Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

DFo wrote:I never get sick of Lovecraft ripoffs.

This has been on my mind for a couple weeks now and I'll use DFo's comment from the Monsterpocalypse thread to jump right in ...

What constitutes official Lovecraft? Who owns Cthulhu and other Lovecraftian critters?

Several summers ago I took a deep breath and dove into all the Lovecraft I could find, in search of original Cthulhu, Nyarla, Dagon, Shaggoth, etc. What I found was intensely vague and generally multiplicious - for example, the many forms of Nyarla - and actually quite disappointing, I have to admit. I didn't find the grand descriptions standing monolith-like in Lovecraft's prose that I assumed would have to be behind all the monsters and madness in all that art spawned in the decades since H.P.

Which leads me to wonder at the apparently "bottom-up" nature of the Cthulhu Mythos, where so much of the creative work has been done by the many artists and writers (and directors :S) inspired by Lovecraft's sketches. My own concept of Nyarla (my preferred Elder God) is directly influenced by the work of Nightserpent, not the obtuse commentary on the Crawling Chaos that Lovecraft gives us. Big C himself has become fairly solidifed in appearance at this point, though tentacles, slimey crawling and/or winged beasts and tentacles have become almost instantly evocative of the Mythos in general (see the recent movie The Mist, described as "Lovecraftian" in several reviews I read).

But bringing it back to models. Reaper has an "Eldritch Demon", are they just being obtuse or vaguely-almost-creative in the naming, or should they be worried about covering their ass from Cthulhu IP infringement? Is the Cthulhu Mythos under the same IP constraints that forces Copplestone to name these rather predacious aliens "Hunter Aliens"? There's a pretty impressive Cthulhu for Horrorclix, who did WizKids shell out the big bucks to to be able to make that model, as the Horrorclix line has loads of clearly mass-market characters in it?

And now PP has "The Lords of Cthul" in their new monster fighting game (which IMO are pretty cool takes on the Mythos). Even in name the tentacular critters are vaguely concealed at best ... Which brings me back to DFo's quote and my questions. I see the development of the Mythos as at it's base disconnected from the same marketing entities that give us Godzilla or King Kong or any number of Hollywood-spawned monsters that now prowl our collective imaginations (though there is a sort of recursive system of the media picking up Lovecraftian elements, repackaging and giving them back to the consumer for a tidy profit - say, the Hellboy movies for example). So ...

Who owns the Cthulhu Mythos? Who dictates what official Lovecraft monsters should look like?

- Salvage

*Note that I am no expert in any way on Cthulhu and the rest of the eldritch spookiness that makes up the Mythos. To the experts out there, please feel free to correct and elaborate, I really am interested in knowing more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Lovecraft offered all his work to public domain? So the only way you could rip off Cthulhu is if you copied someone else's interpretation.

Granted, some people might still have a problem with using someone else's ideas even if it's legally okay. Personally though, I see it as adding to the huge pool of material that it's 'okay' to draw from: folklore, myths, legends, ancient religtions....

*Note that I am no expert in any way on Cthulhu and the rest of the eldritch spookiness that makes up the Mythos. To the experts out there, please feel free to correct and elaborate, I really am interested in knowing more.

Well if it's a registered trademark I'd expect the cult of Cthulhu hold it. The only difference is that instead of legal procedures they go straight for the human sacrifice.

I'm currently an English MA candidate and a friend of mine here is a sort of Lovecraft scholar- well he's written an article or two on him. So this is what I've picked up:

A major problem with Lovecraft legally is the fact that he published in such a wide variety of sources (most now defunct) making ownership uncertain. Also, he was appreciative of others building off of his own work and ideas giving rise to the idea that everything he wrote is in public domain. While he may have wished this, it isn't legally acceptable- though anything printed before 1923 is in public domain in the U.S., I believe. Several people have claimed ownership of his copyrights on different stories. Wikipedia has a decent article on the issue. You can check out Project Gutenberg, which is the largest collection of public domain novels and work available on the internet as far as I know, of his work too.

On a practical note, several game companies "own" the right to use Cthulu and other Lovecraft elements in their games (ie trademark)- hence PP dropped the "u" to make "Cthul." Recent Pulitzer winner, The Adventures of Cavalier and Klay has a whole subplot taken from At the Mountains of Madness- and is worth the read.

Like any mythos though, you can't really find a singular official narrative. While we can pick up a book of Greek Myth, for example, and it seems singular. coherent, etc., the Greeks had many different versions of their myths and gods- only complicated as time went on and new gods and heroes were added into the pantheon, old ones removed, etc. I see Lovecraft in the same way, a mythology, which means it will inherently be divided, confusing, and even at times contradictory. You own adaptation of Lovecraft's creations into 40k are a good example of how myth-making works. For the legal side of things the simplest method is the date- if it was printed before 1923 its free in the U.S. (with few exceptions).

A bit rambling, but I hope it helped in the slightest.