Yeah you're right
That was a little silly of them, and it muddies the waters. But that's not what they're being ordered to change - the Saul Zaentz Company owns the rights to the title and characters of the book, not Elijah Wood's face.
I know, legally they're within their rights to protect their IP, but it just seems so mean and pointless; it's not like the existence of a student pub in Southampton has any real financial relevance to them.
(
Zoroastermouse thinks therefore he am, Tue 13 Mar 2012, 14:33,
Reply)
Well, yeah
The Tolkien estate didn't seemed to mind for twenty years, but pushing it with characters from the movie was taking a bit to far, and you would have thought someone their end would have said, 'hang on a sec'
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Tue 13 Mar 2012, 14:54,
Reply)
Honestly
I don't think using the movie images had anything to do with it - see www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-15825960 - it looks much more like they're just done a blanket search for any businesses using the word 'Hobbit' in their name and sent them all nasty letters.
(
Zoroastermouse thinks therefore he am, Tue 13 Mar 2012, 15:00,
Reply)
It's all a bit silly I agree
but what do you expect from corporate America when they want to do it by the letter? I just think it's a shame the Tolkien estate have allowed them to be so anal about it
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Tue 13 Mar 2012, 15:04,
Reply)
The trouble is....
... the movie studios are in a difficult position. On the one hand, they are, believe it or not, human too, mostly, and most likely don't actually WANT to pursue some obscure pub in what is to them some backwater town just because it's got an infringing name and some amusingly named cocktails.
BUT... if someone else then infringes *properly* - like, releases a bunch of action figures or books or whatever and makes a mint out of them- and the studio can be shown to have known about the pub and done nothing, they can be shown to have not been bothered about infringement before... and if you can show that the trademark isn't worth anything because, for example, the owner didn't take steps to defend it, then the trademark lapses and it's a free-for-all.
(, Tue 13 Mar 2012, 15:06, Reply)
There is something called common sense at the end of the day
and I really don't think an obscure pub in Southampton, or the name of a cocktail, will have any effect on the forthcoming movie's ability to generate box office sales, where as a line of toys probably would to the overall profit; especially if they wanted to release a line of their own, which they undoubtably will. If that makes any sense
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Tue 13 Mar 2012, 15:12,
Reply)
I've heard this argument a few times
But I've always been a little skeptical - is this really the case? Surely a company can choose who to pursue and who to leave alone, can't they? Why should choosing to allow one company to use your IP preclude you from stopping another?
I mean, say my brother comes along and takes my lawnmower* without asking. If I decide not to prosecute him, it doesn't automatically follow that the lawnmower is now public property.**
*I do not own a lawnmower
**Also I accept that possibly lawnmower ownership is not a direct analogue to copyright law
(
Zoroastermouse thinks therefore he am, Tue 13 Mar 2012, 15:34,
Reply)
Short answer...
Yes, this is really the case.
It is simply not worth it for them to "just let it go" because it's "just a pub". There are *millions* at stake.
(, Tue 13 Mar 2012, 22:41, Reply)