521

Amazon and Tolkein Estate force author to destroy all copies of his work. Only pirated copies will survive. (variety.com)

submitted 11 months ago by JoMiran@lemmy.ml to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

216 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 11 months ago

Did you even read the article? This dumbass wrote a book based on LotR characters and then HE tried to sue the Tolkien estate and Amazon. This person actually probably needs mental help if they think this could have worked, it was such an incredibly bad idea that there has to be some kind of mental health crises involved.

[-] DrJenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube 24 points 11 months ago

Worth also mentioning the Tolkien estate is notoriously letigous. There are piracy sites that specifically ban Tolkiens works from being uploaded for that very reason.

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 12 points 11 months ago

They plagiarized his fanfiction. Theoretically you would have rights to your stories even if they involve characters that you don't have rights to.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

US law is on the Estate’s side

If the characters/events from LOTR are a big part of his fan fiction then the Estate can have it destroyed

Also since the author had no legal ownership of the works, there is nothing wrong with the people who have rights to it using it

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

Transformative works exist, I don't think it works like that.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

The if part is what gets argued in court

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use

transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original

Fifty Shades vs Twilight would be transformative

Anderson v. Stallone

Would be the most likely case reference for this ruling where Anderson made a Rocky sequel and it was deemed infringement

[-] bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah wow it's like I thought ( the right holder being able to dick around writers)

It was strikingly clear to the Court that Anderson's work was a derivative work; that under 17 U.S.C. section 106(2) derivative works are the exclusive privilege of the copyright holder (Stallone, in this case); and that since Anderson's work is unauthorized, no part of it can be given protection.

After he had meetings with MGM about using that script.