Another one bites the dust....

[davem]

As far as the word 'Hobbit' is concerned, we've just seen a recent case of a movie using the word Hobbit being effectively banned http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/20781777 Given that there was no connection between the movie & Tolkien's work other than the name Hobbit & that Tolkien didn't actually invent the name Hobbit I don't know what the lawyers, or the judge were up to with this one.

Since Tolkien's death the man & his life's work have moved increasingly towards becoming just as much a 'brand' as 'Disney' is. In place of the famous 'Disney' signature we have the JRRT monogram & the Estate & its lawyers are driven by nothing less than a desire to control everything to do with Tolkien.

The children's camp thing (let's not forget that proper names cannot be copyrighted - plus the fact that Rivendell is basically a compound of two standard, if slightly archaic, english words: riven=broken or split, dell=valley. Claiming you hold the copyright on riven+dell is about equivalent to claiming you own the copyright on foot+print & only a lawyer would try that one) was a thoroughly unpleasant act of legal thuggery. And preventing publication of the Hilary biography came across as a very shady misuse of copyright law because they weren't able to twist existing privacy laws to their purposes.

I do wonder whether there would be as much tolerance for the Estate's behaviour if it didn't include member's of Tolkien's immediate family. If it was made up of business people lawyering up at the slightest 'provocation' I wonder if people would still be so eager to see their side of things.

Interestingly, the author of the Mirkwood novel actually stood up to the Estates lawyers & took the case before a judge, who threw the case out & sent the Estates lawyers off with a flea in their ears (as we used to say). I suspect that most of the other cases would go the same way - if those being threatened were to stand up.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

The children's camp thing (let's not forget that proper names cannot be copyrighted - plus the fact that Rivendell is basically a compound of two standard, if slightly archaic, english words: riven=broken or split, dell=valley. Claiming you hold the copyright on riven+dell is about equivalent to claiming you own the copyright on foot+print & only a lawyer would try that one) was a thoroughly unpleasant act of legal thuggery.

Well, you could also say Grey Havens and The Shire ought to be open use, since they too have meanings outside the realm of Tolkien. But why use names like that, unless the Tolkien connection (and accompanying publicity) is what you're aiming for?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Well, you could also say Grey Havens and The Shire ought to be open use, since they too have meanings outside the realm of Tolkien. But why use names like that, unless the Tolkien connection (and accompanying publicity) is what you're aiming for?

So they should - you cannot legally appropriate standard English words & then prevent people using them. The idea that an author could take a word in everyday use & then stop anyone else using that word because the public might make some connection between their use of the word and someone else's is a nightmare scenario. Tolkien actually 'profited' in the same way by his use of Elf, Dwarf, Goblin, Dragon, (not to mention Shire - used purely because of its 'English' connotations & Mirkwood - used because of its Germanic ones). If Tolkien hadn't wanted people to profit from the name Shire he shouldn't have used it, & made up a name of his own for the Hobbits' homeland.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Davem

As far as the word 'Hobbit' is concerned, we've just seen a recent case of a movie using the word Hobbit being effectively banned http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/20781777 Given that there was no connection between the movie & Tolkien's work other than the name Hobbit & that Tolkien didn't actually invent the name Hobbit I don't know what the lawyers, or the judge were up to with this one.

It should be pointed out that that action was taken by Zaentz and the movie studios, and not by the Tolkien Estate.

And really, to claim that a parodistic movie called 'Age of the Hobbits' has nothing to do with Tolkien's hobbits is ridiculous. Or are we to suppose that it's a parody of the Denham Tracts, and that the title was chosen at random from among other choices such as 'Age of the Hodge-pochers' or 'Age of the Chittifaces'?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

It should be pointed out that that action was taken by Zaentz and the movie studios, and not by the Tolkien Estate.

And really, to claim that a parodistic movie called 'Age of the Hobbits' has nothing to do with Tolkien's hobbits is ridiculous. Or are we to suppose that it's a parody of the Denham Tracts, and that the title was chosen at random from among other choices such as 'Age of the Hodge-pochers' or 'Age of the Chittifaces'?

It doesn't matter what their motives were. Even if they were cashing in on Tolkien's work Tolkien didn't invent the word Hobbit. Or are you saying every film which appears over the next few years which has has Elf, Dwarf, Goblin, or Dragon in its title should be banned?

And if an author was to write a novel based around the Denham Tracts & had Hobbits as characters (obviously not like Tolkien's Hobbits) should he or she be prevented from publishing it? To what extent should Tolkien's use of myth & folklore prevent anyone else from using it also?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Davem, please understand the difference between copyright and trademark law. One can trademark any word (existing or coined), combination of word or visual logo if it is used in commerce to identify *your* goods or services; Terry Pratchett has trademarked the compound of ordinary Disc + World-- and righly so, or parasites would be coming out of the woodwork with their own "Discworld" novels (and/or plastic tat). ZaentzCo has trademarked dang near every place-name and race in Middle-earth, which stinks but he can do it

Interestingly, the author of the Mirkwood novel actually stood up to the Estates lawyers & took the case before a judge, who threw the case out & sent the Estates lawyers off with a flea in their ears


Untrue, untrue, untrue. The parties settled, on terms which amounted to a complete surrender on Perry's part. He then told the press loudly the court had "thrown the suit out"- when in fact all he had was the pro-forma dismissal that goes with *every* settled lawsuit.

[davem]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Untrue, untrue, untrue. The parties settled, on terms which amounted to a complete surrender on Perry's part. He then told the press loudly the court had "thrown the suit out"- when in fact all he had was the pro-forma dismissal that goes with *every* settled lawsuit.

What I recall is that the estate wanted the book banned, and all copies destroyed. The book is still on sale.

Is Rivendell trademarked? I've lost count of the number of houses, b&b's and private, with the name.

[Mithalwen]

Zaentz hold and have renewed trademarks for Rivendell in various categories including those for jewellery, card games and computer games. I did find a list once of the many many names they claimed but no longer. Apparently there has to be the potential for customer confusion to defend a trademark, so consumer protection is a factor as well as brand protection. So I guess that is why b and b are safe. I have friends called Claridge who have called their house Claridges for years. Might be a problem if they ever go in for b&b....

So I wonder if the pursuit of the children's camp is linked to the rumours of wanting a middle earth theme park.