digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at latimes.com

J.R.R. Tolkien's children fight for 'Lord of the Rings' gold

latimes.com — The 'Lord of the Rings' film trilogy has raked in billions for others, but for the heirs of beloved author and creator J.R.R. Tolkien, nothing.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • akey, on 07/02/2008, -3/+10didn't know that
    • themastersb, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Cant they share? I mean that franchise must make a lot of money. Damn greedy people.
    • buba1243, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Now you know and knowing is half the battle
  • zoronews, on 07/02/2008, -6/+15Figures... no one wants to pay for anything these days
  • hollywoodphony, on 07/02/2008, -1/+23Ah, the 'gross' deal. Even when you make 100 million off a cheapo movie like American Pie, the studios and their "creative accounting" will plead poverty.
    • centran, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5This is why you hear about actors getting so many million dollars to act in a film. They now how studio's screw people over. When you are a big name actor you can just demand a flat fee so you don't screwed over like so many people have been in the past and will continue to be in the future.
      • Gimpyfuzznut, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Yeah but wouldn't you be pissed if you took a flat fee of 5 million to later find out the movie made a freakin' billion dollars!
      • jezsik, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Naw, I'd be happy with a paltry million.
      • libertao, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1But then there are also cases like Jack Nicholson in Batman where he made $60 million by taking a percentage cut.
      • centran, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2They can always do a flat fee + percentage. That is what this lawsuit is arguing over.. they sold the rights for a fee + percentage of gross.

        Actors take the flat fee knowing full hand that if they also add a percentage then they might never see or get a ridiculously low amount. That is why they have such a big flat fee because the studio's play these stupid accounting games to hide the money they made.
  • mrfuzz, on 07/02/2008, -5/+2Studios love to rob the oldsters. Easy pickins.
  • NavyCS, on 07/02/2008, -4/+13I'm a hobbit and didn't get anything either!
  • pingpants, on 07/02/2008, -5/+5Hobbit riot!
  • blackbeardtron, on 07/02/2008, -23/+12Guess what? You sell your rights to someone, you no longer have rights to earn money from it. Cry me a river.
    • elrac, on 07/02/2008, -1/+23Unless you stipulate in the contract that you are to receive a percent of the money made from those rights. And that was in the contract.
      • Solafein, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6hooray for people who actually read the article before posting!
    • doctechnical, on 07/02/2008, -0/+11But you do have to right to have the original contract honored and payment made in full.
    • centran, on 07/02/2008, -0/+13From the article:
      "According to their lawsuit and lawyer Bonnie Eskenazi, Tolkien licensed motion picture rights to United Artists back in 1969 for a low six-figure sum and 7.5% of the "gross receipts.""

      They want that 7.5% but studios have a special way to make multi-billion dollar movies seem like multi-million dollar losers.... "hey, we lost money filming this so you don't get anything!"
      • CedEx, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7Similar to Winston Groom. If you haven't heard of him, then Hollywood has done its job in suppressing the story about him.

        Winston Groom is the man who wrote Forrest Gump. As you all know, the movie was a huge hit in the theatres, making millions of dollars. However, through "Hollywood Accounting", the movie was a disaster! In fact, so much so, they couldn't afford to pay Winston his due.

        In addition to that, the movie was such a failure, Hollywood had the balls to come to Winston after Forrest Gump was released and offer to buy the sequel from Winston for another movie.

        To maintain his dignity, Winston graciously declined as he could not in good conscience sell the rights for the sequel when the first movie "did so badly".
    • michaelfrankie, on 07/02/2008, -9/+5Bingo.

      I sold my IBM stock back in 1982. Don't think I'm going to get that money back either.
      • troyfoley, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Buried for stupidity AND not RTFA.
  • brianrwalters, on 07/02/2008, -64/+73What did they do to contribute to the movie franchise?
    ...Nothing.
    And what did they get paid?
    ...Nothing.
    I'm sorry, but where is the crime in that?
    • Gimjee, on 07/02/2008, -11/+1It's just respectful.
    • doctechnical, on 07/02/2008, -6/+19The crime is that the studio reneged (you may need to look that up) on it's original deal. And much of the money the estate is owed would go to charity. RTFA.
      • CosmicJustice, on 07/02/2008, -3/+11What the money would go to is irrelevant.
      • krahzee, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7You are right, where the money would is not important from a legal perspective. If they chose not to honor a financial commitment made as part of signed contract, that is the issue.
    • TripcodeMel, on 07/02/2008, -4/+95What has TOLKIEN done to contribute to the movie franchise?
      Everything.
      What have HE and HIS FAMILY been paid?
      Nothing.
      What was the family contractually obligated to receive?
      7.5% of the gross.

