Go
to the Last Post in this thread.
|
Can someone please
explain GW's Liscence? - Grimhelm
Replies [9]. This Reply Posted [12/16/2005
8:09].
|
|
I don't get (and mabye it's just out
of ignorance of such legal matters, but still). People say
"Let's have some Gondolin Elves!" Or, "Will GW ever make 'The
Hobbit'?" And the answer always is "No, they don't have a
liscence for the Silmarillon," or something similar. Why, if
they don't have the liscence, are they able to come out with
Eorl? He was in Unifinished Tales, and when we say "Why isn't
his horse white? It's one of the Mearas," we are told that
they don't have a liscence for UT. How did they get Eorl in
the first place then? Okay, so mabye he was in Lord of the
Rings, but why can't they justify painting a horse
white?
And what about Fall of the Necromancer? I
thought he was in the Silmarillion, derived from two short
lines in the Hobbit. How did GW get the liscence for
that?
I'm not complaining. I just want to know what the
Games Workshop liscence for Lord of the Rings can do.
Reply
Top |
|
RE: Can someone
please explain GW's Liscence? - yipaint
Replies [0]. This Reply Posted [12/14/2005
14:22].
|
|
>> I don't get (and mabye it's
just out of ignorance of such legal matters, but still).
People say "Let's have some Gondolin Elves!" Or, "Will GW ever
make 'The Hobbit'?" And the answer always is "No, they don't
have a liscence for the Silmarillon," or something similar.
Why, if they don't have the liscence, are they able to come
out with Eorl? He was in Unifinished Tales, and when we say
"Why isn't his horse white? It's one of the Mearas," we are
told that they don't have a liscence for UT. How did they get
Eorl in the first place then? Okay, so mabye he was in Lord of
the Rings, but why can't they justify painting a horse
white?
>>
>> And what about Fall of the
Necromancer? I thought he was in the Silmarillion, derived
from two short lines in the Hobbit. How did GW get the
liscence for that?
>>
>> I'm not
complaining. I just want to know what the Games Workshop
liscence for Lord of the Rings can do.
Also, didn't New
Line and the Tolkien estate have to approve models at one
point in time? Does GW's book license cover that, or can they
do whatever they feel like so long as it is in the book in
some form or other?
yipaint
Reply
Top |
|
RE: Can someone
please explain GW's Liscence? - MOD-Khamul Of The Nine (Steve) mailto:shammatt@hotmail.com?subject=RE:
Can someone please explain GW's Liscence?
Replies [0]. This Reply Posted [12/14/2005
14:25].
|
|
GW's licence covers the LOTR
(both film and book) and The Hobbit (the book).
More
than that though, you're not going to get from GW I'm afraid.
The details of their licence are commercially confidential
(just like the details of most contracts drawn up between two
companies), so they're not going to give any official response
on matters like this.
The best thing to do is to look
at what they've produced so far (and what we know is coming
out soon) to see examples of what they clearly are able to do
within the terms of their licence.
Khamul/Steve.
Reply
Top |
|
RE: Can someone
please explain GW's Liscence? - TheSouthron
Replies [6]. This Reply Posted [12/16/2005
8:09].
|
|
>> I don't get (and mabye it's
just out of ignorance of such legal matters, but still).
People say "Let's have some Gondolin Elves!" Or, "Will GW ever
make 'The Hobbit'?" And the answer always is "No, they don't
have a liscence for the Silmarillon," or something similar.
Why, if they don't have the liscence, are they able to come
out with Eorl? He was in Unifinished Tales, and when we say
"Why isn't his horse white? It's one of the Mearas," we are
told that they don't have a liscence for UT. How did they get
Eorl in the first place then? Okay, so mabye he was in Lord of
the Rings, but why can't they justify painting a horse
white?
My understanding (and I'm not an authority, just
a devoted fan) is that GW can use any character from the books
(The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit), OR the movies (Madril
is a good example of a movie character not named in the
books).
ɯrl is mentioned in the Lord of the Rings
(twice). Hypothetically speaking, GW could even release a
Morgoth mini (Gandalf's "A Balrog of Morgoth" line from the
movies), but not a Melkor model (The Silmarillion) ? even
though they're one and the same being! As for ɯrl's horse,
he's not mentioned by name in the LotR; that would explain why
they can't depict the steed as a mearh.
>> And
what about Fall of the Necromancer? I thought he was in the
Silmarillion, derived from two short lines in the Hobbit. How
did GW get the liscence for that?
No, the Necromancer
is mentioned in the Lord of the Rings. For a good reference to
who's covered by the license, look in the "Persons, Beasts and
Monsters", Part One of the Glossary-Index at the back of LotR.
