The Tolkien Estate is suing Warner Brothers, New Line and Middle Earth Enterprises for £50m, stating "irreparable harm" to the property. They're claiming the Warner Brothers etc. only have the rights to "tangible merchandise" and not to produce digital media - though what they think a DVD is I don't know.

Telegraph Story
Guardian Story
Law Suit Text

Might explain the withdrawal of the PDFs while this gets sorted out. I'm currently worried that it might affect Lord of the Rings Online as well as the gambling websites and apps mentioned in the law suit.

Maybe we, as fans, need to write to the Tolkien Estate to protect the subcontracted rights of the games we enjoy. An appeal to not let the lawyers loose on these games, but to take a targeted approach. The scatter-gun approach is only going to harm games that actually bring people to Middle Earth, encouraging them to read the books.

Seems to me that this is targeted towards WB specifically for breach in their (WB's) contract with TE.

I don't see a big fuzz around Electronic media/games in general. Just that WB did not have that right, exploited it anyway and TE finally had enough when this Slot Machine thing came along.

/wolf

The way the suit is phrased though could be interpreted to cover The One Ring and Lord of the Rings Online. Reading it, I'm not sure that M-e Enterprises and Warner Brothers have the right to to license these, though I hope that it can be sorted out between the principal parties without it affecting licensees.

Yes it does.

They should have kept the old-school format of actually selling physical games. i.e. discs that you play your PC / Console games from.

Cause that part still seems to be ok.

/wolf

Yes, that does appear to be acceptable under the licensing.

Regarding LotRO ... I, for one, purchased the Mithril Edition of LotRO specifically so that I wouldn't have to download a massive amount on an initial install ... just in case I would have to install from scratch. That surely IS tangible property.

Also, if memory serves, the initial download install is a small .exe file from which the full download runs. I wonder if a single CD with that .exe file would qualify as "tangible property" and thereby get LotRO past this snafu? Turbine could distribute these discs like AOL used to distribute their software.

Regarding TOR ... Cubicle 7 could seemingly settle the matter for themselves by: 1) distributing PDFs free to physical book purchasers (the Bricks 'N Mortar methodology); and, 2) distributing PDFs on CD to those that don't want physical books. Both are tangible property, no?

Seems a shame to have to resort to such methods in "the digital age," but better that than no product at all!

I hope this gets sorted out sooner rather than later.

Oh this miserable legal stuff about licenses for our most beloved imaginary world! It has plagued the community of roleplaying in Middle-earth in the past and continues to do so as it seems.

Let's see what things are still to come...

Cheers
Tolwen

Blighted Places... Roll to resist Shadow!

Honestly, as a fan of Tolkien, I can't disagree with the motivation of the Tolkien Estate.

I hope our hobby won't be touched by this trial (except the pdf thing), but I also hope the Tolkien Estate will win.

I can't disagree with the motivation regarding slot machines. However, I fear that the lawyers will go with the sledgehammer approach and go for a ban on everything that could be remotely deviant. My fear is that this will impact on the hobby. I have no trust in lawyers to approach things sensibly or with restraint.

I don't know about that.

This is to let the court clarify and verify what the original contract was really about, and enforce the parties who signed that contract to follow what it says.

Who can argue with that?

If you want to make a deal with TE to produce "IN-tangible" product you should bloody well negotiate with them, sign and pay for it.

If that means products that already exist today will have to be decommissioned... well I'm sorry for the fans, but I still don't see that it could go down any other way.

/wolf

Interesting though that "The Saul Zaentz Company" (a.k.a. Middle Earth Enterprise) is one of the defendants... that's who sold the license for our dear RPG here... plainly this is a trigger for the removal of the PDF's. (IMHO)

/wolf

It's Paragraph 55 and 59 that have me the most worried.

55 could be interpreted to cover The Lord of the Rings Online game
59 could be interpreted to cover The One Ring (in paper or PDF forms)

The injunction could also affect DVD and CD sales of software. The physical item is not what is sold. You are sold a license to use the software (or view the film content).

True...

... sounds bad...

/wolf

Yes, but everywhere I saw them mention computer games they seemed to target Download-ONLY typ of products.

I even think they wrote it CAPSED at one point, so it felt pretty solid.

/wolf

Agreed.

If Zaentz did indeed sell the rights for TOR then it looks like paragraph 59 is challenging the legality of that as TOR would fall into "Printed Publications", unless there are any exceptions stated (which I haven't seen) allowing for it.