      If you can't find the crime in that then you need your head examined.
      • darling, on 07/02/2008, -4/+5I agree with brianrwalters, in concept, if not in contract. You can't, in my view, say that heirs, nevermind original copyright holders, are entitled to royalties and also condemn the ridiculous copyright system we have today which gives us the RIAA and such.
      • dstz, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Be quiet, he's already paid 6 bucks for the movie, *****! don't ask him to have any hint of decency toward the author's will.
    • Solafein, on 07/02/2008, -2/+9Surely you can't be that dense?

      Read the article. 7.5% of gross.
    • JaggedHairball, on 07/02/2008, -4/+9Dumbass. Tolkien contributed the entire concept of the film and he should be paid. He's dead, the amount he would be paid is passed on to his family, who yes, did nothing.
      • KyleGoetz, on 07/02/2008, -3/+9But the money shouldn't be passed on to his family. It's just that our copyright system is so screwed up in this country that we ignore that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to set copyright terms for the SOLE PURPOSE of promoting the useful arts.

        It's pretty frigging obvious that giving money to NON-ARTISTS because they have blood relation to a dead artist (who by definition cannot create more art and therefore no incentive is required) doesn't promote the useful arts and sciences.
      • atomicfireball, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5This isn't about copyright, it's about contract law, and the law is very clear that when you are dead, money owed to you under a valid contract go to your estate unless the contract specifically makes other arrangements.

        And it's equally clear that the original intention of the percent of gross clause would not have been to include the cost of the rights (which were the subject of the contract to begin with) in the deductible expenses.

        So, it's pretty frigging obvious that you don't know what the ***** you are talking about.
    • StreetPreacher, on 07/02/2008, -5/+8> What did they do to contribute to the movie franchise?

      Oh gee, I dunno... how about THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR THE WHOLE DAMN THING?

      It'd be like not paying J.K. Rowling a dime for a Harry Potter movie. And that oughta be criminal.
      • KyleGoetz, on 07/02/2008, -7/+4The children of Tolkien contributed no IP to the work. Their father did. That's clearly distinguishable from JK Rowling and Harry Potter.

        It's like paying ME for using LotR. I didn't make the work; I don't deserve any money. Just because they got lucky enough to be fathered by JRR Tolkien doesn't mean we should give them anything for it.
      • Monk22, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7kyle, his son has done an enormous amount of work collecting old scraps unfinished notebooks of ideas and publishing them and writing more books for the series. the rings series hardly died with J.R.R.
      • StreetPreacher, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Kyle Goetz said: "It's like paying ME for using LotR."

        There's only one small problem with that arguement: You don't happen to OWN the IP for LOTR, whereas they do. You see, they're not "just" lucky enough to be his children. They are, in fact, "just" lucky enough to be the current owners and executors of his estate, which includes all of the rights.

        The studios entered into an agreement with his estate that they could have the movie rights for an undisclosed amount of money plus a % of gross. And that % hasn't been paid.
      • KyleGoetz, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1@Monk22: So let Christopher Tolkien get IP rights in the work he's done, but not in what his father has done. There are such things as IP rights in derivative works. For example, Disney should still get a copyright on Beauty and the Beast, despite the fact that the original story is in the public domain.

        @StreetPreacher: That's circular reasoning. When discussing whether there ought to be IP rights, you can't say "there ought to because there is." I'm saying there ought not to be an inheritable copyright because it makes no sense. It is a logical fallacy to make your argument. That is to say, it is fallacious to say, "There ought to be an inheritable copyright because there is an inheritable copyright."
    • KMartSheriff, on 07/02/2008, -9/+11You're an idiot. Did you honestly just type that? What did they do to contribute to the movie franchise? Seriously?

      How old are you? 12? Go drown yourself in a toilet.
    • dafragsta, on 07/02/2008, -4/+5This is why I get pissed when people get in up in arms about a death tax. I don't see how this isn't an ironic case of entitlement on the other foot. Our society should not encourage children to rest on their parents' laurels. If you find early success, then you can rest on those laurels, but how is a entitled brat with a trust fund any different than an entitled deadbeat on welfare?
      • Monk22, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4if a family wants to gift his wealth to his children i don't think its your or society's business.
      • dafragsta, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1If a family wants to buy a politician behind your back, I guess it's not society's business either. I mean, it IS their money. I've heard that old chestnut a few times too many. I say it is society's business. The system is rigged so that uber wealth comes at the expense of others. It's a nice way to justify human enslavement to eat the Chinese and impoverished meat without asking where it comes from.

        I don't believe in communism. Talent should beget wealth, that's the nature of capitalism. The system doesn't work if there is nothing to work for.
      • MaynardJK, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3The difference is that the inheritance tax takes away my right to do whatever the ***** I want to with the money I have earned. It is none of your damn business whether I want to leave it to my kids or spend it all on hookers and blow.
      • dafragsta, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1If you wanna spend it on hookers and blow, fine by me. However, you can't judge a welfare system for catering to lazy people who believe in entitlements who buck the system when the system doesn't work. Hell, I don't really think there is anything wrong MAYBE with being able to leave a certain amount to your children, but there is a problem here that transcends money. Once uber wealth accrues, there is no stopping it from growing, and the money has to come from somewhere.

