The Hobbit Threatened With Legal Action

[Saracen]

It doesn't have to be an verbatim copy, but according to S21, SS3a the adaptation has to be of the original works. Like taking a book and making a movie out of it, for example, is an adaptation which it falls under, same with making translations of the original book, making a game out of it, or reading it out on the radio, etc. Which is pretty reasonable. But according to S76, general adaptations not covered by S21 are permissible. And I'd imagine any reasonable person would considered a few bits of theme from the story of the book wouldn't fall under S21.

I'd be interested in seeing any sections you think applies here, but I really don't see anything in there which gives copyright holders all encompassing power over every remotely related aspect of their works no matter how unreasonable. Hence the big deal with software patents, since you couldn't possibly cover the window model paradigm under copyright, despite being a component of the works, but you can cover a Windows OS under copyright.

But I didn't say they had "all encompassing power over every remotely related aspect of their works no matter how unreasonable." In fact, I said they didn't. I even gave some examples.

But nor is the "reasonable man" test appropriate. Copyright law is more nuanced than that. For an infringement to apply, the bit copied has to be in whole or substantial part, but what can be considered "substantial" is not what you might think, or indeed, what reasonable man night think. For a musical work, for example, it might be a few seconds, or less. In a written work, it might be as little as a few words (the Infopaq decision) though the critical bit is the words themselves. The test is as much, or perhaps more, about quality as quantity, and central to that is the creative effort and originality that went into the bit that's copied. And, for example, as central characters, Frodo and Gandalf embody a major part of the creative effort.

There's some precedent on all this too, with the Tolkien estate, in that they have used both trademark and copyright protection to prevent both fan fiction (certainly when it's commercial) and the use of character names .... though as fas as I'm aware, under US copyright law not UK law, and though there are lots of common elements, they aren't the same.

Anyway, it appears academic as the actual action taken here appears to be on a trademark basis, so I don't see any point in going round the houses.

[Saracen]

Can't help but think the ripples on the 'net helped that along. Somehow I doubt they're quite so charitable when it's not making big waves.

It's just a shame the default position is "stop or we'll sue" rather than engage in dialogue where both parties can come out winners.

Agreed on the first point - it may well have.

On the second para though, is that the default position? Have you seen the working of the letter? I haven't, and the opening post gave a BBC link which put it as

A letter from SZC asked it to remove all references to the characters.

"Asked" is a bit different from "stop or we'll sue".

But .... even if it was tantamount to a threat of that, well, that's lawyers for you. Also, bear in mind that such a legal letter needs to be clear, fairly brief and as unambiguous as possible, because it might be relied on later if it goes to court. A wishy washy "if you would mind terribly much, be like it is ...." won't cut it. So a tone that if clipped and succinct maybe nothing more than professional but can come across as cold and threatening.

Or, it may have been a threatening letter. I certainly don't have an opinion as I haven't seen it.

But I pointed out earlier that one publisher infringed my copyright on a number of works (by reprinting, verbatim, I might add) and my approach them them was curt and pointed too, and the semantic content amounted to "knock it the heck off, right now", couched in appropriate legalese.

And they did.

[aidanjt]

There's some precedent on all this too, with the Tolkien estate, in that they have used both trademark and copyright protection to prevent both fan fiction (certainly when it's commercial) and the use of character names .... though as fas as I'm aware, under US copyright law not UK law, and though there are lots of common elements, they aren't the same.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, yeah, now I know where you're coming from.

Anyway, it appears academic as the actual action taken here appears to be on a trademark basis, so I don't see any point in going round the houses.

Indeed.