Slashdot Mirror


Hobbit Pub Saved By Actors Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellen

Fluffeh writes "Recently the Hobbit Pub in England was sued for rights infringement, but it seems Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellen are going to re-pony-up the cash to keep the pub alive. Landlady Stella Roberts said she had been shocked by the actors' offer. She said: 'I had a telephone call on Saturday evening, while we were trading, from Stephen Fry's business partner and manager. That's when he told me. I was very shocked. They've said as soon as they finish filming they would like to come down and visit the pub.' However Ms Roberts said she was not celebrating just yet. She added: 'Until everything is in black and white, on paper, we're going to be a bit reserved because it could be $100 this year and $20,000 next year.'"

169 comments

  1. Re:Pub? Where? What? by DWMorse · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because it comes in PINTS!

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
  2. Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good on them for bailing her out. Nobody wants some lady running a small pub to have to deal with harassment over something goofy like this.

    Though one can't help but wonder what happens now, when some dope comes along and names their daycare business, "Hogwarts".

    1. Re:Bah. by Viceice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference here is, from TFA:

      The pub in Bevois Valley, which is popular with students, has traded with the name for more than 20 years.

      That pub existed wayyy before the movies made the franchise famous. It's not like they decided to name the business to ride on the films' fame.

      --
      Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    2. Re:Bah. by Dyinobal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True and in general I think it is a pretty dick move, but they are using images from the movies on their websites which I think is a bit of a no no.

    3. Re:Bah. by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The difference here is, from TFA:

      The pub in Bevois Valley, which is popular with students, has traded with the name for more than 20 years.

      That pub existed wayyy before the movies made the franchise famous. It's not like they decided to name the business to ride on the films' fame.

      Perhaps not, but they certainly started selling stuff with the images of the characters from the movie including putting Elijah Woods face on things. That's what prompted the legal action.

    4. Re:Bah. by sgunhouse · · Score: 1

      You mean, it wasn't famous long before the movies? Duh.

    5. Re:Bah. by kdemetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So if I'm going to a pub, and it has Coca-Cola posters, than Coca-Cola can sue them ?
      It's a theme, that's all.

      I agree that paying some royalties, would solve this problem, but I'm sure the pub would do that, if asked, and if the cost was reasonable.
      However, in this case : they are just being fined into oblivion, after 20 years.

      However, this is not about the pub : it's a cheap way for the film producer to get the film under attention. And judging for slashdot , it's working.

    6. Re:Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      So if I'm going to a pub, and it has Coca-Cola posters, than Coca-Cola can sue them ?

      Probably. However, usually Coca-Cola pays people to display their posters. It's called ad-ver-tise-ment.

      However, in this case : they are just being fined into oblivion, after 20 years.

      If by "fined into oblivion" you mean

      Producer Paul Zaentz told the BBC trademark law dictated it had to act against infringements of its brands, but were open to licensing the pub to use them.

      He said: "When it's an established business, we like to get the company to acknowledge they are using our trademarks, stop selling infringing articles and then we will grant them a licence for a nominal fee - approximately $100 a year.

      Please, go away and take your stupid with you before it rubs off on others.

    7. Re:Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe so, but the people suing don't have the rights to the images of the characters from the movies.

    8. Re:Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That pub existed wayyy before the movies made the franchise famous. It's not like they decided to name the business to ride on the films' fame.

      I think I remember hearing once there was a book or something the films were loosely based on. Do you think that could have been written before the pub opened?

    9. Re:Bah. by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      there was a "The Lord Of The Rings" movie done before then, 1978 it was released... was filmed, but rotoscoped to look like animation...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    10. Re:Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC it was shite.

    11. Re:Bah. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      True and in general I think it is a pretty dick move, but they are using images from the movies on their websites which I think is a bit of a no no.

      Also, one thing to be remembered is that trademarks _must_ be defended, or you lose them. If they didn't go after this pub, they stand the risk of losing their trademark.

    12. Re:Bah. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      stop selling infringing articles

      It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu and the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card.

      I sense a conflict that $100 will not resolve. Let the fining (license feeing) into oblivion commence!

    13. Re:Bah. by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 2

      Form letter from lawyers that was also sent to multiple other businesses that had anything in their names relating to LOTR or The Hobbit ..