        Eventually the marginalized impoverished, whom already kill for that scarce dollar as it is, are going to start taking a good hard look at why they kill themselves in a diamond mine in Africa or fruit orchard in central America are going to take a look at the power structure, which is influenced and corrupted by wealth, and they will start to ask themselves if it's all really worth it.

        Look at the LA riots and the New Orleans lootings. People in both instances had no moral compass or sense of order anymore. Humanity, in somewhat of a vacuum, had reversed into total Darwinism. Society collapses at that point and the physically strong and the ones willing to make the ultimate risk are free to do whatever they want.

        Unrelenting capitalists don't realize that the more pressure you put on a large majority, you'll quickly realize you are in the very small minority. For capitalists to think further ahead than their next line snorted off a hooker's breast, if they REALLY want to take their children into consideration, they'll realize that there needs to be an equilibrium, and all the politicians you bought to push all the self-serving agendas won't matter anymore.

        Capitalism that doesn't pay the price will eventually realize that there is always an ultimate price. Less distribution of wealth == more crime. More crime means more people being fleeced for their wealth. It's human nature to want to provide for your own, but don't expect other people to not want to do the same.
    • cryonix, on 07/02/2008, -3/+5Lets say I work and create 'something' that I know will produce income for my family for years to come after my death. Then upon my death that 'something' is making money for other people while my family gets nothing.

      Where is the JUSTICE in THAT!
      • dafragsta, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Who says they get nothing? BUT, who says that society is OK with wealth going into one family, who holds it over them while they starve and socially imbred douchbags inherit hundreds of millions, even BILLIONS of dollars they didn't earn. Where is the justice in that? Should the kids be set up? Sure! Making money is not the ultimate meaning in life, and if you think it is, who says the vast majority is going to watch while the greedy minority takes it all.

        I think you should be able to make as much money as you want, but I don't feel like society can continue as anything more than an illusion because you ignore the crime that goes on in another part of town, which is created by poverty, which is created by a diminishing shift in wealth.
    • skipdog172, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6Why is all of digg arguing that inheritance should be abolished?

      That is what you are all arguing. You are all arguing that even if the parents want to pass their estate onto their children, they should not be allowed to. WHAT? Parents work very hard to ensure a good life for their children and grandchildren, why should we dissallow this practice? This is why so many people in the world work as hard as they do. I just can't understand this stance of "NOBODY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO ANYTHING FROM THEIR PARENTS WHEN THEY DIE!"

      The only arguments I have seen are "THE KIDS DIDNT DO ANYTHING, THEY DON'T DESERVE IT!!!"

      Can I see another argument PLEASE???

      It is as if all of digg is jealous of these folks. That is the only thing I can figure out.
    • dalittle, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Ok, to play the game fair. What has New Line contributed to the LOTR. A couple phone calls? They did not do any of the work and it is still not their property.

      And New Line are to stupid to let the filming of the Hobbit happen and make a boat load of new money. They should pay Jackson and the Tolkien Heirs what they are owed.
      • banmaster, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1So New Line didn't contribute almost a billion dollars to the production of the film plus countless millions promoting it?
        Also, the issue between NL and Jackson was resolved which is why Jackson is producing the 2 prequels (though he didn't want to direct).
      • dalittle, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1So ... um ... if you contribute something of value you are automatically important in the process? Hmm.. I wonder what the Tolkien Folks are all upset about. Still don't think New Line are relevant. I would be surprised if they were on the hook for the financing of the film. They are just greedy middlemen.
    • fluxion, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3setting aside the fact that this is about J.R.R. Tolkien's >estate< and not his children in particular, Christopher Tolkien inherited the rights to his father's works and has contributed enough to his father's legacy to be feel completely justified in profiting off the franchise.
  • Tyrghast, on 07/02/2008, -38/+45Wait a sec. They didn't write the books, they didn't make the movies, what have they done to deserve a cut?
    • borez, on 07/02/2008, -5/+17Copyright Inheritance
    • MindStalker, on 07/02/2008, -2/+48Because the contract stipulated that Tolkien was to receive 8% and his estate is legally due that. If you read the article you'd see that a large percentage was set to go to charities as well. Should I not have the right to create a work of art and specify that even after my death its profits go to a charity and my kids? And what legal rights does New Line have to that profit its not like New Line wrote the entire story on its own?
      • darling, on 07/02/2008, -3/+3Okay, but how long after you create? How long after you die?
      • darkened, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4Forever as long as Disney wishes to keep Mickey Mouse out of public domain and continues to buy the best laws it can buy.
    • feliks2, on 07/02/2008, -1/+17Studios didn't write the books either.
      • SuperWinner, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Neither did ***** Peter Jackson, only made on good movie in his life, (Two Towers).
    • TripcodeMel, on 07/02/2008, -2/+14The real question is, what did TOLKIEN do to deserve a cut? Everything! And quite frankly, it doesn't matter that the kids didn't write the books or do anything related to the movies - the studios are contractually obligated to give them their cut. Since Tolkien himself is dead, it goes to his estate - basically, to his family.
    • Haplo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+12You might want to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Tolkien
      "He drew the original maps for his father's The Lord of the Rings, which he signed C. J. R. T."
      The article has more information to show that you have no idea what you're talking about, but I guess you just don't care.
      • fluxion, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4to put things in perspective, if it werent for Christopher Tolkien we wouldnt have:

