The only sane thing to do in response to this is the same thing that SHOULD have been done when Paramount went all sue happy on folks making unofficial Star Trek stuff.

Creators should stop making things related to their works and consumers should stop consuming and giving Paramount money for the official works.

The lesson being if the rights holder for something wants to keep it all to themselves, let them, forget it exists and starve it out of profitable existence. Spend the time and money with content, creators, and consumers that don't believe sucking up ever dime that's not nailed down is, or should be, the ultimate goal.

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 1 year 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 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That's a lose lose scenario. I'd rather guillotine the copyright holder so the IP "fall in the public domain" if you ask me.

[–] LavaPlanet@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your true enemy is capitalism, tho. Don't shoot the messenger.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

Can’t have copyright in capitalistic systems

The person who can produce the work the cheapest is the one who gets money