If you find the name there, GW can probably release a model
for it.
>> I'm not complaining. I just want to
know what the Games Workshop liscence for Lord of the Rings
can do.
My understanding is that the Tolkien Estate
does not grant licenses for The Silmarillion properties to any
merchandisers, period (except for calendars, but that's a
slightly different thing). They want the Professor's grand
myth to remain pure and unsullied. Not even Tolkien
Enterprises (not connected to the Estate and already
possessing the license to LotR and The Hobbbit) can release
Simarillion stuff.
Therefore, unless the Tolkien Estate
changes it's policy, we are unlikely to see Silmarillion-based
movies or models?ever. So, no Gondolin Elves, no sons of F롮or,
etc. BUT there could concievably be Hador, H? T? and Beren,
etc. since they're mentioned in LotR. The troop types they
would lead might be another matter though, so they might not
be practical choices.
That's my sense of it. But then
again...I could be wrong.
The Southron
Reply
Top |
|
RE: RE: Can
someone please explain GW's Liscence? - hammershield
Replies [5]. This Reply Posted [12/16/2005
8:09].
|
|
Here is an inconsistency though:
"Khamul the Easterling" is never mentioned by that name in
tLotR or tH (of course). He is first named by that name in
Unfinished Tales, which is not part of the GW license. Tolkien
Enterprises, an idependent company which issues licenses, does
not have the rights to the Silmarillon, UT and tehother texts.
Those rights are still with the Tolkien familly.
>> >> I don't get (and mabye it's just
out of ignorance of such legal matters, but still). People say
"Let's have some Gondolin Elves!" Or, "Will GW ever make 'The
Hobbit'?" And the answer always is "No, they don't have a
liscence for the Silmarillon," or something similar. Why, if
they don't have the liscence, are they able to come out with
Eorl? He was in Unifinished Tales, and when we say "Why isn't
his horse white? It's one of the Mearas," we are told that
they don't have a liscence for UT. How did they get Eorl in
the first place then? Okay, so mabye he was in Lord of the
Rings, but why can't they justify painting a horse
white?
>>
>> My understanding (and I'm not
an authority, just a devoted fan) is that GW can use any
character from the books (The Lord of the Rings and The
Hobbit), OR the movies (Madril is a good example of a movie
character not named in the books).
>>
>>
ɯrl is mentioned in the Lord of the Rings (twice).
Hypothetically speaking, GW could even release a Morgoth mini
(Gandalf's "A Balrog of Morgoth" line from the movies), but
not a Melkor model (The Silmarillion) ? even though they're
one and the same being! As for ɯrl's horse, he's not mentioned
by name in the LotR; that would explain why they can't depict
the steed as a mearh.
>>
>> >> And
what about Fall of the Necromancer? I thought he was in the
Silmarillion, derived from two short lines in the Hobbit. How
did GW get the liscence for that?
>>
>> No,
the Necromancer is mentioned in the Lord of the Rings. For a
good reference to who's covered by the license, look in the
"Persons, Beasts and Monsters", Part One of the Glossary-Index
at the back of LotR. If you find the name there, GW can
probably release a model for it.
>>
>>
>> I'm not complaining. I just want to know what the
Games Workshop liscence for Lord of the Rings can
do.
>>
>> My understanding is that the
Tolkien Estate does not grant licenses for The Silmarillion
properties to any merchandisers, period (except for calendars,
but that's a slightly different thing). They want the
Professor's grand myth to remain pure and unsullied. Not even
Tolkien Enterprises (not connected to the Estate and already
possessing the license to LotR and The Hobbbit) can release
Simarillion stuff.
>>
>> Therefore, unless
the Tolkien Estate changes it's policy, we are unlikely to see
Silmarillion-based movies or models?ever. So, no Gondolin
Elves, no sons of F롮or, etc. BUT there could concievably be
Hador, H? T? and Beren, etc. since they're mentioned in LotR.
The troop types they would lead might be another matter
though, so they might not be practical choices.
>>
>> That's my sense of it. But then again...I could
be wrong.
>>
>> The Southron
Reply
Top |
|
RE: RE: RE: Can
someone please explain GW's Liscence? - TheSouthron
Replies [4]. This Reply Posted [12/16/2005
8:09].
|
|
>> Here is an inconsistency
though: "Khamul the Easterling" is never mentioned by that
name in tLotR or tH (of course). He is first named by that
name in Unfinished Tales, which is not part of the GW license.
Tolkien Enterprises, an idependent company which issues
licenses, does not have the rights to the Silmarillon, UT and
tehother texts. Those rights are still with the Tolkien
familly.
