|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xanaseb
Dor-Lomin
Mar 13 2012, 12:25pm
Post #2 of 53
(4425 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ah that is truly awful!!...........
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm sure it will be very missed by the people there, I know Southampton University fantasy societies for example go there........
I feel really sorry for the owners too........ ......Darn Saul Zaentz company.........how greedy are they really??, this pub's been going on fro 20 years apparently!
The Lord of the Hams:
There is only one lord of the ham...and he does not share ham
One Ham to ham them all and in the hamness ham them
If this is indeed the ham of the council, hamdor will fry it done.
This is no rabble of mindless porks, these are Hamak-Hai: their steak is thick, and their bacon broad
(courtesy of moreham and HamTheEast)
(This post was edited by Xanaseb on Mar 13 2012, 12:33pm)
|
|
|
DanielLB
Elvenhome
Mar 13 2012, 12:31pm
Post #4 of 53
(4317 views)
Shortcut
|
The worrying thing though, is the number of other pubs out there that are related to LOTR, and have been there for many more years than they realise!
|
|
|
Nightingale
Nargothrond
Mar 13 2012, 12:31pm
Post #5 of 53
(4313 views)
Shortcut
|
"You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me" - C. S. Lewis
|
|
|
RosieLass
Doriath
Mar 13 2012, 6:45pm
Post #6 of 53
(4387 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They are copyrighted and SZC is well within their rights.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Mozart and Shakespeare, on the other hand, are long and by far in the public domain, so that's an irrelevant argument.
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
DanielLB
Elvenhome
Mar 13 2012, 7:08pm
Post #7 of 53
(4303 views)
Shortcut
|
They are well within their rights, but it is an almost pointless argument for SZC getting the pub renamed. It has been in Southampton for 20 years - and is a very popular pub downthere. It is in know infringing upon them, and was there long before PJs films came out, which is one of the issues.
At the end of the day, it's a pub name. It's not another movie, a stage production, or piece of merchandise of any kind. There don't intend to harm the franchise or SZC in anyway. On the otherhand, they are in their own rights, and you can see by the pubs website why SZC may be concerned. Perhaps the motivation behind this is actually their promotion (i.e. website) rather than the actual pub name.
|
|
|
dormouse
Gondolin
Mar 13 2012, 7:22pm
Post #8 of 53
(4274 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The argument is irrelevant, that's true...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... but as to the actual action it seems very petty and likely to do more harm than good to the reputation of the film companies. I can understand them chasing people who sell pirated copies of the films or unauthorised merchandise based on the film designs, but a pub that's been in business for decades? I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if a Court would uphold an action like this beyond expecting the pub to remove anything that was actually film-related? The cruel thing is that the pub owners can't afford to defend their corner.
The word 'Hobbit' has passed into the language, after all, it seems rather late for someone to pop up now and call it a 'brand' as though it has only just been invented for the films. The pub was there ten years ago when the LotR films came out and Saul Zaentz never complained.
|
|
|
DanielLB
Elvenhome
Mar 13 2012, 8:18pm
Post #10 of 53
(4181 views)
Shortcut
|
But I don't think it's just the name that is the issue. Their promotions (posters, loyalty cards, website etc) are entirely made of pictures etc directly taken from the films.
|
|
|
NottaSackville
Doriath
Mar 13 2012, 8:32pm
Post #11 of 53
(4348 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Actually, that's not exactly True.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Tolkien estate has pretty vigorously worked to keep the word Hobbit within it's control - to the extent that "Halfing" has become the de facto name of Hobbits in fantasy gaming and literature.
Thus, it surprises me that this pub has stood for as long as it has.
(Not defending the current legal action, just adding the info that Hobbit definitely has been protected).
Notta
How will you get to the Lonely Mountain?
Help TORn log enough miles to get us to Smaug's home by Dec. 2013: Walk to Rivendell - Thursdays on Main (image courtesy of Arwen's daughter)
|
|
|
NottaSackville
Doriath
Mar 13 2012, 8:36pm
Post #12 of 53
(4206 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Where do their rights end and the Tolkien Estate's rights begin?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
One has to believe that the Estate continues to have rights to Hobbit/LOTR-related material. I think, right?
