"The Hobbit" vs "The Hobbit" Pub

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Actually, the law literally does dictate what fair use is. Fair use is a legal term; Wikipedia lives and dies by it.

Yeah and opening a profiting bar on the theme is not fair use.

And the way copyright is supposed to work, the way it originally worked, is that 25 years after a work is published, it goes into the public domain. Now, its sequels did not go into the public domain until after they had been around for 25 years. So, for example, right now if the original law were still in place, anyone could make their own Star Wars sequel, but they could only base it on the original trilogy, material from the prequels would be off limits.

All right great. So we can make a movie with adult darth vader but not young darth vader and any references made to Anakin Skywalker would have to be about the last scenes in the last movie of the first set of movies.

And of course it could also not feature any Obiwan without a beard I suppose, Boba fet would be okay but Jango or his mention would be totally against the rules.

I doubt anyone is going to be crying over not being able to use jar jar.

The emperor is in both the sequels and prequels so I'm not sure what we would do there. So is Jabba the hut and Darth vader in his black suit is in the prequels briefly so is he off limits or what?



I'm sure this wouldn't tie up the court systems or anything.... And for what? So EA can make old republic without George Lucas? Where is the greater good in here? The socialist free idea stuff?

Actually, no. Young Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, and beardless Obi-Wan would be fine, because they're all derived from the original trilogy. Watto, Padme Amidala, and Jar Jar Binks would not, because they were originally created for the prequel trilogy. And no, it wouldn't tie up the court systems. Look up some of what happened with Sherlock Holmes and Conan the Barbarian. Both of those had portions of the series go into the public domain before the DMCA extended it, and there were portions that were covered after, yet the courts weren't tied up by legal battles. Far from it in Sherlock Holme's case; ever hear of Sherlock on the BBC?

 

[Dejawesp]

Actually, the law literally does dictate what fair use is. Fair use is a legal term; Wikipedia lives and dies by it.

Yeah and opening a profiting bar on the theme is not fair use.

And the way copyright is supposed to work, the way it originally worked, is that 25 years after a work is published, it goes into the public domain. Now, its sequels did not go into the public domain until after they had been around for 25 years. So, for example, right now if the original law were still in place, anyone could make their own Star Wars sequel, but they could only base it on the original trilogy, material from the prequels would be off limits.

All right great. So we can make a movie with adult darth vader but not young darth vader and any references made to Anakin Skywalker would have to be about the last scenes in the last movie of the first set of movies.

And of course it could also not feature any Obiwan without a beard I suppose, Boba fet would be okay but Jango or his mention would be totally against the rules.

I doubt anyone is going to be crying over not being able to use jar jar.

The emperor is in both the sequels and prequels so I'm not sure what we would do there. So is Jabba the hut and Darth vader in his black suit is in the prequels briefly so is he off limits or what?



I'm sure this wouldn't tie up the court systems or anything.... And for what? So EA can make old republic without George Lucas? Where is the greater good in here? The socialist free idea stuff?

Actually, no. Young Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, and beardless Obi-Wan would be fine, because they're all derived from the original trilogy. Watto, Padme Amidala, and Jar Jar Binks would not, because they were originally created for the prequel trilogy. And no, it wouldn't tie up the court systems. Look up some of what happened with Sherlock Holmes and Conan the Barbarian. Both of those had portions of the series go into the public domain before the DMCA extended it, and there were portions that were covered after, yet the courts weren't tied up by legal battles. Far from it in Sherlock Holme's case; ever hear of Sherlock on the BBC?

Yeah because Arthur Conan Doyle has been dead for near a century so there's no newer works to muck it all up. And people could easily argue that Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are two different characters

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Actually, the law literally does dictate what fair use is. Fair use is a legal term; Wikipedia lives and dies by it.

Yeah and opening a profiting bar on the theme is not fair use.

And the way copyright is supposed to work, the way it originally worked, is that 25 years after a work is published, it goes into the public domain. Now, its sequels did not go into the public domain until after they had been around for 25 years. So, for example, right now if the original law were still in place, anyone could make their own Star Wars sequel, but they could only base it on the original trilogy, material from the prequels would be off limits.

