It's a bloody disgrace. As cheap as this sounds, when me and the missus finally tie the knot she wanted to go Portsmouth then Southampton for a couple of weeks for a honeymoon - she's never been, and loves museums, cheap beer and crap football - and I was gonna take her there. Sod that now. We'll go somewhere more exotic instead. Leicester sounds pretty good.
Hmm. It's natural to want to side with the pub here, but it's hard to see how you can square that with all those other times when we've been righteously indignant about someone making a fast buck out of someone else's creation.
Suppose it was Wetherspoons (or some big evil faceless corporation of your choosing) opening a Horace In The Mystic Woods theme pub, and not getting Bob's approval. (Gigatron is invoked at some point, no doubt.) Would we all be rushing to support the pub, and condemning Bob for taking action against it? I doubt it.
The whole subject of unauthorised use of others' work has a lot more shades of grey than people seem to realise. I don't know where the boundary of acceptability is, but I sure hope there's more to it than "little guy borrowing big corporation's idea is okay; big corporation borrowing little guy's idea is bad".
The website probably doesn't help them much either. I wonder how much they paid the film company for licenses to use all those images... http://www.hobbitpub.co.uk/
Hmm. It's natural to want to side with the pub here, but it's hard to see how you can square that with all those other times when we've been righteously indignant about someone making a fast buck out of someone else's creation.
+1
Especially given that the pub is clearly going further than merely being called 'The Hobbit'. By doing stuff like including pictures of Elijah Woods on it's loyalty cards it's clearly trying to leverage an association not only with the book but the movies too. I'm sure the landlord is well aware of the fact that association brings in more revenue than they'd get if it were just called 'the kings head' or something.
Hmm. It's natural to want to side with the pub here, but it's hard to see how you can square that with all those other times when we've been righteously indignant about someone making a fast buck out of someone else's creation.
Suppose it was Wetherspoons (or some big evil faceless corporation of your choosing) opening a Horace In The Mystic Woods theme pub, and not getting Bob's approval. (Gigatron is invoked at some point, no doubt.) Would we all be rushing to support the pub, and condemning Bob for taking action against it? I doubt it.
The whole subject of unauthorised use of others' work has a lot more shades of grey than people seem to realise. I don't know where the boundary of acceptability is, but I sure hope there's more to it than "little guy borrowing big corporation's idea is okay; big corporation borrowing little guy's idea is bad".
It's worth pointing out the pub was named long before the Saul wassisname group bought the rights from the Tolkien estate ( Who I am informed were aware of the naming of the pub ) and that the Hollywood machine were very, VERY happy to take their pennies so they could use images from the 'Lord of the Rings' movies on their advertising and loyalty cards and run promotions for the past movies ect, ect, ect...
But now their making a film called 'The Hobbit' it's all change, they put their big stomping boots on and conveniently forgetting all of that.
When it was named it was seen by all as what it was, a tribute to the books and the author.
So no, it's was not about making a fast buck at all.
BUT.... it does seem to be the way of the corporate driven cynical 2010's to retcon all and everything thats not etched in stone with the 'we're such poor billionaires and you're stealing from us' brush.
and that the Hollywood machine were very, VERY happy to take their pennies so they could use images from the 'Lord of the Rings' movies on their advertising and loyalty cards and run promotions for the past movies ect, ect, ect...
But now their making a film called 'The Hobbit' it's all change, they put their big stomping boots on and conveniently forgetting all of that.
Top tip, get an actual agreement on paper witnessed by lots of lawyers if you don't want the rights holder to change their mind one day and deny all knowledge of an agreement.
(Like what will happen if anyone ever mentions WoS to Rupert Murdoch for example)
Top tip, get an actual agreement on paper witnessed by lots of lawyers if you don't want the rights holder to change their mind one day and deny all knowledge of an agreement.
(Like what will happen if anyone ever mentions WoS to Rupert Murdoch for example)
Top tip, get an actual agreement on paper witnessed by lots of lawyers if you don't want the rights holder to change their mind one day and deny all knowledge of an agreement.
(Like what will happen if anyone ever mentions WoS to Rupert Murdoch for example)
Errrr ... what (un)official agreement is between Rupert Murdoch and WoS? :-?
The term 'Hobbit' pre-dates Tolkein's use of it. Just as orcs, elves etc. do.
Not sure about the pub using recent movie images on its promotional material.
But this is not the movie studio - this is Saul Zaentz, licensed to produce merchandise associated with the upcoming movie, bringing this case. He also probably doesn't care too much about negative publicity on himself unless the movie studios actually step in to this row too. This is the same corporate moron that apparently once tried to sue John Fogerty for sounding too much like Creedence Clearwater Revival, so I think a lot of people would already like to see him dragged around town by a team of six draught horses stapled to his genitalia. This action isn't going to change anyone's opinion of him.