Yes. Sometimes licensees are able to "sneak
one past" the Tolkien Enterprises people. I don't know that
that's what happened here, but it sure looks like
it...
The Southron
Reply
Top |
|
RE: RE: RE: RE:
Can someone please explain GW's Liscence? - MOD-Khamul Of The Nine (Steve) mailto:shammatt@hotmail.com?subject=RE:
RE: RE: RE: Can someone please explain GW's
Liscence?
Replies [3].
This Reply Posted [12/16/2005 8:09].
|
|
>> Yes. Sometimes licensees are
able to "sneak one past" the Tolkien Enterprises people. I
don't know that that's what happened here, but it sure looks
like it...
>>
I don't think GW would attempt
to knowingly "sneak" anything past, their licence is far too
valuable to resist losing it.
GW must have found some
legitimate way that they could use the name
"Khamul".
Khamul/Steve.
Reply
Top |
|
RE: RE: RE: RE:
RE: Can someone please explain GW's Liscence? -
calrax
Replies [2]. This Reply Posted [12/16/2005
8:09].
|
|
>> >> Yes. Sometimes
licensees are able to "sneak one past" the Tolkien Enterprises
people. I don't know that that's what happened here, but it
sure looks like it...
>> >>
>>
>> I don't think GW would attempt to knowingly
"sneak" anything past, their licence is far too valuable to
resist losing it.
>>
>> GW must have found
some legitimate way that they could use the name
"Khamul".
>>
>>
>>
Khamul/Steve.
They indeed have. At least that is what
Adam Troke told me couple of months ago, when I had the chance
to talk with him.
He told me that Tolkien Estate gave
the permission for GW the use the name Khamul from the
Unifinished Tales, but nothing further.
(For example,
the game developers wanted to used detailed descriptions of
battles between Rohan and Isengard from UT as basis for
scenarios in the TTT suplement, but it was
forbidden.)
As we have seen, GW can include their own
background and characters into the supplements. Adam told me
that this is roughly how thGW presented their case to Tolkien
Estate:
"We are going to include a named ringwraith in
one of our supplements. We are going to call him either Bob
the Ringwraith (this was the actual name that Adam mentioned)
or Khamul the Easterling, you can choose which one we will
use."
Adam said that they (GW) were pretty surprised
that they got their way in this one.
I'm not sure if
this is what actually happened, but at least it is the story
that Adam told me.
Reply
Top |
|
RE: RE: RE: RE:
RE: RE: Can someone please explain GW's Liscence? -
commoner
Replies [0]. This Reply Posted [12/15/2005
17:31].
|
|
At a Games Day, I was also told by
some GW big wig that GW has the rights to make the Hobbit in
any other scale but the 25mm. This is still licensed to
another company.
He also jokingly mentioned, they
could possibly in the future get around that problem if The
Hobbit is made into film. Then they could license off the
film, but not the book, to make 25mm hobbit miniatures.
Therefore, for the hobbit, we would probably see what we see
in the films, but not in the standard scale.
This was
2.5 years ago so things might have changed since then. But,
back then, according to Mr. Big Wig, this is why the Battle of
the Five Armies was released in Epic scale.
Reply
Top |
|
RE: RE: RE: RE:
RE: RE: Can someone please explain GW's Liscence? -
hammershield
Replies [0]. This Reply Posted [12/16/2005
8:09].
|
|
>> >> >> Yes.
Sometimes licensees are able to "sneak one past" the Tolkien
Enterprises people. I don't know that that's what happened
here, but it sure looks like it...
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>> >> I don't
think GW would attempt to knowingly "sneak" anything past,
their licence is far too valuable to resist losing
it.
>> >>
>> >> GW must have
found some legitimate way that they could use the name
"Khamul".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Khamul/Steve.
>>
>>
They indeed have. At least that is what Adam Troke told me
couple of months ago, when I had the chance to talk with
him.
>>
>> He told me that Tolkien Estate
gave the permission for GW the use the name Khamul from the
Unifinished Tales, but nothing further.
>>
>> (For example, the game developers wanted to used
detailed descriptions of battles between Rohan and Isengard
from UT as basis for scenarios in the TTT suplement, but it
was forbidden.)
>>
>> As we have seen, GW
can include their own background and characters into the
supplements. Adam told me that this is roughly how thGW
presented their case to Tolkien Estate:
>>
>> "We are going to include a named ringwraith in
one of our supplements. We are going to call him either Bob
the Ringwraith (this was the actual name that Adam mentioned)
or Khamul the Easterling, you can choose which one we will
use."
Interesting. I can see why the Tolkien Estate
went with Khamul in this case.
Reply
Top |
|
