Tolkien Trust Sues New Line, May Kill "Hobbit"

oboreruhito writes "The AP is reporting that the Tolkien Trust and HarperCollins are suing New Line Cinema for $150 million in compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages, and a court order revoking New Line's rights to produce any more films on Tolkien properties. The Tolkien Trust says that New Line paid them only $62,500 to make 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy of films — instead of the agreed-upon 7.5 percent of gross receipts of all film-related revenue. The suit may set back, if not kill, a film adaptation of Lord of the Rings prequel 'The Hobbit,' which Peter Jackson had recently signed up to make after his own legal row with the studio over payment for the sequels."

When will they learn...

[Lumpy]

Studios are scumbags. They do "creative" accounting so that no film ever makes money on paper. If you get suckered into accepting net points you will never EVER see a dime. Gross points are the real money and even then they find ways of hiding that money.

This is why you see lots of big actors and big name directors and talent working on more and more "indie" films. they actually get what they are promised from the indie companies.

Re:When will they learn...

[jmv]

The term you're looking for is Hollywood accounting [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[mapkinase]

Then they should probably ask for 7.5% of profit, but no less than X megabucks in their contract.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[emj]

Considering Peter Jacksons lawsuit against New Line [wikipedia.org] I'm inclined to believe in you. I'm not sure what an indie film is now days, what wins at Sundance (swedish) [pingpongkingen.se] is really just good pictures not made by Hollywood.

If no film makes a profit...

[msauve]

shouldn't the MPAA be thanking filesharers, since they're diluting their losses? (just using Hollywood accounting logic here)

Re:

[Rogerborg]

Ooh, I'd love to see that one argued in court. Unfortunately, since studios stopped paying their employees and started buying politicians, you damages aren't actual, they're statutory and punitive.

Re:

[mapkinase]

I do not know about all actors, but actors get fixed salaries (20M per film) AND (sometimes) that percentage. That makes it really good incentive to do Hollywood.

Big actors do small films mostly because they want to do a favor to somebody, support a cause, or something else immaterial.

Once small actors get known for their indie films, they inevitably start looking for big roles to cash their indie fame.

Everybody wants cash: Holliwood-bolliwood, actors, indies-shmindies. It's a business.

Re:When will they learn...

[Rogerborg]

If your name doesn't come before the title, then you're never, ever getting a sniff of the gross. Even headline producers, writers and directors often can't demand that, and end up with less than the guy working the clapboard for union salary.

One of the most egregious cases is creator/producer/writer J. Michael Straczynski getting boned over Babylon 5 [google.com]. He was in for a share of the net, and Warner Brothers demonstrated by their actions that the show was making a net profit every season (or else it would have been shitcanned). However, the final figure, after all production expenses had long since ceased, and all the money from merchandise and DVD sales (half a billion gross!) was in worked out to a claimed $80 million loss. Riddle me that.

Re:When will they learn...

[TopShelf]

But the article says this deal was for 7.5% of gross receipts, not profits, which reduces the opportunity for creative accounting.

But you're right, studios are scumbags.

Re:When will they learn...

[AKAImBatman]

which reduces the opportunity for creative accounting.

That's what you think. By selling the distribution rights to a subsidiary below cost, New Line was able to show a loss on the movie while their subsidiary was showing gangbuster profits. Since the contract was with New Line rather than the subsidiary, the result is that they didn't have to pay out any royalties.

So sorry. Maybe the next film will do better? Just sign here on the dotted line and we promise cross our hearts that the next film will show a profit. Really.

I almost guarantee that the judge will take New Line to the cleaners for such accounting. It won't change anything, though, as the studios count on it being too costly to go through a court battle to recover the money you're owed. An occasional loss in court still brings them out ahead.

Re:When will they learn...

[sorak]

So, is the accounting the only creative thing coming out of Hollywood these days?

Re:When will they learn...

[Zeinfeld]

Yeah the big actors are all hurting bad aren't they...

Jackson himself only got paid after he sued New Line. And then New Line refused to hire him for the Hobbit in retaliation.

Its not just that the people are crooks, they are stupid crooks. They kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Tolkein sold the rights to the film version of TLORT to pay a tax bill. At the time the film could not have been made, the technology didn't exist to do it well on a realistic budget.

What New Line seem to have forgotten is that the contract had a royalty clause. They probably forgot because its stated in terms of profit and everyone knows that the films never make profits after the Holywood accounting and the California courts are owned by the studios.

Only problem is that the contract was signed in the UK and UK law does not favor the studios on this.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:When will they learn...

[John3]

Not exactly. He had already been paid quite a bit, but not nearly as much as they owed him.