It sounds like the pub was using movie images, etc., so that would definitely fall within the SZC realm. What what if they removed all movie tie-in? Would that put them back in the Estate's realm, especially since they existed pre-movie?
I've no idea, just asking -
Notta
How will you get to the Lonely Mountain?
Help TORn log enough miles to get us to Smaug's home by Dec. 2013: Walk to Rivendell - Thursdays on Main (image courtesy of Arwen's daughter)
|
|
|
RosieLass
Doriath
Mar 13 2012, 8:51pm
Post #13 of 53
(4245 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe, ultimately, the Estate owns the rights but SJC holds the license for them for now?
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
RosieLass
Doriath
Mar 13 2012, 8:53pm
Post #14 of 53
(4314 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Perhaps it has only recently come to the attention of SZC.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Or perhaps the pub has only recently begun using movie-related items in their promotions, if that's the actual issue rather than just the name of the place.
It is always those with the fewest sensible things to say who make the loudest noise in saying them. --Precious Ramotswe (Alexander McCall Smith)
|
|
|
DanielLB
Elvenhome
Mar 13 2012, 9:56pm
Post #15 of 53
(4242 views)
Shortcut
|
"Honestly, @savethehobbit, sometimes I'm ashamed of the business I'm in. What pointless, self-defeating bullying."
|
|
|
Ruxendil_Thoorg
Dor-Lomin
Mar 13 2012, 10:04pm
Post #16 of 53
(4300 views)
Shortcut
|
http://www.unc.edu/...pyright-defenses.htm it looks like a law student's outline for intellectual property class at UNC.
It mentions Statute of limitations as a common defense to copyright claim. I don't know if it applies to UK law though. There's at least a likelihood that UK has something similar.
The question is factual-when should statute of limitations start to run? If it started over three years (or whatever the correct stat of limitations period may be) ago, then the pub has a defense. If the pub has been using the name The Hobbit and using movie posters and images openly all that time then those facts would support the pub's statute of limitations defense. The court will want to know why didn't SZ raise its stink earlier? Did it fail to act diligently to protect its intellectual property rights? Now that the pub has become established, it may be a day late and a dolllar short for SZ to expect the pub to suddenly drop its name and its decor.
However, the pub would have to assert the defense-- even if it doesn't have counsel. It should appear in court and raise statute of limitations as its defense. Laches also, probably. And then SZ would have to prove its facts to overcome that defense. I hope the pub will assert its defense and not just roll over. They could probably work out a settlement. SZ might accept a small payment, realizing the weakness of its claim due to the defense.
I don't think there's a difference whether we're talking about copyright or trademark claim as to the name The Hobbit or the movie posters / images. Either type of claim would be subject to the same Stat of Limitations. If UK has one.
A bag is like a hole that you can carry with you.
http://newboards.theonering.net/...rum.cgi?post=424021;
(This post was edited by Ruxendil_Thoorg on Mar 13 2012, 10:07pm)
|
|
|
Xanaseb
Dor-Lomin
Mar 13 2012, 10:41pm
Post #17 of 53
(4258 views)
Shortcut
|
...shows that it's getting to people too
The Lord of the Hams:
There is only one lord of the ham...and he does not share ham
One Ham to ham them all and in the hamness ham them
If this is indeed the ham of the council, hamdor will fry it done.
This is no rabble of mindless porks, these are Hamak-Hai: their steak is thick, and their bacon broad
(courtesy of moreham and HamTheEast)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Mar 14 2012, 1:07am
Post #18 of 53
(4270 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The issue is as much (if not more) trademark as copyright...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There's a tavern here in Buffalo called Woody's that has used an unauthorized image of Woody Woodpecker on its signage for years. A few months ago it recieved a cease-and-desist order and ended up replacing the cartoon image with a more generic sign that in no way resembled the Walter Lantz creation. The situation here is similar but even worse, since the name itself is the issue.