        The Silmarillion
        The Book of Lost Tales
        The History of Middle-Earth
        ...

        pretty much no insight whatsoever into the expansive universe Tolkien pulled The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings from, much of which Christopher Tolkien painstakingly pieced together from old notebooks and often conflicting histories. he is >the< scholar on Tolkien's work, and fully entitled to pursuing what's due to the Tolkien estate
  • Obzerva, on 07/02/2008, -7/+16One does not simply walk into Mordor.
  • adidav9, on 07/02/2008, -3/+6The precious is mine!
  • kookbutt, on 07/02/2008, -10/+3This is why I'm going to leave nothing to my kids. I just going to donate everything to NAMBLA or PETA or the Rainbow PUSH Coalition or the drunk behind the dumpster at the gas station down the road from me.
  • warpdesign, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5Typical
  • adamh227, on 07/02/2008, -21/+12I'm also pretty upset that no one has been compenstating me for my parent's work. My dad's a local teacher and the school district has yet to send me a cut of his paycheck. IT'S TOTALLY RIDICULOUS!
    • Solafein, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2epic fail
    • VAXcat, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1 I'm gonna have my will divide up all my assets between everyone who comes to my funeral...and I'm not gonna tell anyone that's my plan ahead of time.
      • savethejets, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Technically you just told everyone
      • VAXcat, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0 Good luck figuring out who I am...hint - my real name isn't VAXcat...
  • neonoodle, on 07/02/2008, -6/+8Maybe they should write a hit book series that gets turned into a series of awesome movies... Oh wait, that's hard? I guess back to the mom's teat then.
  • YoureAllSoDumb, on 07/02/2008, -3/+4There's a chance this could work... Wouldn't you try it?
    • Balanced, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4if you read the article, they have definite grounds.
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/02/2008, -13/+6In real life, JRR Tolkien was actually a bit of a *****.

    He was a Luddite. The story goes that on paying tax one year in the late 60s when the British gov were building their famous supersonic jet in partnership with the French, Tolkien wrote on the back of the cheque: "NOT A PENNY FOR CONCORD!!!"

    Christopher, his son and controller of the estate, is apparently even worse.

    But he was still the master of high fantasy fiction, unsurpassed, and frankly his heirs should get a bit of the money, IMHO, because generally that's how it works for other families whose scions made a lot of cash.
    • joshblufs, on 07/02/2008, -1/+11He disagreed with one govt. project and with that as justification you call him a *****?

      Really how good of an investment did the concord really turn out to be?
      "With only 20 aircraft ultimately built, the costly development phase represented a substantial economic loss."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
    • tman84, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3I don't get what is so ***** about not wanting to support a government funded program that he foresaw was doomed to fail?
  • pintomp3, on 07/02/2008, -9/+6patents and copyrights should end when the inventor/author dies and the works be put into public domain. in the case of corporations, it should be no longer than half the average human lifespan at the time the patent was issued.
    • glucoseboy, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5Why 1/2 human lifespan for corporations? Just curious to know the reasoning behind this number?
      • sleze, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6It's an arbitrary number that he pulled out of his ass.
      • pintomp3, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3because a full lifespan would be like saying an inventor could have invented something a birth.
    • doctechnical, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4If this law were in force today J.K Rowling would be sleeping with the fishes. Along with the surviving Beatles, et al. It would put a price on every successful artist's head.

      Be careful what you wish for.
      • Belin, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2You give very good reasons to support pintomp3's view.
      • pintomp3, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2but then the copyright to would pass into public domain. that's not much reason to kill someone.
      • doctechnical, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Let me spell it out: If Joe Bagadonuts writes the Great American Novel and I want to make a movie out of it, I have to pay royalties to Joe for the right to make the movie. That might run into millions of dollars of money that could have gone into my pocket instead.

        If the work goes public domain the minute Joe B. dies, then I've got millions of dollars worth of incentive to see him dead, No heartbeat, no royalties under your plan.