Gasman, you are right objectively, of course, but what sticks in the throat here is that the pub is (as far as we can see) doing no harm to the name "Hobbit", is in fact drawing attention to Tolken's works in a small way, and is not taking a penny that is rightly due to the Hobbit film. Legally, the pub might be well in the wrong, I don't know, but morally I don't see what's wrong. And if I wrote a game/film/book/whatever and some pub (or park, or hospital, etc) wanted to name itself (or a ward, wing, etc) after it then I think I'd just be happy and flattered.
It reminds me of how Disney make a film based on a public domain legend that's hundred of years old, then when the film comes out they get their lawyers to bully anyone else who wants to do anything with that legend, be it Aladin, Pocahontas, Pinocchio, etc.
The fact that this pub has been called the Hobbit for so long, and it's only now that someone is objecting, and then only a company who've bought the rights, and not (for example) one of Tolken's relations, only makes this seem more wrong.
That's the first time I've heard "exotic" and "Leicester" in the same breath :p
Take her to Tintagel (but in the winter - no bloody tourists).
Haha, well, quite.
I really can't see the issue with the copyright holders here.
Do they seriously think it's going to impact on the massive amount of cash they must make from this franchise? Do they think people will go to the hobbit pub instead of watching the movie? Or, as I suspect, are they just stomping their feet and squishing the little guy while screaming 'mind mine mine'. 20 years, no movie, no issue. Now there's a movie, and, lets be honest, that pub is fubar!
The term 'Hobbit' pre-dates Tolkein's use of it. Just as orcs, elves etc. do.
be interesting to research that, an initial google brought this up
"Now here?s the fascinating and slightly spooky detail. There are no references to hobbits before Tolkien?s publication, except for one. In 1895, the folklorist Michael Aislabie Denham published a long list of supernatural creatures. Here?s an excerpt:
Especially given that the pub is clearly going further than merely being called 'The Hobbit'. By doing stuff like including pictures of Elijah Woods on it's loyalty cards it's clearly trying to leverage an association not only with the book but the movies too. I'm sure the landlord is well aware of the fact that association brings in more revenue than they'd get if it were just called 'the kings head' or something.
+1 on this too.
I read the story earlier and once you get past the headline it becomes quite obvious that rather than pay homage to The Hobbit by creating their own theme and ambiance, the pub has been trading on the reputation of the LOTR films and has been going so far as to reproduce the likenesses of the actors, etc.
So, that's quite blatantly going beyond the boundaries of fair use and however much we may or may not disagree with the whole concept of intellectual property, if the current rights holders didn't make a move to enforce their licence from the Tolkien estate it would open the floodgates for every chancer to cash in on the hype that'll be building up as The Hobbit films near their release dates.
Basically, even if the pub had some sort of agreement to use LOTR material for promotion, if they didn't have a cast-iron contract guaranteeing their rights it was a litigation waiting to happen.
If what Becky is saying is correct though and they had already arranged permission (and assuming that wasn't some temporary agreement etc), then it's a different matter. And you would certainly hope that someone would have had the common sense to get something very definitive in writing.
On a more general note, if it once again raises the question of whether current copyright protection lasts too long, then that can only be a good thing in my mind. The world would be a better place if the likes of Disney had been able to keep pushing for longer and longer copyright protection just so they can keep milking Mickey Mouse.
Comments
Nice to see Stephen Fry ( Who is in the movie ) talking out against the film makers. Go Mr Fry!
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9588144.Campaign_to_save_Hobbit_backed_by_Stephen_Fry/?ref=fbrec
I wish I lived near a cool pub. The pubs round my way are only famous for people being stabbed in them!
Stabbed? How uncouth! People are shot in pubs around here!
I was thinking that too... I guess they sold the rights on :(
Take her to Tintagel (but in the winter - no bloody tourists).
Suppose it was Wetherspoons (or some big evil faceless corporation of your choosing) opening a Horace In The Mystic Woods theme pub, and not getting Bob's approval. (Gigatron is invoked at some point, no doubt.) Would we all be rushing to support the pub, and condemning Bob for taking action against it? I doubt it.
The whole subject of unauthorised use of others' work has a lot more shades of grey than people seem to realise. I don't know where the boundary of acceptability is, but I sure hope there's more to it than "little guy borrowing big corporation's idea is okay; big corporation borrowing little guy's idea is bad".
