Tolkien Collector's Guide
Sign In
Tolkien Collector's Guide
Important links:

Guide to Tolkien's Letters
-
Winner of the 2019 Tolkien Society award for Best Website

1...1213141516...273
30 Nov, 2010 (edited)
2010-11-30 3:50:34 PM UTC
He does not have any incentive to stop as he always sells the fakes. He will carry on indefinitely.

It is sad to see that The Tolkien Estate have no problem with fake Tolkien signatures being sold, as they do nothing to stop them,
1 Dec, 2010
2010-12-1 4:05:16 AM UTC
The same letter was offered on eBay almost a year ago by "classic_art_uk". We commented in this thread.

Here's an opportunity to buy a "Tolkien" signature for cheap!

Last year, the bidding started at $800, with Buy It Now at $1,500, versus the current $599.99 and $699.99.

It is sad to see that The Tolkien Estate have no problem with fake Tolkien signatures being sold, as they do nothing to stop them.

It's unfair to say that Estate "have no problem" with this, since none of us is privy to the many actions they take quietly and privately - in so far as they can take them. (Is a fake Tolkien letter a fraud against the Estate, or against whomever is foolish enough to buy it?)

Wayne & Christina
1 Dec, 2010
2010-12-1 4:45:04 AM UTC
It is funny (not ha-ha funny) but it occurs to me:

My understanding is that the estate controls the publication rights for Tolkien's materials (published books, manuscripts, letters, artwork, etc.) but not the materials themselves (owned by Marquette, Wade, Bodleian, private collectors, etc.) The owners of the originals may sell, trade, give away, display as much as they please, but cannot reproduce the item for publication without permission.

So technically, the Estate may have some ground to prevent the publication of a real letter in an auction catalog or website (though clearly there is some fair use grounds here), but what grounds would they have to prevent the auction listing for a fraudulent letter?

It is against the law to sell fraudulent artwork, but that has no bearing on the Estate. The Estate cannot have copyright control over something that is not produced by Tolkien! They can push to prosecute a fraudulent seller, but so can anyone else. Perhaps they can be considered a strong authority on whether a particular item is fake or not, but eBay has shown that they don't really care - they get more profit (listing and sale fees) the more frauds that sell...

http://reviews.ebay.com/Scam-Alert-eB ... 0QQugidZ10000000001451263
1 Dec, 2010
2010-12-1 6:09:09 AM UTC
There are some interesting parallels on this website

http://www.lenkiewicz.org/index.php?o ... ion=printpage;topic=739.0

where people are arguing that the executor/estate should try and protect the reputation of the individual by preventing fakes from being sold.

I'm sure that the Tolkien Estate are very interested in protecting Tolkien's reputation, in fact as I see it they may be only entity that eBay would take any notice of in this regard.
1 Dec, 2010
2010-12-1 7:30:19 AM UTC
Some very good points raised from that thread you shared, Trotter:

Conventional auctioneers have also reported that large numbers of dubious watercolours and so-called self-portraits, which often fool the inexperienced, being offered for sale have also contributed to the inexorable decline in confidence amongst potential buyers.

The Lenkiewicz Foundation, which has seen the value of their assets plunge due to the flood of forgeries and mis-attributions issued the following statement...

Emphasis added by me. So it is not just reputation that is at stake, but the financial value of the Estates holdings as well - as evidenced by another Estate that has suffered measurable declines in value due to massive forgeries and mis-attributions.
1 Dec, 2010
2010-12-1 9:42:17 AM UTC
Jeremy,

The quote that you mentioned is made up, if you look at the date "Evening Herald April 1, 2012", but I think the point is valid.
1 Dec, 2010
2010-12-1 8:18:07 PM UTC
Jeremy, I think the shorter way of summing up your previous point is that ownership of an item (letters in this case) does not equate to ownership of copyright. (e.g. You can buy an original Ted Nasmith the next time you're at Moreton, but you're not buying the copyright for it..)

BH
2 Dec, 2010 (edited)
2010-12-2 10:12:40 PM UTC
This one's pretty funny! I'm almost tempted to buy one for my house (if it didn't have to be shipped from Australia). It'd be perfect for any home bar or game room - and in the long run, it will save you a lot of "Powder!"

http://cgi.ebay.com/J883B-LED-Sign-Sa ... 4154ea29c8#ht_3029wt_1132

7 Dec, 2010
2010-12-7 9:16:08 PM UTC
Does not appear that ebay will be forced to deal with the fakes and frauds, at least not by the US Courts. No liability for ebay the ruling states.


http://www.antiquestradegazette.com:8 ... n=update&utm_content=ATG2
7 Dec, 2010
2010-12-7 9:49:48 PM UTC
"A ruling in favour of Tiffany would have forced eBay to vet their listings, but two lower courts had previously sided with eBay, saying the online auctioneers couldn't be held liable unless they had specific knowledge that particular items might be counterfeit. But in a July 2008 ruling, a U.S. District Court said that ultimately it was the responsibility of the trademark holder to monitor instances of trademark infringement."

So, it looks as though it's up to the Estate to police this sort of thing. Or is it? Doesn't always come back to the old maxim, 'Buyer beware?'
1...1213141516...273
Jump to Last
All original content ©2024 by the submitting authors. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Contact Us