        Joe B. sleeps with the fishes and I'm millions richer for it. See?
      • pintomp3, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1as opposed to killing joe. b and his children.
    • d1gp1g, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2"patents and copyrights should end when the inventor/author dies and the works be put into public domain. in the case of corporations, it should be no longer than half the average human lifespan at the time the patent was issued."

      In related news, John Hopkins has determined that the average human lifespan is 500 years.
    • KyleGoetz, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Patents only last 20 years in the US. I really frigging hope they don't last for the lifetime of the inventor in the future!
    • darkened, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Copyrights and Patents should last exactly 7 years and be allowed exactly 1 optional renewal for 7 years. No exceptions ever. How the Constitution wanted it.
      • doctechnical, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Let's see, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buffy, Indiana Jones, X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman (hell, all the comic book characters)... all these would be out of the control of their creators, and any Tom, Dick or Harry could do anything they wanted. Gay porn between Luke Skywalker and Wolverine? Sure, why not. Indiana Jones the pederast? We can do that too. Spock selling crack to pre-schoolers? W00t! 2 hobbits, 1 cup? Batman singing "Never gonna give you up"? It could happen, my friend.

        Anything cool would turn into an instant *****-fest after exactly 14 years.
  • mulling, on 07/02/2008, -10/+2People who didn't create something didn't reap the benefits of it. Film at 11.
  • scififan9009, on 07/02/2008, -4/+6"KILL THE MEN! KILL THE ELVES! SAVE THE GOLD, FOR OURSELVES!"
  • Senorchili, on 07/02/2008, -7/+3FLY YOU FOOLS!
  • kingmanic, on 07/02/2008, -5/+16Ahh the children of great men. They sure do try hard to ruin legacies (Herbert, Tolkien). Copyright and IP was created so artists, artisans, inventors, and scientists could profit off their work within their lifetime but society could take their innovations after. Consigning rights to an idea temporarily for long term benefits to the public good. Not to enrich a artist, artisans, inventor, or scientists family well after death. Long ass copyright and IP laws defeats the whole idea. The public good is not served.
    • Balanced, on 07/02/2008, -2/+6So it is served by New Line/Warner brothers making money by cheating on a deal? Copyright can be weird, sure, but try checking out the quasi-legal dodges the movie studios use to make sure movies don't "make a profit" like billing themselves, etc.
      • kingmanic, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4I'm certain that is very dodgy and for someone who spent 3 years and the equivalent of 6 years worth of personal man hours on something to be cheated out of royalties is abominable. For Tolkien, his interests in it has expired for some time, having both sold the rights and expired himself. While he was alive I would have really loved for him to see some of that money, but now that he's dead I'd prefer if the money goes to other artists who put effort into it rather then to his descendants. New Line/Warner creative accounting is not something good either but his Heirs don't "deserve" anything.
      • kingmanic, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1This is more to do with principle then the exact case. This particular case has some sort of back end gross pay out which was lower then the family expected. They ought to be paid the exact amount the terms state but in general the enrichment of heirs from a great mans work is somewhat abhorrent to me.
    • mithrasinvictus, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3I don't agree with the current system of transferable copyrights, be it to inheritors or companies.
      But while it remains either the movie rights were obtained for the 7.5% deal or the movie was not licensed.
  • strong2345, on 07/02/2008, -6/+3They could always go to Check Into Cash...I heard they have excellent client services
  • perlabsrat, on 07/02/2008, -7/+0I wonder if they still get busted like the rest of us for downloading torrents of the movies?


    **** the ****
  • doctechnical, on 07/02/2008, -4/+36Wow, the display of ignorance in this thread is breath-taking. So once the creator of a work dies their work just becomes public domain? No inheritance is to go to their heirs (or whomever they bequeath funds to) despite their will? Nothing for trust funds or charity?

    What a bunch of cold-blooded leaches you are. You may now return to your ceaseless torrenting.
    /rant
    • Solafein, on 07/02/2008, -3/+4Agreed. Leeches who have never created anything themselves and feed off of the hard work and ingenuity of others.
    • skipdog172, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4I agree completely.

      This whole "inheritance should not exist" concept that everybody in this thread seems to love, seems a bit ludicrous to me. That is basically what everybody is saying, that "children should not inherit their parents money". The whole "THEY ARE LEECHING OFF HIS FATHER'S WORK CROWD" is as dumb as I can imagine. Don't parents work very hard to ensure that they will leave something with their kids?

      You guys really believe you should not receive inheritance from your parents? If you do believe children should get inheritance when their parents die, then I do not see how you can disagree with this.
      • decyx, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1I think parents do enough as it is. They raise their kids, put food on the table, buy them clothes, pay for college and so on. Once a child becomes an adult, they should stop living off their parents and make their own money.