+1
Especially given that the pub is clearly going further than merely being called 'The Hobbit'. By doing stuff like including pictures of Elijah Woods on it's loyalty cards it's clearly trying to leverage an association not only with the book but the movies too. I'm sure the landlord is well aware of the fact that association brings in more revenue than they'd get if it were just called 'the kings head' or something.
It's worth pointing out the pub was named long before the Saul wassisname group bought the rights from the Tolkien estate ( Who I am informed were aware of the naming of the pub ) and that the Hollywood machine were very, VERY happy to take their pennies so they could use images from the 'Lord of the Rings' movies on their advertising and loyalty cards and run promotions for the past movies ect, ect, ect...
But now their making a film called 'The Hobbit' it's all change, they put their big stomping boots on and conveniently forgetting all of that.
When it was named it was seen by all as what it was, a tribute to the books and the author.
So no, it's was not about making a fast buck at all.
BUT.... it does seem to be the way of the corporate driven cynical 2010's to retcon all and everything thats not etched in stone with the 'we're such poor billionaires and you're stealing from us' brush.
Ho hum.
http://www.hobbithotel.co.uk/
(i actually thought this thread was going to be about this place.)
+1 :-)
Top tip, get an actual agreement on paper witnessed by lots of lawyers if you don't want the rights holder to change their mind one day and deny all knowledge of an agreement.
(Like what will happen if anyone ever mentions WoS to Rupert Murdoch for example)
Is it a good idea to give all the rights of this heritage to some random person and let them destroy all mentioning of the hobbit in the uk?
I'm not from the uk, so i don't really care. But to me it seems that the british people don't think that tolkien's heritage is worth protecting.
Well, perhaps they can use rembrandt or van gogh instead and become a dutch colony instead :p
Games List 2016 - Games List 2015 - Games List 2014
Damn straight.
Errrr ... what (un)official agreement is between Rupert Murdoch and WoS? :-?
Not sure about the pub using recent movie images on its promotional material.
But this is not the movie studio - this is Saul Zaentz, licensed to produce merchandise associated with the upcoming movie, bringing this case. He also probably doesn't care too much about negative publicity on himself unless the movie studios actually step in to this row too. This is the same corporate moron that apparently once tried to sue John Fogerty for sounding too much like Creedence Clearwater Revival, so I think a lot of people would already like to see him dragged around town by a team of six draught horses stapled to his genitalia. This action isn't going to change anyone's opinion of him.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
It reminds me of how Disney make a film based on a public domain legend that's hundred of years old, then when the film comes out they get their lawyers to bully anyone else who wants to do anything with that legend, be it Aladin, Pocahontas, Pinocchio, etc.
The fact that this pub has been called the Hobbit for so long, and it's only now that someone is objecting, and then only a company who've bought the rights, and not (for example) one of Tolken's relations, only makes this seem more wrong.
Haha, well, quite.
I really can't see the issue with the copyright holders here.
Do they seriously think it's going to impact on the massive amount of cash they must make from this franchise? Do they think people will go to the hobbit pub instead of watching the movie? Or, as I suspect, are they just stomping their feet and squishing the little guy while screaming 'mind mine mine'. 20 years, no movie, no issue. Now there's a movie, and, lets be honest, that pub is fubar!
be interesting to research that, an initial google brought this up
"Now here?s the fascinating and slightly spooky detail. There are no references to hobbits before Tolkien?s publication, except for one. In 1895, the folklorist Michael Aislabie Denham published a long list of supernatural creatures. Here?s an excerpt:
?. . . nixies, Jinny-burnt-tails, dudmen, hell-hounds, dopple-gangers, boggleboes, bogies, redmen, portunes, grants, hobbits . . .?
The Denham Tracts Vol 2
http://hotword.dictionary.com/hobbit-tolkien/
+1 on this too.
I read the story earlier and once you get past the headline it becomes quite obvious that rather than pay homage to The Hobbit by creating their own theme and ambiance, the pub has been trading on the reputation of the LOTR films and has been going so far as to reproduce the likenesses of the actors, etc.
So, that's quite blatantly going beyond the boundaries of fair use and however much we may or may not disagree with the whole concept of intellectual property, if the current rights holders didn't make a move to enforce their licence from the Tolkien estate it would open the floodgates for every chancer to cash in on the hype that'll be building up as The Hobbit films near their release dates.
Basically, even if the pub had some sort of agreement to use LOTR material for promotion, if they didn't have a cast-iron contract guaranteeing their rights it was a litigation waiting to happen.
On a more general note, if it once again raises the question of whether current copyright protection lasts too long, then that can only be a good thing in my mind. The world would be a better place if the likes of Disney had been able to keep pushing for longer and longer copyright protection just so they can keep milking Mickey Mouse.
The Murdoch empire owns Amstrad.
AHHHHH! Didn't know that...