Independent film - The Hunt for Gollum

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/

Saw this on TORC.

The trailer seems pretty high quality, but does not reveal much. The web-site indicates that it is adapted from the appendices, but they have clearly added stuff, including additional characters.

The actor for Strider looks somewhat Viggoesque.

It is being produced as a collaborative not-for-profit film, in a similar fashion perhaps, as the New Voyages for Star Trek have been produced. (Some of which are pretty good, actually, and include original writers such as DC Fontana and actors such as Walter Koenig and George Takei.)





BrianIs AtYou

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It is being produced as a collaborative not-for-profit film.

It nonetheless very likely violates copyright law. The fact that it is not for profit is far from determinative.

[Frelga]

Like, if it ends up being better and more successful than the official "bridge" movie? I haven't seen the trailer, so no opinion on the likelihood of that.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

It is being produced as a collaborative not-for-profit film.

It nonetheless very likely violates copyright law. The fact that it is not for profit is far from determinative.

That is possible.

They seem to have gone pretty far without interference.

I cited the example of the Star Trek New Voyages as something which wa made in a similar fashion, and Paramount has permitted it to continue as long as it is strictly non-profit and acknowledges the trademarks etc

The quality of the New Voyages was such that Paramount actually borrowed sets and props from them for use in the Enterprise series.

Given Christopher Tolkien's attitude and the attitude of the Tolkien Estate, it is possible that they will go after this.

I wonder if the producers are counting on some loophole in the law to prevent such legal action.

BrianIs AtYou

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This film was discussed recently on the Mythopoeic Society email list. David Bratman (who is famous for his disdain for the Jackson films) had this to say about it, which I thought was hilarious:

The visuals are beautiful, yes, but that's the landscape's fault. I'm sure I've seen that mountain lake before in half a dozen other movies. Judging from the brief glimpses of acting we get, this film will consist of two hours of Aragorn wandering tediously through the woods, looking as if he's about to say, "Be vewy quiet! I'm hunting wabbits!"

On a more serious note, he added:

I hope it's better than that, though the misspelling of "Eregion" on the map at the beginning of the second trailer does not raise hopes. At least they spelled "Tolkien" correctly.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

The comments that you made about the landscape and such, and the need for a meaningful narrative and also my concerns.

The trailers and pics are nice, and what little I have seen puts it higher in my estimation than that other Tolkienesque film Ancanar that made the rounds a while back.

But it really lives or dies by the narrative, in my opinion.

The trailers give very little on what the story arc will be.

But they are supposed to be "teasers", which usually have little more than visuals.

BrianIs AtYOu

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Given Christopher Tolkien's attitude and the attitude of the Tolkien Estate, it is possible that they will go after this.

Its equally (or even more) likely that New Line/Warner's and/or Saul Zaentz/Tolkien Enterprises will go after them, since they own the contractual rights to make films of this material (to the extent that it is based on LOTR; I don't know if any of it is based on UT).

This is definitely not my area of expertise, so I really don't know what the actual rights of each party is.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I should mention that despite Bratman's comment about "two hours" the film is only a short of about 30 minutes, I think.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

According to some info I found on another site, the man behind this also produced an independent Star Wars film in 2005 under similar non-profit circumstances, and it was made available for free download.

http://panicstruckpro.com/revelations/

The site acknowledges that Star Wars is a LucasFilm trademark etc, but was strictly produced non-commercially--no one was paid to act, build sets etc-everything was donated or volunteered and the film was released free of charge.

They do indicate that George Lucas permitted this to be made.

So the question still remains whether New Line / the Tolkien Estate etc will be equally accommodating.

At least, there are a number of precedents for such non-profit films being made and widely distributed.

BrianIs AtYou

[Voronwë the Faithful]

George Lucas has actively encouraged Star Wars fan films. So the comparison is strained at best. Probably their best protection, quite frankly, will be that it won't be worth anyone's while to go after them.

[Frelga]

You know, I've been thinking about this. There is a mass of Tolkien fan art out there, from drawings to novel-length stories a few of which are of near-Tolkinedsque quality (look up The Last Ship on TORC sometimes), and including mashups of PJ movie clips. All is freely available on the web. AFAIK, none of the authors had any trouble from Tolkien estate. Is a movie a wholly different animal, under copyright law?