All right great. So we can make a movie with adult darth vader but not young darth vader and any references made to Anakin Skywalker would have to be about the last scenes in the last movie of the first set of movies.

And of course it could also not feature any Obiwan without a beard I suppose, Boba fet would be okay but Jango or his mention would be totally against the rules.

I doubt anyone is going to be crying over not being able to use jar jar.

The emperor is in both the sequels and prequels so I'm not sure what we would do there. So is Jabba the hut and Darth vader in his black suit is in the prequels briefly so is he off limits or what?



I'm sure this wouldn't tie up the court systems or anything.... And for what? So EA can make old republic without George Lucas? Where is the greater good in here? The socialist free idea stuff?

Actually, no. Young Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, and beardless Obi-Wan would be fine, because they're all derived from the original trilogy. Watto, Padme Amidala, and Jar Jar Binks would not, because they were originally created for the prequel trilogy. And no, it wouldn't tie up the court systems. Look up some of what happened with Sherlock Holmes and Conan the Barbarian. Both of those had portions of the series go into the public domain before the DMCA extended it, and there were portions that were covered after, yet the courts weren't tied up by legal battles. Far from it in Sherlock Holme's case; ever hear of Sherlock on the BBC?

Yeah because Arthur Conan Doyle has been dead for near a century so there's no newer works to muck it all up. And people could easily argue that Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are two different characters

1.) Arthur Conan Doyle's books have been partially in copyright as recently as the 90's. Robert E. Howard, whose books I also mentioned, /still/ has part of his library in copyright. 2.) They might make such an argument, but Anakin Skywalker was also named in the original trilogy, so even if they did make that argument, it would be pointless, because he was still a character from the original trilogy. Even if he wasn't mentioned by name in the OT, call him Bob Skywalker. It's now derivative of the original trilogy, and not the prequels. The courts are tied up by the current system because of the way copyright has been unnaturally extended. Shortening it would free up the courts, not fill them. It's like how prisons are full of convicted drug users who wouldn't be there if drugs were legal.

 

[mickey]

Awkward.

On the one hand, it doesn't sound like a good thing, but on the other, if they make their place of business based after someone else's IP...that's something they should have seen coming.

It's been around for 20 years, so the books were long since out at the time, and this was long before the LoTR films were even a glimmer in Peter Jackson's eye. The fact that the pub has existed unopposed for a decade since the LoTR films came out just further serves to show the utter absurdity of this lawsuit. This is an affectionate support of Tolkien's work, not a cynical move to make money out of the IP.

Besides, this is overlooking a very important point; this is probably one of the only places in the world where you can walk in, say "I'll have a Gandalf," and not only be understood, but be given alcohol to boot!

I think we need to crush this pub as punishment for waving facebook "likes" in our faces as if they had some sort of significance. Stuff those Zuckerberg coins up the owners butt and kick him out on the street.


And yeah the Saul Zaentz Company is in the right legally here too. They own the right to the name. He used the name with a reference to The Hobbit IP owned by Saul Zaentz Company.


If the bar was allowed to get away with this then I would open "the Apple iphone bar" in the middle of town and make a fortune on all of Steve Jobs zombies and cultists as they gobble up the IP connection.

I direct you to my above post, and ask you to take your head out of your ass and do some basic research before making such a brash comment. You honestly think a pub that is themed after Tolkien's work in appreciation should be crushed under a corporation simply because they dared to show they had supporters via a Facebook campaign? What a horrible, vindictive person you are. The pub was named the Hobbit before the Saul Zantez Company got the IP rights, and it has existed happily for a decade, whilst the LoTR films came out, hobbits and all. Was any harm done in said decade to the revenues of the Saul Zantez Company? Hardly. I would rather support a pub that might be breaking copyright law than a company that got too greedy and decided only now to chase after something so insignificant.

