Copyright claim against Tolkien estate backfires on LOTR fanfiction author
An unlicensed Lord of the Rings “sequel” author who tried to sue the Tolkien estate and Amazon for alleged infringement instead triggered a countersuit that is likely to see his own fanfiction removed and destroyed. Commenters use the case to explore how copyright treats derivative works and fictional characters, the legal risks of commercial fanfiction, and broader concerns about ever‑longer copyright terms that let estates and corporations tightly control influential cultural works long after an author’s death.
Copyright term & public domain timing
- Commenters note that the original works will enter public domain in some countries (life+50) earlier than in others (life+70).
- New Zealand and other life+50 jurisdictions are discussed as places where the works will be free to use sooner, though only for local markets.
- Several people see the long post‑mortem term as excessive and the result of lobbying and gradual extensions.
Availability and quality of the disputed book
- People search for the book, finding it removed from major platforms except some remaining listings and a U.S. court exhibit (via RECAP), which may keep it accessible.
- Multiple readers say the writing is very poor, “amateurish,” and not stylistically close to the original novels.
- Some recommend other fan works and crossovers they consider better written, though often unfinished.
Fanfiction, fangames & derivative creativity
- One side argues: if you’re capable of creating a full game or novel, use your own IP; attaching it to a famous franchise just invites legal trouble.
- Others emphasize the joy of tribute, shared culture, and learning by recreating beloved worlds, even if takedown is likely.
- There’s debate over whether derivative commercial projects meaningfully cut into the original’s sales; some think almost all fans already own the canon works.
Legal status of derivative works
- Several comments explain that sequels and in‑universe stories are derivative works, typically requiring permission.
- Debate over whether unauthorized derivative works themselves enjoy copyright:
- Some claim the derivative author still owns original elements.
- Others cite case law suggesting infringing derivatives confer no usable rights.
- International differences are mentioned (e.g., UK, Japan), with practice often relying on rightsholders “turning a blind eye” until money or harm is involved.
- Questions arise about court orders requiring destruction of all copies, including digital; some note practical limits to “digital eradication.”
Estates, control & cultural ownership
- Many see suing the estate and a major studio as strategically disastrous, possibly a failed attempt to force licensing.
- Others criticize how estates and corporations control culture decades after death, arguing the system favors rent‑seeking heirs over the public domain.
- There is tension between wanting creators’ families to benefit and concern about long-term cultural lock‑up.