LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThe above is only an excerpt. Here's the source and here the Facebook page.Originally Posted by The BBC
Let the power of the internet unfold.
The above is only an excerpt. Here's the source and here the Facebook page.
Let the power of the internet unfold.
Last edited by Zeven; 13-04-2012 at 07:18 PM.
Well I think that asking them to change their name would be out of line, as they have been trading by that name for so long. But I can understand why they don't want them using images of characters from the latest films.
Used to frequent there regularly when I was at Soton Uni. It's great; the cocktails were cheap during a rather long happy hour, had live music and they even had someone out back with a BBQ!
Thing is, this was before the whole LOTR trilogy was released at the cinema, and at that time I think very few people were familiar with the characters or the series. But, whilst I can see that they are clearly infringing the copyright, I don't see them making any profit directly from it. Of course, by that logic, changing the name and so on wouldn't affect their takings; it's just the inital cost and hassle of changing everything. I did wonder how it had got away with it for so long though.
I've spent a few good nights in the Hobbit and tbh it would be a shame if it had to change, I just hope they can come to a good agreement
Isn't salad what food eats??
I doubt that. It's been an extremely well-known series of books for a long time. I bought mine more than 30 years ago.
As for the infringement claim, it seems a bit petty, but I'd say they're within their rights to enforce it .... or to expect a licence fee.
And he was middle-aged then!!!
[
[GSV]Trig (15-03-2012),MaddAussie (14-03-2012)
Somehow I doubt 'let's go see The Hobbit' will end up in millions accidentally stumbling into this pub instead. Weak trademark claim (this is a trademark issue we're talking about, not a copyright one, right?) is weak.
A few snippets of names and pictures doesn't constitute a copy of the book or movie. And there's no chance of confusing a pub with a cinema.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-15825960
Seems they've been up to this at least once before. Seriously, why the hell is it worth their while hunting down every pub, cafe or shop with the word 'hobbit' in the title?
One of the conditions of a trademark, is that you have to defend it, otherwise it can be withdrawn.
I agree that it seems a bit OTT to go after small businesses like this, but also, the pub using images directly from the films is a bit naughty. I' sure the two could come to a compromise, one that means that the company with an incredibly silly name is seen to be defending it's rights and the pub can continue to trade.
Even if someone else was trading using that name before the Trademark was bought?
quote:
The pub in Portswood, which is popular with students, has traded with the name for more than 20 years.
hmm maybe they should have a counter claim as they had the name first,but again how could they afford to sue a big conglomerate like hollywood.
Think it is Hollywood film Saul Zaentz Company (SZC) taking it a bit far as they are not selling any merchandise from the trilogy in the pub.
Think i will call my next sprog Frodo Hobbit Baggins.
Come on Saul Zaentz Company (SZC) if you think your hard enough !!!!!!
Maybe we should start a viral to save OUR Hobbit
here may as well sue these as well
Hobbits Restaurant Hythe Hampshire
The Hobbit Inn, Halifax
The Hobbit Country Inn hotel Sowerby Bridge Yorkshire
The Hobbit House, Victoria Inn , Salcombe
Hobbit House in the Cotswolds
Hobbit Inn, Monyash derbyshire
The Hobbit Motorlodge New Zealand
The Hobbit, Garden shed
Oh and funny enough Saul Zaentz Company you have one on your own doorstep a restaurant
The Hobbit 2932 E Chapman Ave, Orange, CA 92869
so not so good on your homework then eh
I like this part in particular as I have never heard of the Saul Zaentz Company until today.
Last edited by Zeven; 13-04-2012 at 07:18 PM.
Nope, copyright.
Well, maybe both. They could have registered trademarks as well, but the basic principle is that of derivative works in copyright.
Say I write a book. Let's call it, hypothetically, "Harry Patter", and it's about a boy wizard, his school Hagwarts, and so on. And, lo and behold, it's a massive worldwide hit. The main copyright exists in the published work, but derivative rights exist in the characters, the world he exists in, and so on. And, those rights exist automatically by virtue of the act of creation of an original artistic work.
If you want to write a book based on Harry, you need my clearance. So I could approve it in return for a licence fee, or I could collaborate with you and we share the returns, perhaps with you doing the main writing and me providing input into the world, creative flair and, of course, permission to do it at all.
And, I could sell movie rights to one place, rights to produce little Harry toys to someone else, the rights to a Harry magazine to a third party, and so on.
But without my permission, or that of whoever I sell or licence some or all of those rights to, the world of dear old Harry is protected.
Without that, I (and I mean the real-world me, now, not this fictional me I've been on about) could sit down and write a Harry Potter (the 'real' one, and cash in on JKR's creation, or I could write Star Wars books, or make a Star Wars film, and so on.
In other words, those derivative and subsidiary rights protect the rights owner from having all and sundry jump on the bandwagon. And of course, if all and sundry do jump on the bandwagon, the quality of the resulting works will be vary varied, and my bet is, often very poor. Then, not only would the poor, unsuspecting consumer be ripped off by expecting the latest instalment of his/her favourite characters, only to end up with a fifth rate pastiche, but it would devalue the real brand because of all the nasty imitations.
And for a lot of these highly successful creations, the subsidiary products, branding rights, merchandising, etc are more lucrative than the original book.
While I sympathise with the pub, my bet is that don't really have a leg to stand on, and the fact they've been doing it for a long time without problem is really only evidence that the rights owner didn't know about it.
I doubt the rights owner has lost anything material over the use this pub has made of their copyright, but the case remains that they have no right to use it at all, any more than they do to open a Star Wars bar without permission, or set up a UK Disneyworld without clearance from Disney. And I'd bet they'd be ass-deep in their lawyers right quick if you tried either of those. This is no different in principle, only in scale and temerity.
jackobyte (15-03-2012)
You're kidding right? The Hobbit was published in 1937. Unless this pub can demonstrate it had the name before that, and moreover, that it had names of a Wizard called Gandalf and a hobbit called Frodo, and so on, before that, it has no claim on that basis.
Remember, copyright exists on creation of the work and, in the UK, exists for 70 years after the author's death. Which was, IIRC, 1975.
It doesn't matter when this current company bought the rights, the salient point is that it was an infringement before they bought it, still is, and now, the rights owner has, first, noticed, and second, objected.
EDIT - Tolkien died in 1973. So UK copyright runs until 2043.
jackobyte (15-03-2012)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