So it seems the deal was that TE gave rights to SZ to make films and the direct merchandise to promote the films.

Then SZ understood that merchandise means "anything", while TE states that merchandise means "tangible objects" (I guess, toys, replicas, etc), not printed works, multimedia (did that exist in the 60's?) or anything else.

So regarding computer games, they are MAINLY software, that is intangible by definition.
Regarding RPG books, are those printed works or tangible merchandise? Are they both?

It's clear now that PDFs aren't tangible merchandise, so they are as out as computer games. The puzzling thing is... why has not TE complained in the past 12 years since the first computer games licensed by SZ (or even in the 90's and 80's) until just now?

Well, it's pretty clear that the plaintiffs want to restrict the sale of "novels, paperbacks and other printed published matter", as well as electronic or digital products (i.e. formats that didn't exist in 1969).

So yeah, this seems really bad.

Licensing rights prior to DVD, etc, sales are the reason why lots of old movies/TV series don't get released for sale. China Beach, for example, will never get released for sale because they used popular period music throughout the series. The show had secured broadcast rights from the artists/recording studios, but no one foresaw an age when people would buy copies for home viewing. That requires the studio to return to each and every holder of the song's rights, meaning more and more money.

In a similar fashion, I'm sure TE feel they're losing both control of the property and potential additional revenues from formats and products that couldn't have been anticipated four decades ago.

For example, does TE get a percentage of every micropayment made for items in LOTRO? Why not? Questions like that make the baleful eyes of lawyers glow with unholy light.

Like others on this forum, I really hoped that the withdrawal of PDFs wasn't the tip of the iceberg to further problems but this all makes me worry that my gut reaction and concerns may well be realised. I really, really hope its not the case and I was just being overly pessimistic but reading through the news items and documentation I can't find anything that would exclude TOR from this legal challenge - I think the issue that will make or break this will be what 'pot' of product type (eg, merchandise, printed publication, etc) the RPG falls into.

I don't understand games with Middle Earth setting are around for a lot of years and there has been a lot of Middle Earth games since the movies came out, what changed now about them?

After reading the entire complaint, this is my conclusion as well. I would love to see some of the documentation of any meetings between Plaintiffs and Defendants over the years, especially concerning the publishing of previous roleplaying games.

I would say a roleplaying game book is definitely tangible merchandise, but it is also clearly printed material - as close to novelization as you can get (Tales from Wilderland).

I wonder if the Plaintiffs would at all be interested in licensing roleplaying games themselves, especially ones such as our beloved TOR, due to its incredible respect for the source material? It seems that the Plaintiffs are concerned that their exclusive rights to such printed materials/products has been infringed upon.

My vote is that if there is an injunction against Zaentz, that Cubicle7 and Sophisticated Games seek licensing with the Plaintiffs so they can continue producing TOR! In stating so, I realize I am completely ignorant about law and licensing, the gaming industry, and business in general. So, please forgive me in advance and just tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

I might add, I remember Jon Hodgson telling us that The One Ring line is secure and poised for a long and successful run. I cannot imagine a better word from the wise, nor can I think of one more wise than Jon.

There must be an exception in the 'printed material' category for roleplaying games due to its definition and the nature of the marketing and selling of games as opposed to novels or books, etc. A roleplaying adventure book is written without knowing who the main heroes of the story will be. That is up to the players. The direction of the story is also up to the players and the Loremaster.

In regards to publishing adventures, however, I have always been curious about the process of approvals. I suppose with TOR, Zaentz simply checks to make sure material hasn't been inserted beyond The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, basically. If Zaentz didn't exist and the Plaintiffs in this case gave a license to Sophisticated Games Ltd, would the process of approvals by the Plaintiffs be more stringent, to the degree of 'moral' alignment with Tolkien? Morality issues seem to be a big source of the reason for the lawsuit in this case. If the Defendants had backed off the gambling thing and complied, along with not claiming trademarks that the Plaintiffs have a right to, things might not have escalated this much.

Are you sure this is the Tolkien Estate and not M-e Enterprises? They are two different things, and the family does not own LotR or The Hobbit. The family is always getting blamed for what M-e (formerly Tolkien Enterprises) does, so I'm just looking for clarification or confirmation.