They obviously didn't pay him enough to eat. Didn't you see how much weight he lost after making those films?!? :)

Re:

[smclean]

If I was illegitimately shorted 100 grand I'd sure as hell put myself in a legal battle, as long as court costs wouldn't exceed $100k. Why wouldn't you?

You'd just let it slide, even though calling some lawyers and putting in a few hours' work on it might recover thousands upon thousands of dollars?

That's now how business works, I don't think you are in the majority with this one...

re:when will they learn...

[ed.han]

what new line seem to have forgotten is that the contract had a royalty clause. they probably forgot because its stated in terms of profit and everyone knows that the films never make profits after the holywood accounting and the california courts are owned by the studios.

only problem is that the contract was signed in the UK and UK law does not favor the studios on this.

o, i doubt very much that they forgot. i think it was a calculated decision to save them (new line) money and force a drawn out litgation

Re:When will they learn...

[Imsdal]

Jackson himself only got paid after he sued New Line.

Not true. jackson got paid according to his contract. However, his contract did not specify that he should get a percentage of the "tie in revenues" (games, toys etc.) He sued New Line to get a piece of that as well.

Re:When will they learn...

[jdbo]

IIRC the issue at stake was the fact that New Line struck "sweetheart deals" on much of the "tie-in revenues" which PJ was owed a piece of according to his contract; however, because these deals were struck with subsidiaries of New Line and/or New Lines's parent company, the overall $$ "New Line" (as opposed to the subsidiaries) the $$ that could have been made on those licenses - i.e. this was a shady way for the greater company surrounding New Line to move profits from the "New Line" section of the accounts (a %of which is owed to the cast and crew) while keeping it within the overall company.

Re:When will they learn...

[Zeinfeld]

Not true. jackson got paid according to his contract. However, his contract did not specify that he should get a percentage of the "tie in revenues" (games, toys etc.) He sued New Line to get a piece of that as well.

I must admit that I was suprised that the studio apparently gave no thought given to the Tolkein Estate interest in the tie-ins. The original contract was pre-Star Wars. They bought an option on the film rights, not the merchandising. Merchandising did not exist in 1969.

Re:When will they learn...

[edwdig]

Not true. jackson got paid according to his contract. However, his contract did not specify that he should get a percentage of the "tie in revenues" (games, toys etc.) He sued New Line to get a piece of that as well.

I believe it went something like this (numbers made up):

Jackson gets x% of the profit from New Line Pictures.
New Line Pictures sells the DVD rights to New Line DVD for $0.50 a copy. Open market bidding would've resulted in a price of $10 a copy.
New Line Parent Company makes tons of money on the DVDs. But Jackson's contract was with New Line Pictures, who barely made any money at all off the DVDs, so Jackson gets very little money.

There were probably other similar items involved, but DVDs is the one I remember specifically.

Re:When will they learn...

[Stooshie]

... not like he wrote the story or anything ...

No, but he co-wrote the screenplay, directed and co-edited all three films(at the same time) and helped set up a company specifically to do the special effects. For him, it was a 10 year project, 24/7(literally). Watch the extras and you'll see he basically lived the film for the entire project. It was only because he put so much effort into it that the film was such a great success, or even got off the ground at all.

Re:When will they learn...

[Tango42]

Please look up what the word "literally" means.

Re:

[Stooshie]

I was talking about Weta digital.

Re:When will they learn...

[Wellspring]

They don't need Peter Jackson now-- they have a big hit franchise! Just scoop up Michael Bay and it'll do just fine. Or that guy who did Time Bandits. Whatever, the point is the kids won't know the difference. In this business, movies is movies, and when you got a great property and cash flying around, the artsy types can only mess it up.

Without guys like us making connections and cutting deals, there'd have been only one Highlander movie. And that would have been a real tragedy.

Terry Gilliam does the Hobbit?

[tjwhaynes]

Just scoop up Michael Bay and it'll do just fine. Or that guy who did Time Bandits.

Now there is a great idea - have Terry Gilliam do the Hobbit. Only the plot would need some twisting to make it into Gilliam territory.

When the dwarves are captured by the elves, at least one needs to die during interrogation while believing that they are escaping. Sting would need to be a vorpal blade. Smaug would swallow its victims and then spit out the bones. Some time travel would be inevitable while leaving Dale. Shelley Duval would make a cameo appearance asking Thorin to return the map. Thorin would become delusional and would try to reach the Mountain in a balloon. It would all end with Bard declaring that he was not the Messiah.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:

[MightyMartian]

Terry Gilliam doing the Hobbit! I'd see that. I think Gilliam is probably one of the most interesting and unique directors of the last thirty years.

Of course, this goes against my Tolkien purist strain, but after all the ludicrous liberties that Jackson took with LotR, maybe having someone with some real artistic vision, even twisted artistic vision, would be quite cool.