Melon Hunter,
I am dating myself a bit here, but I remember seeing an animated movie of the Lord of The rings back in the early 80s that was made by this Saul Zaentz guy... so gotta disagree with you here when you say "The pub was named the Hobbit before the Saul Zantez Company got the IP rights"

Looked it up on IMDB, Zaentz made his movie in 1978, so it looks like he had the rights way before 1992 when they say the pub opened. Wonder when they found out about the pub?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/fullcredits#cast

 

[mickey]

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok I see in this post MH had figured out that Zaentz did have the rights going back to the 70s... (sorry)

But the real question you are asking is - WHY IS ZAENTZ PUSHING THE PUB NOW? Well based on my impression of IP law the answer is probably because Zaentz just found out about the pub recently. Thats the way this legal stuff works, if you own IP, once you find out about someone using your property, its your obligation to protect it. Otherwise you can loose your right to defend against other people who try to use it in the future. (unfortunate for the pub but true.)

So if Zaentz have decent lawyers, the reason they are pushing now is probably because they just found out. Because if they knew about the pub in 1992, then they wouldn't have a case to push on it now. Does anybody know when Zaentz found out about the pub?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

 

[marianrogers]

According to the report, Tolkien Estate and HarperCollins filed their complaint in federal court in Los Angeles. They also requested a jury trial for their claims. Now, the lawsuit [http://mbblegal.net/] seeks an injunction against the defendants to prevent infringement and over $80 million in damages.

 

[AgentLampshade]

New goal found. Drink at this place before it becomes another boring lifeless pub.

Unless it changes it's name to "The Three Broomsticks" or "The Leaky Cauldren."

 

[Queen Michael]

Honestly, I think the company has a good point. If you start a pub called Mickey Mouse's, you'd expect to get sued by Disney. "No copyright infringement was intended," the petition says. Yes. Yes, it was. They knew fully well that The Hobbit was someone else's IP (Intellectual Property) when they created the pub, and now they're mad that they're not allowed to use it anymore? They're mad that they're not allowed to do something that they knew fully well was criminal? It would be more appropriate to be grateful that they've been allowed to have this name for two decades even though they never even tried to get permission.

Look, I'm not saying this is some Heinous Crime Against Humanity, and I actually think it'd be nice if the pub got to keep its name; I'm just annoyed that the owners are pretending this wasn't intended to break copyright laws.

 

[Hoplon]

Look, I'm not saying this is some Heinous Crime Against Humanity, and I actually think it'd be nice if the pub got to keep its name; I'm just annoyed that the owners are pretending this wasn't intended to break copyright laws.

But it's a pub, not another book.

 

[MrCollins]

The exact same thing happened all over the UK during the Summer, with the Olympic lawyers reportedly asking all "non-officially partner businesses" to stop all use of anything that could be associated with the games, It became ludicrous, with places being asked to rename their Olympic breakfasts and more than one Cafe Olympic received letters from Lawyers.
I don't think that it ever went to court.

I is also important to note that in order to make a genuine claim of copyright infringement, you have to show that you are using the copyright and attacking all people who breach it and not just defendants that are rich. So, in theory if they make a claim for something as trivial as this, imagine what they'll do to actual malicious infringement.

 

[Queen Michael]

Look, I'm not saying this is some Heinous Crime Against Humanity, and I actually think it'd be nice if the pub got to keep its name; I'm just annoyed that the owners are pretending this wasn't intended to break copyright laws.

But it's a pub, not another book.

That's true. And that does matter. It's true that Campbell's Soup owning the rights to all soup with the name "Campbell's" doesn't legally stop anyone from starting, say, Campbell's law firm. However, in this case the name is intended to make you think of the book, and there's the rub.

 

[Saregon]

Does the UK have the same law as the US, which says that you lose your right to the brand if you don't defend it, for example like this? If so, that might be the reason. I do think it sucks however, and a case like this is just malicious, and will do nothing but damage the reputation of Saul Zaentz and whoever else is involved, and even the film itself.