Hobbit and Lotr rights were sold before JRR Tolkiens death to a separate company. The inherited rights, controlled by Christopher Tolkien concerning his fathers other works, are unavailable for licensing effectively, because C Tolkien is a massive snob who doesn't feel that film or any other medium can possible meet the standards needed.thaluikhain said:
"The Hobbit" vs "The Hobbit" Pub
- Thread starter baconsarnie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes really. Any person swinging facebook around like a weapon and citing it for significance should be parried by common sense and then annihilated.Melon Hunter said:
If the Saul Zantez Company doesn't defend their IP then they set a precedent for other people to abuse it in the future.Melon Hunter said:
40,000 people signed a petition asking for the lawsuit against the pub to be dropped. Regardless of where that petition is hosted, that's a pretty damn significant number. Anyone arguing otherwise should, to paraphrase yourself, 'be parried by common sense and then annihilated.' Allowing your own personal prejudices against social networking sites into your argument will endear you to no-one.Dejawesp said:
Besides, if they're defending their IP, why didn't they do this way back in 2001 when the Fellowship of the Ring was released? Y'know, that film with hobbits in? In the 11 years since, I have roundly failed to see any significant abuse of the IP. The motives behind this are not rooted in defending their IP; it is simple greed.
If they did, it'd probably be a cold, focus-grouped corporate monstrosity with as much personality as a granite accountant.Palfreyfish said:
It does seem a bit unfair. There're more Sherlock Holmes-themed pubs in London alone than you can shake a slipper full of tobacco at, but they get a free pass because the Holmes IP has been fair game for yonks, even though Tolkien's 'Legendarium', whatever the fuck that is, is only marginally less well-known than Conan Doyle's nosey crackhead.
John Mortimer, who wrote the Rumpole of the Bailey TV show and books, was fully aware there were pubs all over the world named after his character, and he just seemed flattered, if slightly perplexed. Tolkien was a man who liked his ale, apparently. I don't know if he'd have minded his books being the basis for a pub, provided they'd let him have drinks on the house for life.
What I'm wondering is, will legal action be taken against the band 'Marillion', or are they saving that until they produce Gemzapoppin': the Silmarillion Musical?
Steven Fry and Neil Gaiman are on board too. I've been going to the Hobbit for years and love it to bits. Great pub, great music venue (love playing there). The thing that has me particularly narked about the whole situation (apart from how pointless it all is) is that SZC have owned the rights since before the 1978 animated version of Lord of the Rings (and have held it for 15 years in the UK). Yet they have waited until now to get involved. They have also hit out at the Hungry Hobbit Cafe in Birmingham. Here's hoping that we can help Stella keep the Hobbit just the way it is!
People do not pay taxes do the zantez company. Its a private company and not a public institution and as such are not entitled to any voice on their business matters.Melon Hunter said:
If they had done so back in 2001 then we would have had this debate in 2001 with you asking why they didn't do it in 1991 and so on.Melon Hunter said:
They had the right to do it since the pub was started. When they decide to take action is at their own leisure. When you violate someone's IP you play with fire.
This is a clear cut violation where the pub profits from someone else's IP without permission or paying for it.
Why should paying taxes have anything to do with it? As I have constantly reiterated, this pub has done no harm to the company. It is an affectionate theming. It is certainly not a nationwide chain, or any other large-scale company that would affect the revenues of Saul Zaentz. The petition is a an attempt to show the company that the negative PR generated by pursuing this lawsuit will far outweigh any monetary gain.Dejawesp said:
Except no LoTR film was released in 1991. The question remains; why choose to do it now, rather than when the first film they released featuring hobbits came out? Apparently they were quite happy to leave it alone then. They've had the right to do it since the pub was formulated, as his company (or at least the man himself) has owned the rights since 1976. The fact that they only begin a lawsuit now, when the Hobbit film comes out in a few months, speaks volumes about their motives here.Dejawesp said:
You seem to assume the founders of this pub were attempting to steal something from Tolkien's legacy simply by paying homage to it. This is profoundly not the case, and until you realise that, I have nothing more to say to you on the issue.
They should go after Led Zeppelin too. Teach those assholes that using themes from a 75 year old property whose author has been dead for 40 years is unacceptable! If anything except for a corporation makes use of this authors works then the world as we know it might come to an end.Dejawesp said:
I support these valiant corporate lawyers...I think that next they should sue Minecraft on behalf of both a large mining corporation, Lego, and Blizzard because "craft" is part of there namebrand and they need to protect their branding.
What I think is a bit of a travesty is that it's pretty clear that a lot of hard work's gone into this pub, and the result is a genuinely wonderful place to go to in order to imbibe perception-altering substances. But godawful, ham-fisted, lazy, evil cack like Bored of the Rings and The Soddit slug by unscathed because they're 'parody'.
I lived in Southampton for 4 years while I did my degree. The Hobbit is the best pub in the world, with great beer, crazy cocktails and amazing staff. They have regular live music and a huge beer garden with a fantastic atmosphere.
SZC are a bunch of sodding bullies. I realise they have the legal right to do this, but just because they can doesn't mean they should.
SZC are a bunch of sodding bullies. I realise they have the legal right to do this, but just because they can doesn't mean they should.
Because citizens signing a petition to show support for or against government action has legitimate value as the government represents them. Making a petition to force a private company to do something makes about as much sense as the old story where a neighbourhood started a petition to force one person living there to change his flower arrangement to suit the others themeMelon Hunter said:
Its not a homage. They are using the tolkien theme to attract customers to the pub and make money off of someone else's IP without paying the owners of the IP any money. Its like starting a Disney themed restaurant without permission and serve Mickey Mouse milkshakes.Dejawesp said:
There's a wee bit of different in using the last name of a man that has been dead for half a century and taking an active intellectual property and copying the names, character and themes for profit.Sandytimeman said:
Was Zeppelin even an owned trademark in 1966? Was it ever an owned trademark?
Except that craft is a reference to crafting in general where as "The Hobbit bar" is a reference to "The Hobbit" Intellectual property, going so far as to use characters from the story and names. Do I really have to spell out the difference for you?Sandytimeman said:
The simple fact is the pub is using someone else's work in order to make money which is exactly what copyright is meant to stop and you also have to consider that the hobbit film is going to be aimed at people to young to drink and the company probably doesn't want that association to be made which is fair enough so as far as i'm concerned the pub is in the wrong here