Of course, Gilliam has enormous problems of his own right now with keith Ledger's death, so I imagine trying to extricate himself from th

Re:

[DirkGently]

Armed with that, it's still wrong. In "TLORT", we have The Lord Of the Rings Trilogy. If you're going to include the leading article "the", you best include the latter one. "TLOTRT". Hrm. I'm going to have to remember that word next time I GM Cthuluhu.

Anyway, back to pedantics. I say he just fat-fingered it.

Re:

[RDW]

Note sure about the original contract, but here's part of a transcript from one of their recent rounds of negotiations:

'These are the terms,' said the Messenger, and smiled as he eyed them one by one. 'The Tolkien Estate and its deluded allies shall withdraw at once beyond the Atlantic, first taking oaths never again to assail New Line with lawyers, open or secret. All Lord of the Rings (TM) prequel revenue shall be New Line's for ever, solely. Related mechandising including the Misty Mountains diorama and

Re:

[camperdave]

Well, Stallone had to dig up one of his old characters in a desperate attempt to earn some coin. Schwarzenegger, Eastwood, and others have turned to politics as their bread and butter. You hear it in the back room at the Oscars all the time: "Yeah it made good box office, but she's with Frog-Aid now, and she's pulling down charity board of directors' money".

Re:

[cbart387]

Eastwood, and others have turned to politics as their bread and butter.

Eastwood has also put his considerable clout to directing. 'Letters from Iwo Jima', 'Flags of our Fathers', 'Million Dollar Baby', 'Mystic River' (just to name the ones in the past 5 years). It seems like his ability improves with each movie he makes.

Re:When will they learn...

[epiphani]

Actually, it would appear that Newline is a bunch of crooks. They did the same thing to Peter Jackson himself.

Article on it [nytimes.com]

So not only do they screw the Tolkien trust, but they also screw the guy who MADE the movie. Good job Newline, I have a feeling you may have a hard time attracting talent in the future.

Re:

[o'reor]

Good job Newline, I have a feeling you may have a hard time attracting talent in the future.

Well possibly, but they've got money. When you're desperate enough to find a producer to fund your movie, when you've been preparing your project for a while and money is running low, sometimes you can't be too picky....

Re:When will they learn...

[arminw]

........Actually, it would appear that Newline is a bunch of crooks.......

Probably no more than many other businesses and individuals breaking their promises nowadays. It used to be that people, and that includes companies run by them, would keep their word and promises. Big business deals were at one time sealed with a word and a handshake. Today, even a contract with more print than the phone book for a big city may not be honored.

People incurring debts and then abusing bankruptcy laws to get out of paying is no different. A couple breaking the promise of marriage, or a parent breaking a promise to their son or daughter is really no different, except in the amount of money involved. Breaking a promise these days is no longer considered by many, to be a big deal. It happens all the time and is considered normal by many.

Marriage as contract

[Tony]

A couple breaking the promise of marriage, or a parent breaking a promise to their son or daughter is really no different...

Marriage is a tad different, in that the things that are promised ("vowed," which is a word we don't hear often enough without irony) are impossible to promise. You may say you will love, cherish, and respect another until the day you die, but you are not promising something you can, in good faith, honestly *know* you can deliver.

People change. Feelings change. Circumstances change. To promise to love someone forever is not a realistic promise. You can promise to *try*. But you can't promise you *will.* At least, not with any real certainty.

In business (and in promises to kids or spouses about realistic promises), you are promising to deliver something that is within your ability. If you promised something you *can't* deliver, you are a liar. If you renege, you are a cheat (in the case of business).

I do wish there were a code of honor these days, but there isn't. Instead, misinformation, lies, and manipulation are the norm in politics and business. So, why shouldn't it be the norm in our day-to-day lives, as well?

Oh, well. If you do your best to be honorable, I will also do my best to be honorable. If we can get a few hundred thousand to also be honorable, we might be able to change things for the better.

I wouldn't count on it, though.

Re:Marriage as contract

[TriezGamer]

Some of us believe the love is an action, not an emotion. As such, we don't necessarily believe such things are impossible to achieve.

MOD PARENT UP -- "love" is a verb, after all

[zooblethorpe]

Some of us believe the love is an action, not an emotion. As such, we don't necessarily believe such things are impossible to achieve.

Very well put. One thing that struck me after studying German for a while is that, much like "sit" and "set" or "lie" and "lay" are intransitive/transitive verb pairs differentiated by the central vowel ("sitzen" and "setzen" / "liegen" and "legen" in the German), so too are "live" and "love" ("leben" and "lieben") -- "love" is the transitive form of "live". So in that sense, loving someone is helping them live well, helping them grow and be healthy. Romance doesn't *have* to enter into this picture, which is why you can just as well love your siblings even despite a very rocky growing up. Which is also why I know that I'm loving my wife the most not when I'm feeling all lovey-dovey, but when she's annoying the crap out of me or I'm pissed as hell at her, but *still* try my damnedest to make things work.