I can't answer your more specific questions, though. I am not a copyright expert.
"Darkness beyond blackest pitch, deeper than the deepest night!
King of Darkness, who shines like gold upon the Sea of Chaos.
I call upon thee and swear myself to thee!
Let the fools who stand before me be destroyed by the power you and I possess!"
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Mar 14 2012, 1:08am)
|
|
|
SirDennisC
Gondolin
Mar 14 2012, 1:23am
Post #19 of 53
(4268 views)
Shortcut
|
tries not to pay anyone but the copyright holder very much (or anything when they can get away with it), this is not surprising.
I wonder if they are planning a Hobbit-themed pub or food franchise of their own, maybe "The Green Dragon Tap and Eatery?" * shudders *
|
|
|
Ruxendil_Thoorg
Dor-Lomin
Mar 14 2012, 1:39am
Post #20 of 53
(4264 views)
Shortcut
|
|
no argument there. also, note htat
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
a Statute of Limitations defense would be the same for either a trademark or a copyright claim.
Also, if SZ is serious about a suit, it will probably include both trademark and copyright claims as counts in the suit.
And as mentioned, a S/Limitations defense could be used against both types of claims.
A bag is like a hole that you can carry with you.
http://newboards.theonering.net/...rum.cgi?post=424021;
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Hithlum
Mar 14 2012, 3:14am
Post #21 of 53
(4311 views)
Shortcut
|
It would be nice if a cute, little pub were not attacked by the big Hollywood machine, like Sauron against the Shire, but there is blatant misappropriation of the film rights. Rights holders MUST protect their rights or lose them by default, whether the violator is small or large. The pub is using actors' likenesses and characters from the films for goodness sake. I am assuming by the existence of this action that they did not get permission first. If they stuck to the books, maybe, maybe they would not have attracted attention. But they did not, by their own admission. It is naive beyond belief, since they have been in business longer than the films existed, for them to not see the problem in profiting from the films in such a public manner when they made that decision.
Good luck to grass roots effort, but I suspect they will have to pay a license or quit. A grass roots PR campaign might help avoid penalties. They would be extremely fortunate to keep the name even if they agreed to drop all other references.
|
|
|
Eledhwen
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Mar 14 2012, 8:11am
Post #22 of 53
(4072 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not, but have a look at this
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There's an IP lawyer who blogs (and Tweets) on interesting cases. Yesterday he posted this, which suggests that the pub may have a defence because it's been open longer than Zaentz has owned the copyright.
|
|
|
DanielLB
Elvenhome
Mar 14 2012, 8:32am
Post #23 of 53
(4187 views)
Shortcut
|
It will be interesting to see how this turns out!
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Hithlum
Mar 14 2012, 12:46pm
Post #24 of 53
(4142 views)
Shortcut
|
They are arguing squatter's rights? Laughable.
Zaentz had the rights before the pub incorporated use of the films into their business. See my previous post. And certainly Tolkien had the rights before the pub used the name.
Maybe they could change their name to "Hogwarts."
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Mar 14 2012, 12:51pm)
|
|
|
Ruxendil_Thoorg
Dor-Lomin
Mar 14 2012, 1:46pm
Post #25 of 53
(4140 views)
Shortcut
|
I read the blog you linked, thanks.
I think its interesting that the Pub may have an earlier registration. That doesn't help SZ. However i think SZ would be able to fight the Pub's earlier registration's validity. When it comes down to it, SZ i think will have a strong case for its IP rights over marks like the name the Hobbit and the movie-related marks and images.
However, SZ may have "acquiesced" to te Pub's use of it s marks/IP over lapse of time, which sounds similar to statute of limitations / laches defenses thatI have suggested previously.
http://www.lawdit.co.uk/...221-acquiescence.htm
A bag is like a hole that you can carry with you.
http://newboards.theonering.net/...rum.cgi?post=424021;
|
|
|
|
|
1