Happy Thanksgiving!
Stephen "Trotter"

A reading of the Complaint shows yes, indeed, the J.R.R. Tolkien Estate Limited is one of seven Plaintiffs in the case against THE SAUL ZAENTZ COMPANY d/b/a Middle-
earth Enterprises and five Warner Brothers corporations.

It looks like a showdown between United Kingdom corporations and Delaware corporations. This will surely be a mythic battle, one in which we can all glean a lesson for our own lives involving honesty and greed.

I wonder if this is why there have been delays in TOR products originally anticipated for 2012?

My very personal guess is that in the past the economic profile of gaming and merchandise - as well as the total number and types of merchandise available - was rather low (in MERP's time) and only minuscule amounts of money (compared to nowadays) involved, so it was not worth the effort. In addition, the overall visibility and reach of these products was in a small niche compared to the present medially hyped and pushed mainstream visibility. In the times of the LotRRPG, there were already the movies, but perhaps the type of merchandise was still more or less acceptable.
Nowadays, there is a complete economization of everything imaginable and given a Middle-earth/Tolkien label. That might have tipped the scales then.

Since the old days, the media (think only of the WWW) have evolved dramatically, leading to much-improved ways of marketing. When I think of MERP's days, it was always a surprise whether there was information or even real new products available when I got to my FLGS. It was the only way of getting info back then! And then there was a considerable lag in information too. Today I check the website or social media and realtime information directly from the producer is at my fingertips.
So the availability and accessibility of information also plays a role IMO.

Thus IMO it is this threefold reason: Formerly unheard-of amounts of money involved, maximum mainstream media presence and visibility plus abominable merchandise ideas with the "Tolkien" label on it.

Cheers
Tolwen

Looking in to it a little further, there have been a number of periodic law suits which have been settled by Middle-earth Enterprises or by Warner Brothers. As well as money this time, there may have to be an agreement not to license anything that might bring the name in to disrepute or degrade the property (such as the gambling games). We can hope that this is another such money grab type of lawsuit (or "where's our share") between the principals, and that it's not going to affect the licensees.

Further Info:
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/11/tolkien-lawsuit/
http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?&postid=6534627

Is The One Ring licensed from Warner Brothers or is it licensed directly from Tolkien?

jh

I would not recommend taking away my The One Ring or my Lord of the Rings Online, these are things that keep me calm and rationale. Take my toys away and I will take it out on someone in a tangible way.

"No One Ring and LoTR Online makes bat go something, something."

10 points if anyone know the reference.

TOR (like any Middle-earth-based roleplaying game so far) is licensed from Middle-earth Enterprises (MEE; formerly known as Tolkien Enterprises), the Saul Zaentz copyright-exploitation company. In the current lawsuit, MEE is challenged by the Tolkien Estate (holding all the literary rights plus supposedly some more as written in the lawsuit), headed by Christopher Tolkien.

Cheers
Tolwen

P.S.: I don't know right now whether it is licensed directly from MEE or from a sub-contractor like Warner Bros.

From what I understand of the relationship, based on the info in the books, The One Ring is licensed by Sophisticated Games from Middle-earth Enterprises (the Saul Zaentz Company). Cubicle 7 are then the publishers of the game. There's no relationship with Warner Brothers there and, as such, images from the films could not be used in the game. Personally, with Jon Hodgson (among others) doing the artwork - who needs them.

Lord of the Rings Online license from both Middle-earth Enterprises and from Warner Brothers. This means that things in the game can resemble things in the films.

Ferngully? Robin Williams in bat form.

MTV seems to have it summed up for dumb people like me. Its too bad that its affecting the RPG.

"I suppose fans can make their own conclusions about the suit -- do casino games tarnish Tolkien’s legacy, or is his estate upset that it’s been carved out of the gambling profits? – but this bit of posturing rings true to me: J. R. R. Tolkien was a devoted Christian and would likely be very uncomfortable with his characters being used in an online slot machine."


http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2012/11/21/...-machine-games/

I doubt it's THE reference to which you, well, refer, but I thought of:

"No beer and no TV make Homer go... crazy? Don't mind if I do!"

"Here's Johonny!"

Give the man his prize.

Perhaps I'm getting old and cranky, but the thought of a Denny's tie-in with The Hobbit turns my stomach sour . . . and it's not because I overindulged at Second Breakfast. If you're confused, I'm referring to the thread, "Denny's Hobbit Menu," here on the forums: [URL=http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?trk=cubicle7&showtopic=3815]

Please don't think I'm taking issue with Throrsgold who posted the topic, as I realize he was talking about something different altogether and I didn't want to threadjack the discussion there. I thought I would post it here as it seems germane to the topic of the Tolkien Family Estate lawsuit.