Love is work. Marriage is work. And the truer measure of how much you love your partner/spouse doesn't happen during the easy times -- it's how you behave and how you work at it during the rough times, even if you happen to hate each other's guts right at that moment. *That's* when you fulfill whatever promises or vows you've made.

Cheers,

Re:

[AeroIllini]

It used to be that people, and that includes companies run by them, would keep their word and promises. Big business deals were at one time sealed with a word and a handshake. Today, even a contract with more print than the phone book for a big city may not be honored.

Yes, let us all pine for a bygone era where everyone was honorable, the sky was bluer, and those pesky things like "laws" didn't need to be enforced because no one broke them.

Take off your rose-colored glasses and read some history [wikipedia.org]. People are no more or less honorable now than they have ever been.

Re:

[Splab]

You are in fact missing something, the franchise for some of the big movies are in the billions range.

Re:

[morgan_greywolf]

You're missing something. The numbers that the studios publish and what they use on a contractual basis are probably two different things. The contracts usually specify how and when the 'net' is computed. They're not bound contractually by what they publish publicly. The problem is that stupid people often sign contracts without an attorney who is familiar with Hollywood looking it over.

Re:When will they learn...

[Sparky McGruff]

It's sort of like CBS and Viacom telling shareholders that online content is worth hundreds of millions of dollars (and suing YouTube for a billion bucks) and then telling the writers that online content doesn't make any money [youtube.com].

Old joke: Ask a math teacher, how much does five plus five equal, they say "10". Ask a hollywood accountant, they'll close the blinds, shut the door, and whisper "How much do you want it to be?"

Re:When will they learn...

[Rogerborg]

Look, I'm going to type this very slowly, because you are clearly hard of understanding. Also, you will need to sit down, because what I am going to tell you will shock you to your very core.

Studios lie.

Are you all right? Can you speak? Just keep breathing!

Please read this [google.com]. Read all the words. Note how WB acknowledged though their actions that Babylon 5 made a net profit each and every season (or else they'd have shitcanned it). And yet the final figure, long after all production expenses ceased and all the post production merchandising and DVDs sales were in, was a net $80 million loss.

Studios lie. They lie all the time, to almost everyone. The only people that they have to keep sweet are their big names, and only if they think they can't be replaced. Everyone else has to sue them to get any money, and the studios gamble (and often win) that the peons don't have the necessary resources to do it.

So feel free to go on arguing about how things should work. The rest of us can discuss how they actually work.

Of course...

[encoderer]

Here's basically how it works..

New Line makes movie, movie costs $100MM to make.

Movie is a moderate hit, Movie makes $150 MM in theaters and tie-ins in the first year.

The $150 MM Profit number gets reported by New Line to your little website.

But, there's more...

The actual studio and sound stages aren't owned by New Line, they're owned by New Line Studios and Sound Stages, Inc.

And they must be compensated. $5 MM.

And, of course, the post-production is done by New Line Post Production, Inc.

Andd they must be compensated. $10 MM.

And then there's the TV advertising. This is done by New Line Trailer Production, Inc.

And they must be compensated. $30 MM.

And we can't forget the costs of booking travel and making the logistical operations. This is done by New Line Logistics

And they must be compensated. $5 MM.

And when it's all said and done...

Damn...

The movie JUST broke even.

Sorry little fella, but New Line made a big investment here, and we just don't have the ability to pay you out of our pockets: As it is we just broke even!

Of course, all those Subsidiaries will be kicking most of that back upstairs, but hey, that's THE BIZ!!!!

Re:

[NealokNYU]

"But how do they do this? Why doesn't someone stop them?"

See, the reason people keep pointing out net points versus gross points is that the studio's accounting for any given movie includes things like the electric bill at the office. New Line might say that the Lord of the Rings grossed a billion, sure, but during that time they had to pay people at the office, pay to keep the lights on in this or that office, pay for the rent for the parking structure (which is owned by New Line in this example). Since

Soo ...

[phoxix]

Basically the MPAA whines about pirates not paying for films, but itself cannot pay the people who create them ?

I'm shocked! Shocked!

We all know that Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org] is a complete scam.

Re:Soo ...

[hobbitFeet]

I suspect you'll find that no-one at the Tolkien Trust created "The Lord of the Rings". Although I don't approve of the studio's alleged wrongdoing with regards payment, I think it is a bit of a joke how long ownership on these things lasts. (Life + 70 years comes to mind, but that is probably wrong).