      When enquiries were made as to what had to be changed to comply, the answer was anything relating to the Hobbit or LOTR, including fan artwork, character names, and many things not actually covered by the licence SZC holds on the copyright ...

      Huge outcry fanned by Twitter and Facebook groups, Actors in the Films weigh in ....

      Suddenly SZC are all sweetness and light, and claim they only want their copyright acknowledged ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    14. Re:Bah. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Bilbo Baggins Pub in Alexandria, VA is still there? Ued to frequent it in the late 70's.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    15. Re:Bah. by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Trademarks are not copyrights. Copyrights do not need defense, and you cannot lose them. Sorry if you already know that, but others are hugely confused about this.

    16. Re:Bah. by pbhj · · Score: 1

      >including fan artwork //

      They don't have rights to prevent people being inspired by their works. This sort of [attempted] infringement of the publics rights should be treated as harshly, if not more so, than the original infringement. In Europe I think this would read pretty well on to an attempt to circumvent a persons human rights (according with ECHR).

      >character names //

      A name is generally considered too short to be a work for the purposes of copyright. They could be trademarked but then it would be fine to use them for non-commercial, non-trade uses or for categories outside of those in which the marks are registered. So, for example, Ian Mckellen is not infringing copyright by having "i'm gandalf and magneto" on his tshirt and provided he produced it himself I doubt you'd be able to pin a trademark infringement on him either.

    17. Re:Bah. by pbhj · · Score: 1

      >*trademarks _must_ be defended, or you lose them* //

      I think this is actually a myth - certainly in Europe, not sure about the USA & elsewhere.

      Moreover, you can give anyone a license to use your marks without making a charge. The point is not to allow the terms to pass in to general use - to become a verb for example - that's why Google never talk about "googling" as a term for 'using a search engine'.

      If it weren't a myth then mega-corps would be forever getting out of trademark infringement proceedings by having created a tiny little "business" somewhere hidden that the mark owner never knew about and saying that the owner therefore wasn't protecting their marks and so should lose them.

      In Europe at least you must simply use the registered trademark (and pay your fees) to retain it - 'The ECJ has said that the handing out of free drinks labelled 'Wellness-Drink' was not "genuine use" of the Wellness trade mark in the drinks category. The EU's Directive on trade marks says that trade marks can be revoked after a five year period in which no "genuine use" of it was made.' (http://www.out-law.com/page-9718)

      Also this relates well: "It said that the Zappa name had only been used as part of a domain name of a website based in the US but accessible from the EU. That website had not used the trade mark to sell or advertise products for the EU market, though, and so was not used in trade." (http://www.out-law.com/page-11202)

      IANAL

    18. Re:Bah. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      IIRC it was shite.

      On the contrary, it had the hugest hair-styles of any of the LOTR adaptations: Saruman

    19. Re:Bah. by illtud · · Score: 1

      I prefer some of it to the Steve Jackson version. It was the first film I ever saw in the cinema and had to be carried out crying, it was pretty dark for a 6 year old, still is. I'm gutted that they didn't manage to finish it (IIRC it ends with the defeat of Saruman - possibly the entirity of TTT). It certainly deserves a viewing.

    20. Re:Bah. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      The Hobbit is a trademark.

    21. Re:Bah. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      If you have a trademark, you've got to defend it, even in Europe - it's not ok just sitting on it if you know other people out there are using it.

      Moreover, you can give anyone a license to use your marks without making a charge.

      I agree - which is almost what they've eventually done in this case - a license for $100.

    22. Re:Bah. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Is the Hobbit a trademark in the food industry?

      I would have expected it in the book and movie industry, not exactly related unless the Tolkien estate is getting into the restaurant business.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  3. Re:Pub? Where? What? by farrellj · · Score: 4, Funny

    I see you are a new user here...we can let it slide this time, but any real /. user would understand why this is a story here!!!!

    ttyl
              Farrell

    --
    CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
  4. Re:Pub? Where? What? by DWMorse · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because IP law is a thing of interest to nerds, and they believe that it's stuff that matters. But maybe not to you, sooooo, quick, let's bicker on the Internets now because your preferences aren't the same as everyone elses. Your whiney post has been somewhat legitimized by my humorous comment; you're welcome, no charge, it appears you could use a little bit of a sense of humor, and I have a little extra to share with the less fortunate. ^_^

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
  5. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Because Hobbits are always relevant. Always.