[ArathornJax]

I don't think that New Line or Zaentz will go after it for this reason. If it stays non-profit and acknowledges the trademark, it is more than likely to increase hype for The Hobbit and for Film 2. Thus this movie and the other fan film being made for non-profit called Born of Hope I believe will be left alone.

Now on the other hand if the studio or Zaentz view this as taking profit from the movie they will move legally to prohibit them. Yet both films have been known about for some time, especially Born of Hope and I think they would have shut them down by now. The only odd ball is the TE since we do not know what their rights are regarding this stuff.

So again, from a business stand point as long as these do not take profit from the company but add hype and anticipation to the movies that will make money, I don't think action will be taken. Also, would the action have a negative impact on the fans if the company takes it, or in other words, would the negative PR be worth taking the action and would the legal cost be justified? No, especially if there is no profit involved.

No offense to the lawyers at this site, I love your legal insights, yet I have to say that sometimes with all the lawyers here I think we think legally (understandably) yet not from a corporate viewpoint. We have to balance the legal view that with the business side which really drives this. We need to remember that in the corporate environment the legal team may suggest action, but the decision to take action is left to the business leaders in charge. That is why I don't think you'll see these shut down. Right now, it is not worth the time, energy, money, or the possible negative PR to take legal action. What and IF the TE can take action is, I'm not sure if any of us know for sure, but I would guess the film rights would be under Zaentz and New Line not the TE since both are based on items in LOTR in the Appendix.

I'm sure both films are watched, yet I anticipate no action being taken. That can change as circumstances change or if new threats are perceived, but I don't see any action coming down the pike based on my former business experience and friends who are still in certain companies. Anyway, just some opinion that I have and some thoughts.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No offense taken, AJ. In fact, you are basically saying the samething that I did above, when I said it wouldn't be worth anyone's while to go after them.

I also agree that the Tolkien Estate is the wild card. Yes, it is true that Zaentz and New Line own the film rights, but the TE still owns the copyright. I do not know this for sure, but my best guess is that the holder of a copyright would still have a cause of action against someone who made a film based on copyrighted work, even if the rights to do so had been sold to someone else.

Frelga, I do think a film would would be considered a completely different animal than an illustration.

[Primula Baggins]

There's some ambiguity in an illustration. It doesn't announce what it is, the way a film must make the characters and settings clear. Furthermore, titles aren't subject to copyright. As I understand it, character names aren't either, unless their owner trademarks them as Lucas has done for all the Star Wars character names. (I think the little superscript "TM" after everyone's name looks horrible even in a toy ad.)

[Dave_LF]

What specifically might be illegal about a not-for-profit fan movie? Is it illegal for me to pretend to be Aragorn at all, only illegal if I film myself doing it, or only illegal if I film and distribute it?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The last one, potentially could be illegal. The first two, no. At least to the best of my understanding. If you distribute it, you are still potentially interfering with the rights holders rights, even if you don't commercially profit from it. (Of course there are other ways that you could profit from it. You might, for instance, use it to bolster your standing in the industry to help you get a future commercial deal.)

[solicitr]

It's my understanding that the ramrods for going after potential infringers are the Estate lawyers- after all, the mout'peez (currently Cathleen Blackburn) is co-executor of the Estate. CRT signs off on such actions, as he must, but he doesn't initiate them nor relish going along.

Dave, distribution completes the offense of infringement. Not making money off it is no defense- although popular myth seems to hold otherwise.

[Holbytla]

George Lucas has actively encouraged Star Wars fan films. So the comparison is strained at best. Probably their best protection, quite frankly, will be that it won't be worth anyone's while to go after them.

Yet they went after the TORC coffee mugs.

[Rowanberry]

Yet they went after the TORC coffee mugs.

Well, but the TORC coffee mugs were merchandise, weren't they?

[solicitr]

The TORC coffee mugs used the JRRT monogram, which is a registered trademark- no such thing as 'fair use.'