• body_by_make
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2911 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.

    • Dr. Jenkem
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2411 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1211 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        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

          • @ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            611 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              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.