I was already leery of the upcoming Peter Jackson films (due to his handling of the Lord of the Rings trilogy which, I'm sure, everyone has debated to death and is tired of discussing). However, if this is the sort of thing we can expect both this year and the following two, I have to say, I'm glad the Family has filed suit.

Clearly, I realize this may have consequences for The One Ring (and, indeed, this seems to have already been the case, if you buy into the speculation that this is what halted pdf sales). But, I also clearly have to state that this sort of mindless commercialization is something I find distasteful in the extreme.

If I were Christopher Tolkien and I saw this and other examples as or more disconcerting, I would be horrified and would not hesitate to call Saul Zaentz, Peter Jackson, whomever, to account for it. I think it's awful, shameless, and I'm not in any way related to family and hell, I want it stopped. I can't imagine how they must feel!

I appreciate y'all allowing me to rant here, but this is a community uniquely devoted to these works and, hopefully, you'll appreciate where I'm coming from.

I haven't read the documents so kindly posted in the OP and, cynically, I realize that this probably has more to do with money and control than it does with any sort of "sullying" of the IP. However, I like to believe that it "might" have something to do with that. In any event, if it puts a stop to these types of tie-ins, the suit will have been well worth it for me.

The films of the Lord of the Rings were, in my opinion, a good visual interpretation of the material in the books. Yes, some artistic license was taken with the elves at Helms Deep etc. But, overall, they were very enjoyable and I would hope that people who hadn't read the books were encouraged to go and do so by the films.

I don't see the films, or the games such as The One Ring and Lord of the Rings Online, as "mindless commercialism", more widening the appeal. When this extends to slot machines and gambling, I can understand the wish not to degrade the property.

I don't think that the Lord of the Rings would have reached the number 1 of the Waterstones poll for Greatest Books of the 20th Century without some popular appeal. The academic and scholarly approach of the Tolkien family has, again in my opinion, hindered the wider appeal of Tolkien's works rather than encouraged it.

My fear with this law suit is that the lawyers go in with sledgehammers cracking nuts and that the wide appeal enjoyment goes out with the crass.

Whoa - let me clarify that my comment about "mindless commercialism" applies solely to things like a Denny's tie-in and/or slot machines, etc.

The One Ring and, to a certain extent, LotRO do not fit in that class. Reading my comments again, I realize my sentence structure was unclear as to just what, in particular, I was talking about and liable to confuse.

I currently own and play The One Ring and find it to be exceedingly respectful of the source material. So, yes, I share everyone's fear here that this product may be swept up and lumped into the same category.

While I agree that the movies and the RPG are not "mindless commercialism", saying that they are a good interpretation of the books really depends on your view on the books.

Christopher Tolkien for example (I guess nobody will argue with the fact he knows quite well his father's work) consider that Peter Jackson gutted the books, making an action movie for 15-25-years-old (source in French, sadly : http://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2012...29858_3246.html ).
I'm currently reading Tom Shippey's Tolkien, author of the century ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/J-R-Tolkien-Author.../dp/0261104012) and it really gives me a new view of what Tolkien was writing. And it wasn't the movie.

So, while I think the movies are OK and I love The One Ring, I can understand why people feel the books were betrayed by the movies. And especially by all the goodies around the movie (and those are mindless commercialism).

The saddest is, we'll never have a Silmarillon RPG.

Let's see who takes over the estate when Chris Tolkien kicks the bucket.

While I would agree that Christopher certainly knows his father's work, I would say neither he nor his father truly understood how to accomplish Tolkien's stated goal, namely creating a full fledged mythology. They are both too much control freaks (which I can sympathize with even if it is counter to the stated goal). A mythology needs to live and breath in a way that one person working on it can never do (in no small part because that person will die and the mythology will stop growing). The movies are a valid interpretation of the books in the same way that every movie based on a myth/legend/fairy tale is: a retelling in a different format with it's own needs and focus. Retellings like this are critical to the long term viability of a myth. While I personally find gambling very distasteful, I can't find I agree with the estate because I consider this level of cultural co-option good for the relevance of any mythology. Given the state of current copyright law, I would agree that they appear to have the right to income from it, though I think the mythology would be best served by the entirety becoming public domain.