Re:Soo ...

[hansamurai]

That's a very good point, and I agree with you. But I would bet Christopher Tolkien has had some hand in the Tolkien Trust and he has done quite a bit of work on the Lord of the Rings Universe, whether you agree that's good or bad.

But I can't believe that New Line is trying to say that they made less than one million dollars on the movies though. That's got to be worst than Cutthroat Island.

Re:Soo ...

[canajin56]

You can't believe it? Every movie ever made in the past 100 years has lost money. The studios ate like 100M in pure loss on Spiderman, after all. That's why they couldn't pay Marvel or Stan Lee anything, they agreed to net points and the movie was sheer loss. Dunno how they raised funds for Spiderman II and III when the first one lost so much money and they had to beg the government for a bailout package (which they received). It's standard practice and they all do it. You leave your own salary blank in the accounting books. A few weeks after launch, you know more or less how much the movie made and will make. So you just put a larger number than that into your salary. Boom, finish up the books, your film lost money. Now you can't pay all the people who agreed to a split of the profits. The best part is now California and the Feds pay you millions of dollars to bail you out! AND since you lost money, you can write the loss off on your taxes. So not happy with accounting fraud and contract fraud, they also commit tax fraud and defraud government programs. But some of the money they steal goes to bribe...oops I mean lobby politicians, and mysteriously their criminal actions are never investigated.

Re:Soo ...

[NormalVisual]

I'm with you 100% there. Copyright is supposed to encourage authors/composers/etc. to create new works to enrich society. Tolkien isn't even enriching the ground he's buried in anymore, so there's *zero* need for a copyright to continue to exist on his works. Copyright is only providing an income stream for his heirs (and New Line) at the expense of society now.

I think that New Line is scummy for their shady accounting practices, but they really should not have had to negotiate for the film rights to begin with.

Re:Soo ...

[PopeRatzo]

Copyright is supposed to encourage authors/composers/etc. to create new works to enrich society. Tolkien isn't even enriching the ground he's buried in anymore, so there's *zero* need for a copyright to continue to exist on his works.

Thank you, NormalVisual. I was wondering when someone would state the obvious.

Since I'm someone who makes a living off his "intellectual property", I've thought about this a lot. I just can't see any benefit (as far as the original purpose of copyright is concerned) for any rights to a work of art to be transferable in any manner. I might go so far as to say an artist should be able to "license" his idea to someone else who wants to extend the work somehow, but there's no reason his grandchildren should be able to reap direct benefits from it.

If I get rich off my work (probability: imperceptible), I'll leave the dough to my wife and daughter (who both happen to be younger and healthier than me, and thus likely to survive me). I feel the same way about patent. If an inventor wants to monetize his invention, he should either develop it himself or license it to a company to develop. When he dies, it should become public domain.

And don't tell me this will "hinder innovation". Innovators innovate. It's what they do.

Re:Soo ...

[ivan256]

Life + (X number of years) is a good way to keep people from getting killed for access to their highly profitable creation though... 70 years is probably too long, but I think 15 years is reasonable.

Of course I personally favor the "infinite copyright period with frequent renewals and exponentially increasing fees" model. I doubt we'll ever see that though.

"'The Lord of teh Rings' trilogy". Jesus christ?

[dj42]

My subject is a quote from TFA.

Let's break this down.

"The Lord of teh Ring's trilogy"

You know what, I'm not even going to bother. What kind of retard submitted this?

Re:"'The Lord of teh Rings' trilogy". Jesus christ

[Junior J. Junior III]

Teh kind taht type faster tahn tehy tihnk, I'd say.

Re:

[NormalVisual]

I believe the question you meant to ask was, "what kind of retard let this story go live with such an obvious (though innocuous) spelling error?"

Re:

[Farmer Tim]

You misspelled "loser", and I can't even guess what you were aiming for with @#$%.

Ahh, delicious irony...

[Karl Cocknozzle]

...Major entertainment companies have long been of the opinion that the artists who create the products they sell are expendable and interchangable... THis is how a studio executive could sleep at night after giving the Tolkien estate less than $63,000 compensation for a property that has made New Line north of $1 billion in revenue...

Glad to hear it--they're getting what they deserver.

Re:Ahh, delicious irony...

[erroneus]

They haven't won their suit yet. The studios haven't yet gotten what they deserve. But I'm with you -- I hope they lose BIG. The judge should award triple damages.

Re:Ahh, delicious irony...

[NickFortune]

for a property that has made New Line north of $1 billion in revenue...

Quite a bit north, actually. In point of fact, just shy of three billion [the-numbers.com] dollars. And that's not considering merchandising tie-ins, DVD sales, and all the rest of the "film related" revenue.

