Can't be bothered to look at my old IP notes, but I'm pretty sure that this cannot threaten the film company in any way. The only thing they are stopped from doing is opening a pub on that precise spot...
"The Hobbit" vs "The Hobbit" Pub
- Thread starter baconsarnie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You mean thirty years ago in another country? That is SO relevant to what I just said!Kendarik said:
I live in Southampton and have been following this story for the last week since the news came out. I'm surprised to see just how high profile this case has gone in such a short amount of time. Of course it is obvious to anyone that the pub, which has been around for over two decades, isn't 'cashing in' on the films but is instead a fun themed pub made by and for fans of Tolkien's work.
It isn't harming anyone and is in fact one of the most famous and popular landmarks in the Portswood area and is the drinking spot of choice for everyone in ECS and the Engineering departments.
This is just a film studio trying to throw their weight around, shame it's just harming the films and not helping anyone.
We should have a Southampton Escapist meet-up at the Hobbit. That would be cool.
It isn't harming anyone and is in fact one of the most famous and popular landmarks in the Portswood area and is the drinking spot of choice for everyone in ECS and the Engineering departments.
This is just a film studio trying to throw their weight around, shame it's just harming the films and not helping anyone.
We should have a Southampton Escapist meet-up at the Hobbit. That would be cool.
You're also making the pretty big assumption that the corporation owning the IP rights have known that the pubs existed for as long as it's been in business. Just because you may be a corporation, doesn't mean that you know the name and operations of every single business in the world.Melon Hunter said:
It is entirely possible this pub was not known to them until recently.
They weren't trying to steal something from Tolkien's IP, they're trying to profit from that IP without the owner of that IP's approval.
This should just end with the pub staying open, paying royalties on sales or income to the IP owners.
The pub should have asked for permission and negotiated a deal with the owner of the IP before using it. Just using someone else's IP and profiting from it without informing them is kind of a dick move. Its not up to the owner of the IP to constantly look for people using their IP. Its up to the people wanting to use it to ask for permission before doing so.
Pretty sure that the studios only have copyright on The Lord of The Rings film adaptations and their merchandise - e.g. the likeness of characters used in the film - Elijah Wood as Frodo, Ian McKellen as Gandalf, etc. LOTR was published over half a century ago. It has become a part of English literary culture. You can't copyright cultural heritage. It would be more understandable if we were talking about Harry Potter, a more recent phenomenon whose author is still alive and kicking and which is still well within its copyright + trademark.
You have a point. However, the timing of this lawsuit makes me very suspicious. We'll probably never know for sure, but I have more than an inkling that the Hobbit movie coming soon has a hand in this.Psykoma said:
What really draws my ire against the corporation is what you mentioned last; there is no middle ground, simply an ultimatum of 'change your entire pub's theme, or be hit by a legal nuke', with no thought for the consequences. Typical for a large corporation taking on a small business like this.
Also, the user I was originally quoting seems to be going out of his way to paint the pub's owners as the bad guys. As I said before, this is an affectionate homage. I happen to have visited the pub in question, and there is no doubt of their love of Tolkien's works. Whatever 'damage' they might have incurred, it was utterly unintentional. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about by describing it as a 'dick move'. He seems almost fixated upon this pub being shut down, which is not the sort of person I wish to debate with.
If you do not wish to debate me then simply stop addressing me. Its that simple.
Using someone else's intellectual property without asking for permission is wrong. And when you do it you take the risk of legal ramifications if you get caught and this pub was caught. If the pub can stand up on its own without the stolen name then they will have no problems switching name.
Its not unreasonable for them to drop a legal nuke on the pub. If he pub had contacted the owner of the IP and asked for permission then perhaps there could have been room for a deal to use the name. It is only after they are caught violating the IP that they want to negotiate, too little too late. They had 20 years to contact the owner on their own accord to negotiate n agreement for the use of the name.
I would have done the exact same thing if the IP had been mine and someone else had used it without my permission and then asked me to cut them a break once I catch them.
Using someone else's intellectual property without asking for permission is wrong. And when you do it you take the risk of legal ramifications if you get caught and this pub was caught. If the pub can stand up on its own without the stolen name then they will have no problems switching name.
Its not unreasonable for them to drop a legal nuke on the pub. If he pub had contacted the owner of the IP and asked for permission then perhaps there could have been room for a deal to use the name. It is only after they are caught violating the IP that they want to negotiate, too little too late. They had 20 years to contact the owner on their own accord to negotiate n agreement for the use of the name.
I would have done the exact same thing if the IP had been mine and someone else had used it without my permission and then asked me to cut them a break once I catch them.
While not as incendiary as that last post, the company has agreed to let the pub keep all Lord of the Rings references for a nominal fee of $100: Link here [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17390623]Dejawesp said:
See? There is always a more reasonable standpoint to take than simply eradicating all traces of unlicensed products in IP conflicts. The pub and its regulars are happy, and the owners of the Hobbit IP get to avoid the PR disaster that would have ensued by pursuing this lawsuit any further.
As of writing the most recent facebook update from the campaign about 15 mins ago
"To our army of loyal Hobbits,
I can confirm that the SZC have contacted the press.
The SZC have stated that they would like to resolve the matter of our possible copy right infringement amicably.
The SZC wishes to avoid a lengthy court battle with Punch Taverns as it feels that there would be a role reversal in that the SZC would be David and Punch Taverns Goliath. (Snigger snigger!)
They have asked that we arrange to operate by way of License and that they would grant this License for a nominal fee of $100 per annum.
It does not, however, tell us what this License would entitle us to.
However, there is one thing we are 100% certain of and that is that the support of 48,000 people plus the support of Stephen Fry, Neil Gaiman and Sir Ian McKellen has got them a little FREAKED OUT.
I am sure they thought we would just roll over and bow down to their bullying tactics.
Picked the wrong bunch of Hobbits didn't they ?
As soon as we hear back from the Solicitors as to the terms and conditions of this license we will update you.
Thank you all so very much and keep spreading the word."
"To our army of loyal Hobbits,
I can confirm that the SZC have contacted the press.
The SZC have stated that they would like to resolve the matter of our possible copy right infringement amicably.
The SZC wishes to avoid a lengthy court battle with Punch Taverns as it feels that there would be a role reversal in that the SZC would be David and Punch Taverns Goliath. (Snigger snigger!)
They have asked that we arrange to operate by way of License and that they would grant this License for a nominal fee of $100 per annum.
It does not, however, tell us what this License would entitle us to.
However, there is one thing we are 100% certain of and that is that the support of 48,000 people plus the support of Stephen Fry, Neil Gaiman and Sir Ian McKellen has got them a little FREAKED OUT.
I am sure they thought we would just roll over and bow down to their bullying tactics.
Picked the wrong bunch of Hobbits didn't they ?
As soon as we hear back from the Solicitors as to the terms and conditions of this license we will update you.
Thank you all so very much and keep spreading the word."
And here we have yet another example of why our IP laws are broken. We need to go back to the original 25 years from the date of publication standard, or maybe even do away with the notion of owning an idea entirely.
That's what the pub said? the Owner of the IP let them keep their pub name and their response is to gloat and taunt them? Man that pub owner is a real dick. Perhaps they should have dropped the legal nuke on the pub after all.DionysusSnoopy said:
Reminded me of this comic:Owyn_Merrilin said:
Its always the people who just haven't spent millions of dollars developing an idea that thinks ideas should be free. Its always the people who want them without having to pay for them.