        I'm aware that when parents leave something behind for their kids, it's a loving gesture, but I'd personally hate to have mine work all their lives so that I can enjoy the fruits of their labor. When they retire, I want them live carefree lives, traveling the world and such. I don't want a damn cent from them and I don't feel any sense of entitlement to what they have. If there's any left over after they pass on, it should go to a cause they support.

        Also, there is a growing trend of baby boomers who aren't leaving their kids a dime. I say good for them. There's an article about it below.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/m ...
    • KyleGoetz, on 07/02/2008, -4/+4It should go into the public domain upon death. Hell, it should go into the public domain 28 years after being published. Or shorter. It used to be 14 years until the corporations and wealthy lobbiests convinced Congress otherwise.
      How would you like it if Shakespeare were still under copyright? I mean, if IP rights are inheritable, then what's to stop Congress from setting the term of copyright at death + 500 years? Under Eldred v. Ashcroft it would be Constitutional.
      • doctechnical, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I agree that current copyright extensions are ridiculous, however having a work go to PD upon the authors death insures that a great number of successful creators will meet *their* creator in an untimely fashion. You're potentially putting a multi-mullion dollar bounty on a successful artist.

        Very silly idea.
      • KyleGoetz, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1@doctechnical: Fine, life or X years, whichever comes last. Copyright used to be 14 years, regardless of death. Let's make it that again.
    • sgtpppr, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7It's more people not reading the article. The contract stipulated that Tolkien get 8%. The family is just fighting for what they are owed.
    • pintomp3, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1any money he did earn of course should go to them. intellectual property should expire at some point. who do you send your check to when you sing happy birthday.
    • TheShad0w, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1I think you're all dense and missing the point. Any money he would have made while alive would have been legally part of his estate and inheritable as he saw fit upon his death. After his death it no longer applies. The original creator of the work is gone. There should be no inheritance of copyrights. That would be ridiculous. I agree that it is sad that his works didn't become profitable till after his passing but sometimes thats the way the cookie crumbles. Should change the law so that copyrights can be passed down so that some future generation may make money off the original creators works if they became profitable 10, 20, 30, or even 50 years from now? Do any of you realize how crazy that sounds?
      • doctechnical, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2So if Stephen King writes a novel that will no doubt sell millions of copies and become a hit motion picture, but get hits by a car on his way to the agents, the book drops into the public domain and his estate makes nothing? The movie studio will make millions of dollars but his kids get bubka?

        Or let's take another tack: An author writes a book and is negotiating the movie deal. She's got two kids who are 3 and 5. She dies. Movie studio makes millions, kids get to go live with grandma when they could have been set for life.

        THAT is crazy.
  • aookay, on 07/02/2008, -7/+3Pesty hobbitises, always wanting the precious
  • sproket, on 07/02/2008, -11/+4They deserve nothing. They didn't write the book. Their father did. Stop sponging off society.
    • chukd, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/

      Since he was a foreign national and published outside the US first, the copyright is 95 years after first published. This means since The Hobbit was published mid 30's, they owe the children big time.
      • TedTschopp, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Actually they were rewritten in the 50's. The versions we have now would clock off that date.
  • TomT223, on 07/02/2008, -8/+3My "Father" wrote the bible and I didn't get squat from Mel Gibson.
  • chukd, on 07/02/2008, -4/+13I say sue the MPAA for copyright infringement. Give them a taste of what they do to other people.
  • sultanica, on 07/02/2008, -3/+6One word: Greed
    • Solafein, on 07/02/2008, -3/+1RTFA. A sizable amount of that money goes to charities.
    • pagno, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3If you mean greed by the studios, yes. Indeed. Otherwise, youre a ***** moron.
  • TripcodeMel, on 07/02/2008, -3/+22HURR THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING THEY DON'T DESERVE ANY MUNY.

    Too ***** bad, because the studios are contractually obligated to fork over that 7.5%, as part of the contract when Tolkien sold the rights off. Just because he's dead doesn't make that null and void - it passes on as part of his estate to his kids.
    • Krlll, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5I will Digg you up TripcodeMel as your title made me laugh and at least you read the article.

      Sadly the people that read the article are getting Dugg down and at the time of typing this the people with the most Diggs are the ones that didnt read it or maybe they just couldn't get their thick heads around it?
      So to all those saying "they dont deserve any money" I will echo comments by a few people above.
      RTFA you morons!!!!!
    • Haplo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Moreover, at least Christopher *did* contribute to the books (he drew the maps). Moreover, he edited the The Silmarillion together with Guy Gavriel Kay. And I am sure the Silmarillion was used in the making of LOTR.
  • TheToecutter, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5They'll get a huge wad of cash. No way New Line is going to let the estate yank The Hobbit out from under them.
    • pagno, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4I hope they do yank it just on principle, or let someone else make it.
  • poploserdigg, on 07/02/2008, -7/+2buried for gay pic of the midget who played frodo.
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2"When *****' Freedo wakes up from his little coma or whatever, and the little hobbits are jumping up and down on the bed, and Sam leans in the door way and gives him that very *****' gay look"
      "That look was so gay that I though Sam was gonna tell the little hobbits to take a walk so he could saunter over to Frodo and suck his *****' *****"
      "And then right after the Sam/Frodo suck-fest, right before the credits roll, Sam ***** flat out bricks right Frodo's mouth."
  • skipdog172, on 07/02/2008, -0/+19The tone of the comments here disgust me.