So I guess we now know the answer to "what has it got in its pocketses?" A shitload of other people's money!

Re:

[NormalVisual]

Major entertainment companies have long been of the opinion that the artists who create the products they sell are expendable and interchangable

While the artist that created the product New Line is selling was neither expendable nor interchangeable, after almost 35 years he is still irrevocably dead, and as such is quite unlikely to be writing anything more in the near future anyway. New Line should be getting raked firmly over the coals for attempting to weasel out of performing on a contract, but if

But that WAS 7.5% of the takings

[jimicus]

Provided you happen to be an accountant who works in a movie studio.

Has anyone ever figured out the arithmetic to find out how much profit a given studio is making on the assumption that the takings they quote to people who should be getting X% of the total are accurate? I am pretty sure it would demonstrate a massive loss year-on-year.

Come on, the studios are right

[Aaron Isotton]

Everybody loves bashing RIAA, MPAA and the big bad studios, but come on: The Lord of the Rings was originally published in *1955* (more than 50 years ago). Tolkien died in 1973 (more than 35 years ago). The publishers really had enough time to make money; it should be public domain by now. Yes, I know copyright usually expires 50/70 years after the author's death, but these laws really need updating.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[oddaddresstrap]

Rest assured that these laws *will* be updated when some really valuable copyrights come close to expiring.

Re:

[o'reor]

I smell a rodent. [reason.com]With big round ears.

Re:

[betterunixthanunix]

I agree with you, but it is ironic that the same group of people running around suing college students and claiming that illegal copying is depriving directors and scriptwriters of their paychecks is refusing to honor the very same copyright laws. Funnier still is that the movie studios lobbied to have the length of copyright extended!

Well, answer this

[tkrotchko]

I agree that 50 years is too long (or about right).

But what do you think the same studios would say if you took a film made in 1954 and just started distributing it? They'd sue you into oblivion. Further, it was the film studios themselves who pushed for such long copyright terms.

So I don't see they have either the legal or moral standing to complain about this. They should pay their damned bills, frankly.

Re:

[kellyb9]

While I think "come on" is a fantastic legal argument, your point is somewhat moot. It doesn't matter what the law should be, it only matters what it is. I have to concur with a similar comment that essentially says the studio should "pay it's damn bills".

As an aside, with how much those movies grossed, I really believe the people who have legal rights deserve a hell of a lot more than 67,000. But in their own right, I'm sure they saw an increase in royality fees on book sales.

Re:

[dido]

True, but the studios themselves also believe that copyright ought to last forever. Only if it's their copyright. If copyright law doesn't suit them, then they will do whatever they can to get away with not paying for the license, including such dirty tricks as this. And they have the gall to complain about piracy when they are no better than pirates themselves. What utter hypocrisy.

Re:Come on, the studios are right

[Kreigaffe]

You know, you might have a point if the movies were made this year. That would be more than 50 years after they were created, and I could maybe see a point there.

Unfortunately for you the trilogy was released in 2001/2/3, and filming began in October of '99.

That's pretty far short of 50 years after the work was created, and only 26 years after the death of Tolkien himself.

Oh -- and according to Wikipedia the gross revenue of the films was $871,368,364... 7.5% of that is a hair over $6.5 million. Which means NewLine payed them less than 1% of what they were actually owed. Which, whether you think the copyright law is proper or not, when there's a contractual agreement to pay a certain amount for something and you decide "LOL FUCKIT" and actually pay less than 1% of what you said you would, well.. you're probably a giant dick and deserve to be sued for 25 times how much the original agreement was for.

I'm just sad that this means we probably won't see a Hobbit movie.. but I guess we CAN all look forward to The Hibbot?

one decimal place over

[gonzoxl5]

7.5% is actually a hair over $65 million

Re:

[NormalVisual]

He's actually been dead a little less than 35 years (September of this year will be 35), but otherwise the rest of your point is spot-on. He's not contributing any more to society and can't possibly benefit from any earnings, so there's no reason to let the copyright continue.

Re:

[pthisis]

Actually, _The Lord of the Rings_ was public domain in the United States for quite a while, due to some technical mistake. The copyright was RESTORED after Tolkien's death, and the courts ruled that taking works out of the public domain was perfectly legal.

No. Wolheim (from Ace Books) claimed they were public domain, but the courts ruled against him saying that the books had never been public domain and that the Ace paperback edition violated copyright. They did not apply copyright to something that had l

Standard corporate intimidation

[o'reor]

1- Sign a contract promising a percentage of the gross 2- Pay a small advance to get the job done 3- Once the job is done, don't pay one more cent, and laugh all the way to the bank. 4- Most contractants don't know a decent lawyer or can't afford them, or won't bother to sue -- too much worry. 5- Profit.

