own worlds and own characters? If they can't, they shouldn't be writers.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by rcentros

It's not the profit aspect that bothers me the most with someone stealing another's "world" or characters -- it's the theft that bothers me. Why can't writers create their own worlds and own characters? If they can't, they shouldn't be writers.

You just finished reading a book from one of those thieves that are too uncreative to create their own world and characters. Please be careful what you wish for. Most everything you read today is based on something else created previously. Forever copyrights are counter productive.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You just finished reading a book from one of those thieves that are too uncreative to create their own world and characters. Please be careful what you wish for. Most everything you read today is based on something else created previously. Forever copyrights are counter productive.

No, Tolkien didn't steal what others wrote. He started with myths and legends and created completely new and unique characters from them. He also created a completely new and unique world and a completely new and unique history. This is nothing at all like some hack thinking he can write another story about Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit. Or a book like the "New Adventures of Strider."

"Based on" legends is nothing at all like directly stealing a writer's characters or world. It has NOTHING to do with copyright, this is a red herring. If we're talking about basing stories on someone else's work — just about every "high" fantasy book that has come out since the Lord of the Rings would be "guilty" of that.

And why are "forever copyrights" "counter-productive?" Are you saying that writers SHOULDN'T have the imagination to create their own world's and characters? Isn't that what writers are supposed to do?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

No, Tolkien didn't steal what others wrote. He started with myths and legends and created completely new and unique characters from them. He also created a completely new and unique world and a completely new and unique history. This is nothing at all like some hack thinking he can write another story about Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit. Or a book like the "New Adventures of Strider."

Myths and legends are fiction that has entered into the public domain...

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I also don't think that Doyle or Lovecraft's legacies have been harmed by the mass of works written in those two universes.

You know, I don't think of Lovecraft's work as a 'universe' the way Doyle's is. Lovecraft wrote a type of story and I don't necessarily think any other Lovecraftian-type story is set in the Lovecraft Universe.

John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness is a fine Lovecraftian film. But I don't think of it as a Lovecraft spinoff the way Rogue One is a Star Wars spinoff.

(There are stories that are intended as a continuation of Lovecraft's work. I tend to like those less.)

Edit: Typing 'Lovecraft' so many times in a post makes you realize what a funny word it is.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by rcentros

No, Tolkien didn't steal what others wrote. He started with myths and legends and created completely new and unique characters from them. He also created a completely new and unique world and a completely new and unique history. This is nothing at all like some hack thinking he can write another story about Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit. Or a book like the "New Adventures of Strider."

"Based on" legends is nothing at all like directly stealing a writer's characters or world. It has NOTHING to do with copyright, this is a red herring. If we're talking about basing stories on someone else's work — just about every "high" fantasy book that has come out since the Lord of the Rings would be "guilty" of that.

And why are "forever copyrights" "counter-productive?" Are you saying that writers SHOULDN'T have the imagination to create their own world's and characters? Isn't that what writers are supposed to do?

Did you or did you not read a book from Christopher Tolkien? I wasn't talking about his dad.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Myths and legends are fiction that has entered into the public domain...

Often fiction that was completely oral (passed down), often conflicting stories that needed to be sifted through and never copyrighted. It's a red herring for this discussion.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Often fiction that was completely oral (passed down), often conflicting stories that needed to be sifted through and never copyrighted. It's a red herring for this discussion.

Why? If your premise is that the real reason you want perpetual copyright is because writers need to come up with new ideas, then that should apply to the old legends and myths and fairy tales, as well.

If Romeo and Juliet had been covered by perpetual copyright, then West Side Story would have never been written or performed. That's just *one* example. Of course, there's also the fact that if any of Shakespeare's works had been covered by perpetual copyright, nobody alive today would even know about them, since they wouldn't be able to be re-printed or performed.

Automatic perpetual copyright is, in my opinion, a *very bad* idea.

Shari

[Conan46]

Tolkien "borrowed" like crazy. Lifting half of his dwarf names from the Elder Edda, also including Gandalf and Frodo. "Mirkwood" is a name he got from William Morris. The Kalavela was borrowed from. Dwarves and Elves and Goblins were all from folklore. His elves were somewhat based upon Native Americans. His Hobbits were somewhat based upon Kentucky Hillbillies. All authors borrow from other authors. There is nothing original under the sun. The ingredients are already there, authors are just cooks remixing the ingredients.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by shalym

Why? If your premise is that the real reason you want perpetual copyright is because writers need to come up with new ideas, then that should apply to the old legends and myths and fairy tales, as well.

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.)