    They had a contract. Tolkien gets 7.5% of gross. Tolkien is dead, so it goes to his kids. I cannot comprehend why this is OMG OMG OMG WRONG! MONEY IS EVIL AND THESE PEOPLE WHO WANT MONEY ARE EVIL!!!
  • neltharion1, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5The movie could never have been made if the book hadn't been written. :O

    I think they deserve some cash. Hell, there's enough cash being thrown around everywhere.
  • Taiyoryu, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4I'm on the fence regarding this. The Tolkein trust obviously negotiated a contract for compensation with regards to licensing, but the wording of the contract wasn't strong enough for them to enforce. New Line of course is not honoring the deal in spirit by using fancy accounting to avoid paying the Tolkein trust. Lesson here: get a good lawyer when drafting a contract.

    That said, copyright terms are too long (thanks Disney et al.). Even if the Tolkein trust gives 50% of its income to charities, companies and heirs should not continue to benefit from a creators work indefinitely. Nor should other creators be prevented from creating derivative works. In other words, New Line shouldn't have to negotiate a license to create a derivative work. At the same New Line shouldn't be able to stop someone from making a derivative work from their film.
    • Haplo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1What's that TolkEIn trust you keep talking about?
      • Taiyoryu, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1As defined by Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trust a trust is a property interest held by one person for the benefit of another

        In this case, the property are the copyrights to J.R.R. Tolkein's works and the revenue it generates. The beneficiaries are his descendants. As for the trust manager, I have no idea who it may be but it could be a person or company setup specifically to manage the Tolkein estate.
    • atomicfireball, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0>>>but the wording of the contract wasn't strong enough for them to enforce

      I'm curious how you came up with this assessment? Simply because New Line has used creative accounting doesn't mean the contract isn't written well; that has yet to be decided upon by any court.

      But I think it's very clear that when they made the licensing agreement for royalties, they would never have intended to include the cost of the royalties - the subject of the contract - in the deductible expenses. That wouldn't make any sense and New Line's argument is a stretch that probably will not hold up in court. They're just trying to drag this out long enough until the kids are dead and then they can negotiate with the disinterested trustees for a lot less. I know that sounds skeevy, but that's my best guess as to what's going on.
      • Taiyoryu, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1A well-written contract would not have allowed for this loophole. In other words, the contract should not have allowed for New Line to hide money behind semantics. They could have included a stipulation that one of their own accountants be on staff and have access to the books, since part of the problem is the Tolkein estate has been unable to audit the revenue from the second and third films. The contract in essence states if New Line profits, Tolkein estate gets percentage of profits, and no one is gullible enough to believe that the Tolkein films were breakeven or had a net loss. And yet, the Tolkein estate hasn't been paid.

        I too suspect New Line is trying to wait it out after I read the ages of the primary beneficiaries.



  • organic, on 07/02/2008, -10/+3So what? Why should they get a dime for something they did nothing to contribute to?
    • Solafein, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8Read the article before posting? They should get it because of the contract that was signed. They are entitled to 7.5% of gross, genius.
    • mcfara, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7Agreed. At first it comes across as people begging for something they did nothing to deserve, but once you actually read the article you'll see that they're just looking for money they're entitled to. Nothing wrong with that.
    • Haplo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2FAIL: his son drew the maps.
  • MoralThreat, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Just give them the money from the tape that Butters saw.
  • MavRevMatt, on 07/02/2008, -4/+3***** the MPAA?
  • aoctavio, on 07/02/2008, -3/+3The books were published in 1955, the author dies in 1937! What is wrong with copyright? These books should have gone to public domain 20 years ago in order "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" as the constitution says...
  • wacomwacoff, on 07/02/2008, -3/+3Tolkein's kids have been stodgy stick-in-the-mud farts about the movie trilogy ever since it was proposed; Christopher Tolkein tried to block the making of it -- simply because he didn't want movies made of the books. They consistently refused to be involved and wouldn't even watch the films. And now they want money? Sure, they're entitled, and New Line screwed them... but seems like they invited this kind of behavior, really.
    • Haplo, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Who's this TolkEIn and his kids you're talking about? Oh, and maybe RTFA before you start blurting out your ignorance.
      • wacomwacoff, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Jesus, a common typo and you start with the insults.