Re:

[o'reor]

Yeah I know, formatting is for wussies! There I go again:

1. Sign a contract promising a percentage of the gross
2. Pay a small advance to get the job done
3. Once the job is done, don't pay one more cent, and laugh all the way to the bank.
4. Most contractants don't know a decent lawyer or can't afford them, or won't bother to sue -- too much worry.
5. Profit.

What's depressing is that this is becoming more and more a standard practice, as the courts do not demand enough punitive damage to seriously discourage such bull

Re:Standard corporate intimidation

[Pecisk]

It is not standard practice. It is a how companies deal with business.

Are you surprised? But this is what you get when company as entity have nor moral nor serious legal obligations to law. Surprise, it is cornerstone of so called American business thinking.

Re:

[poena.dare]

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

-- Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

Re:

[Carewolf]

False quote: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp [snopes.com]

MPAA HIppocrits

[Junkyboy55]

The MPAA and their lovers in bed the RIAA have been gong after people for downloading movies and music and everything in between in hopes that people will buy more CDs or specifically more songs ( Wired [wired.com] says record companies make more money off songs than CDs>) even to the extent of saying it is illegal to rip CD you bought and put it on your computer and than again to place those same purchased songs on your iPod or MP3 player.

This is pathetic. Those hippocrits are still making tons of money due to th

In a very ironic way

[zuki]

It looks like most of those around adaptations of Tolkien's works are one by one falling prey to the same
sad curse that overtook Gollum...

"My Precious, My Precious!... Must have the Precious!"

If I may say so, I truly wonder what Tolkien himself would think of all this pathetic bickering and bitter lawsuits.

Z.

Re:In a very ironic way

[o'reor]

If I may say so, I truly wonder what Tolkien himself would think of all this pathetic bickering and bitter lawsuits.

I think he would recommend rising an army of Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits and horsemen to besiege the Two Towers of New Line Cinema, and shoot their Nazgul lawyers whenever you get a chance.

Wouldn't he?

Re:In a very ironic way

[elrous0]

I truly wonder what Tolkien himself would think

I'm not positive; but I suspect his response would be long, boring, and involve a lot of walking.

Re:

[Troy Baer]

I thought the Nazgùl were lawyers. Specifically, IBM's.

nice

[Anonymous Coward]

When I lived in Wales I shared a student house with a girl called Freya who is a close descendant of Tolkien. I have to say the family is a very nice family and they certainly should get alot more than they are currently getting for the rights. Then again, why should they make money for someone elses work that they didn't make themselves? It's a tough call, but I'm biased so I think they should get the money (and give some to me lol) :-)

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[MightyMartian]

Well, Christopher Tolkien, as JRRT's literary heir, has done a substantial amount of work, and has basically dedicated his retirement years almost solely to bringing the vast body of his father's works into print. The History of Middle Earth series is basically an in-depth literary archaeological dig, demonstrating the origins of Tolkien's mythos and its evolution from approximately 1917 when JRRT began work on The Book of Lost Tales (the earliest version of the Silmarillion) right through to the final wri

Accounting

[fudgefactor7]

It's for reasons just like this that when you want to get actually paid what you're owed you make certain that the contract stipulates you get a percentage of "all gross revenues, without regard to source." The accountants can't fudge those numbers, and you get paid what you are rightfully owed. With crap like this going on -- where no movie ever makes a profit -- is it any waonder that the companies are seen as such scum?

Wow

[LordPhantom]

You would think the Tolkien estate would be able to afford laywers up-front to advise them on the stupidity of that contract.

anyone remember dragon magazine

[i.r.id10t]

Anyone else remember Dragon magazine and the spoof on getting sued by the Tolkien estate - they weren't allowed to say "ring".

"Someone get the phone, its circular metal banding off the hook!"

Nasty!!!

[seanmeister]

Nasty Tolkienses! TRICKSY!!!!!!

I like to say that...

[iknownuttin]

this is an example of why there needs to be IP law reform. I'm NOT saying it needs to be eliminated: just reformed. Tolkien, as far as I know, is dead. Why is his IP still owned? Why hasn't his stuff gone into public domain?

The reason for IP is to give the creators an incentive to create, not for the folks who buy the rights to profit off of them for all eternity.

Re:

[Shados]

Agreed. I'm (one of the few) a full supporter of IP. However, the existing system is such a freagin mess... I want people and companies to be able to make a living from their ideas. NOT from the ideas of others. And making a LIVING means while you're ALIVE...

One can dream...

Those bastards!

[Guppy06]

Without the royalty money, how is author J. R. R. Tolkien going to afford to put food on his table? Why, without the royalty money, he may not even be able to afford to write a new book!

(I'm not sure who to cheer for here)

Copyright Length, Studio Lies and Royalties

[DarkSarin]

First, as everyone should know: you never, ever sign a contract for royalties on net profit. There will never be ANY net. Period. It is far too easy to make that happen, especially if you are not on equal footing. It doesn't metter what the relationship is, if you are signing a contract where you get royalties for anything, it is always on the gross revenue, never anything else. End of story.

Second. Studios lie about their revenue. The WGA strikes have shown this, and everyone knows it. Everyone knows that they lie about revenue. Essentially what you shuold be doing when you saying when you sign a contract with the studio is this: I get to choose the highest available estimate of revenue as my basis for what you owe me on royalties. If you put out figures claiming the film has grossed $1.2b at the box, then we go by that figure, unless you have other figures that are higher. You can't claim one figure publicly and then sell me on another, lower, figure in private. On the other hand, those in estate situations like this should be able to to demand open accounting on projects. I know I would. If you sell the movie rights to a book, then you should probably say something like: I need to have access to the accounting procedures for complete independent review.

Third, I am also ambiguous about copyright length. I strongly maintain that authors, even those doing work for hire, should retain private copyright. Corporations should not own copyrights in the same way that private authors do. Who then would own the story for Pixar's movie 'Toy Story'? I don't know. I think that when a team of individuals are doing a collaborative work, then the corporation can own the copyright for a period of time not greater than 25 years (or some other period of time). This gives the studio sufficient time to reap profit from works, but then allows them to become public domain in an appropriate fashion. Individuals or private teams (say co-authored works) become copyrighted for the life of the author or primary author. After this time, the estate may continue to produce related material and any new material is under copyright of the new author using their life as the benchmark. I think provisions for the immediate descendents garnering automatic royalties for major deritive works would be appropriate, which would be mean that Tolkien's children would get money for the production of anything made related to Middle Earth, but they would have no control over what actually got made. It would then be up to consumers to decide what was worthy of purchase and what was crap. A rare and shocking concept, true, but I think an important one.

Off Topic

[BillBrasky]

/silly
So, I have this idea for a great movie. It's about two gnomes who find a bracelet of power, and they have to take it to the Burning Steppes and cast it into the Cauldron. They form the Brotherhood of the Bracelet. Along the way they're trailed by a murloc named Gottom, who's obsessed with the bracelet, and nine bracelet bogeymen. It could be a three-parter, called 'Ruler of the Bracelet'. The first part would be called 'The Brotherhood of the Bracelet', followed by 'A Couple of Towers', with the climactic ending called 'Hey, the King's Back!'

Re:Wow!

[Farmer Tim]

the site's doing everything in its power to -be- Digg down to the very look and feel, and failing miserably.

Surely failing to imitate Digg is a good thing...

Re:Wow!

[Random BedHead Ed]

Digg can be a neat site for the sheer volume of articles, but it has some serious and aggravating problems. To give one example: it was refreshing to come here this morning and find only one story about the Anonymous protests of Scientology instead of, oh, say, ten.

The Anonymous group seems to have taken a page from Ron Paul supporters: they've positively Digg-bombed the place, putting multiple (and entirely redundant) stories onto the front page, as if this will somehow raise awareness about the CoS amongst a demographic that is vulnerable to the Church's tactics. But they can't do that on Slashdot because of the editorial control here. Add to this the fact that Digg is no longer news for nerds in the way Slashdot is (sports articles now show up with alarming frequency on Digg), and that the comments on Digg absolutely stink compared with those here (yes, they're even worse than ours).

I enjoy Digg for its constant volume of new articles, but Slashdot's articles are much better presented (yes, even with the "teh" in TFA). If this site posted more frequent stories to compete with Digg's volume I'd have little reason to go to Digg. Volume is about the only advantage they have.

Re:

[aplusjimages]

No that's the actual title of teh movie. They modernized it to get teh kids interested.

Re:

[somersault]

Meh, it was a poor attempt. Call me when Teh Lol of teh Ringz0rz comes out.

Re:

[mattsucks]

Teh Hobbit

Golollum: I Haz Teh Precious

Bilolbo: Lost Hobbit is Lost.

Gollum: I Can Has Bilburger?

Bilolbo: I'm In Ur Caves, Tellin' Ur Riddels

Golollum: WANT!

Bilolbo: A Ringz, I Findz It.

Golollum: Nooooes! They Be Stealing Mah Precious!!!

Bilolbo: Invisible Me.

Golollum: Mah Precious, I Mourns It.

Tagged: lolkien, lolbbit, golollum

Re:

[IBBoard]

LotR childish? You obviously haven't tried reading the original (or its companion novels like the Silmarillion) recently. The majority of children in the majority of schools wouldn't get past the first page without getting confused by half a dozen words and deciding it was "wordy and boring".