        I did, actually, RTFA. And, again, I say that Christopher Tolkien and his siblings have, historically, opposed ANY sort of film or production based on their father's works... though, since the rights are held by Saul Zaentz, they could only bitch about it in the media.

        Yes, New Line owes them 7.5%. They're owed what they've been denied. But they've certainly been a nasty group to hold the estate.
  • doulos2k, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8A parent who works a large chunk of his life to create a masterpiece that actually becomes an unprecedented masterpiece. A masterpiece that he began (by the way) for his children and somehow, according to most of the comments, it's more fair for the people who took his masterpiece and crafted a derivative work to make wads of cash than the children of the man who toiled long years to create it (who would make comparatively little... yes, more than most of us... but comparatively little)? Unbelievable. New Line wouldn't even have a movie to make if not for Tolkien loving his children enough to write "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."
  • tman84, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6The poor studios, how will they survive with 200 billion dollars
  • burreato, on 07/02/2008, -2/+7I hope they are all in Lord of the Rings attire and having an epic battle to the death over the money. Last one standing takes all.

    That's the way Tolkien would have wanted it.
  • Stevethegreat, on 07/02/2008, -8/+1Why? they owe NOTHING to its existence. Their father is long dead and he's the only one who rightfully should had been able to make money from his work. Just because you share genes with someone should under no circumstances grant you the rights to their brainchildren (which most possibly are very NOT influenced by the genes).
    • Stevethegreat, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Every time I post about Tolkien's children I got dug down, yet nobody's came with a valid reason why my position is not rational. I mean you can argue all you want about Christopher's impact on Silmarillion but as a matter of fact LotR had nothing to do with the Sil and as such I fail to see why Chris or anyone apart from Tolkien the elder should have any power on the original works and everything that comes out of them.

      Current copyright laws obviously impede cultural evolution and all the wealth that may come from it, are you blind not to see it? What exactly is irrational to this position (as soon as the original author is deceased, only minimal rights over his/her works may pass to his/her descendants)?
      • MaynardJK, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1For the 50th time, READ THE ***** ARTICLE.

        This has jack ***** to do with copyright law and 100% to do with contract law. The studios made an agreement and broke it. PERIOD.

        That is why your dumb ass keeps getting dugg down.
      • Stevethegreat, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1The studios have the right this time, they should had not made a contract with the criminal asses of blackmailers that Tolkien's children are. I don't know what's better, not to give a dime to those that have no right to get them, or make a contract with them and then ***** them? Kudos to the big Studios.
      • Enternal, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0The studio made a contract and broke it, therefore, Tokien's children are criminal asses?
    • cubicledrone, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Excuse me. If Professor Tolkien wanted his children to make money from his work, then they should. End of discussion.
      • Stevethegreat, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Why? I'm all for ownership and the libertarian values, in fact I think it is the engine that drove the surge of economical well being in the west, but ownership and individual rights should end with ones death. If there's a written wish by the deceased's part I can understand/respect, I just can't see however how that can be extended to be the norm. If you noticed I didn't even mention one's material ownership but copyright claims alone.

        Copyright have no rational reason to be inheritable, it has huge negative impact to the society at large and under utilitarian clauses the very ones that the libertarian doctrines are being based upon, it is a nonsensical measure.

        BTW I see that I'm already buried, I suspect those who buried me think that I'm a collectivist criminal, this suggestion alone enrages me and puts me in a murdering mode (`.')
  • TedTschopp, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Lord of the Rings was published in 1954 and 1955. The versions we have now (the orignals were changed when the American and British Copyrights were out of sync) were copyrighted sometime in the late 50's early 60's. Additionally at this time the Hobbit was rewritten to change the character of Gollum to make it fit more with the Lord of the Rings.

    The rights to movies and merchandising were sold in 1969.

    Tolkien died in 1973.

    They are both not 80 years old. In terms of Copy Right they are 2008 - 1973 = 35 years old.
  • pagno, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Wow. The pro-corporate conservatives are all over this one.
  • Ribald_Jester, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Typical Hollywood movie studios - ***** people out of their money. I'd rather see that money go to JRRT's heirs than the MPAA's coffers.
  • megalaser, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2What a load of morons on this post, of course the heirs should receive Tokien's share, unless of course it was in his will to leave it to somebody else but I can assure you that he didn't intend his money to go to new Line Cinema - they're a bunch of crooks! Look at what they did to peter jackson!
  • rmxz, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Saul Zaentz, the Producer mentioned in the article who bought the rights to the LOTR films has a long history of abusing artists.

    This is the nut who sued John Fogerty for plagiarizing John Fogerty's sound.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/arts/music/01fog ...
    "Essentially, Mr. Zaentz sued Mr. Fogerty for plagiarizing himself - to the tune of $140 million"

    The Tolkien estate should have looked into this guy's history before working with him.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.