  6. Re:Pub? Where? What? by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, keep in mind the serious geekness of professing a love for LotR. Add to that an IP conflict in that this woman was ignored for years and now is gettin hammered on by the IP cops.

    I could go on, but you get the general drift...

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  7. And I was hoping they'd rename it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something like Lord Smoked Meat and Fish's Pub and Hotel Casino.

    1. Re:And I was hoping they'd rename it. by I+Am+JAFI · · Score: 1

      And of course I have no mod points today. F!

  8. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Viceice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because it's a matter of freedom... of speech AND beer!

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
  9. What the bloody goddamned fuck? by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This needs to stop, now

    The word "Hobbit" predates Tolkein (the real one) by a good century. The prefix "hob" (from "hobbe"), with a variety of faerie-folksy suffixes, predates that by another three centuries - At least.

    JRR knew all this perfectly well, and never claimed exclusive rights to a common word used to describe the wee people of mythology. Only these asshats that have tried to cash in on Grand-dad's legacy have so poor of a grasp of the work of their ancestor as to claim it as a "copyright". He, as a proper good ol' Don, would no doubt have outright disowned his fool-descendants for their ignorance.

    Sad, really, and just one more reason we need to get rid of this entire BS charade we call "intellectual property" ASAP.

    1. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by batkiwi · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. I agree this is petty bullshit.

      That said...

      2. The pub has likenesses FROM THE MOVIE. "It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu, and the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card."

      The name "hobbit" is only about 1% of the issue.

    2. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but if you visit their website you'll see the pub name is not the only problem here. They have drinks named after stuff from the books, and even images from the movies. This isn't to say they're right or wrong, but what they're doing is not only against the law, it pisses off some people with deep pockets and lawyers to spare. Actors or not, my bet is the pub will strike a deal to keep the name but change everything else.

    3. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sad, really

      The sad part is that you actually believe your childish little rant has any bearing on the issue. You don't You're absolutely clueless.

      That word "Hobbit" predates JRR is irrelevant. That words starting with "hob" have existed in even less relevant. (Words don't even exist in any human language to express how irrelevant the latter is.)

      They aren't being sued because they used the word "Hobbit". They're being sued because they used the word Hobbit in association with The Lord of The Rings - Something JRR did claim exclusive right over by the very act of copyrighting his works. And by establishing a literary estate, he willingly and knowingly granted his descendents the right to enforce that claim.

      They're also being sued because they used imagery from the movie on their website.

    4. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      2. The pub has likenesses FROM THE MOVIE. "It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu,

      So what? Are names now subject to copyright?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should hobble them!

    6. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, definitely not. However, the image of a character from the movie is definitely copyrightable, and the names can be trademarked in the context of the movie. So if you just happened to be named Frodo, you could use your name all you want, unless you attempted to present some connection with the movie (or possibly the book).

      dom

    7. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "how about complaining about 'android' and it's natural contraction 'droid'"

      How about complaining that while you were complaining about a contraction you failed to notice that it's is the contraction for "it is"? And besides, since there's no apostrophe, "droid" is not a contraction, natural or otherwise, it is an elision.

      You're welcome.

    8. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      But imagery from the LotR movies does not predate Tolkien, and the pub has been gratuitously using that in recent years.

    9. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But imagery from the LotR movies does not predate Tolkien, and the pub has been gratuitously using that in recent years.

      So why not tell them to stop doing that rather than trying to sue them out of existence?

    10. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      And besides, since there's no apostrophe, "droid" is not a contraction, natural or otherwise, it is an elision.

      Given that an elision is a kind of contraction (especially one that occurs when two words are joined together), elisions often are marked by apostrophes, and that "droid" clearly is a cut down form of "android" I can only conclude that you don't have the faintest fuck of a clue what you're talking about.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by rtb61 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I gather you have never heard of fair use. Segements of the movie many hundreds even thousands of images are fair use, let alone a single fucking one out of quarter a million images and you know that, liar. Just as paragraphs of books are fair and clips of music are fair.

      The greed of the pigoplist shitheads is just getting out of control with blatant abuses of the law.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by binkzz · · Score: 1

      So why not tell them to stop doing that rather than trying to sue them out of existence?

      FTFA:

      He said: "When it's an established business, we like to get the company to acknowledge they are using our trademarks, stop selling infringing articles and then we will grant them a licence for a nominal fee - approximately $100 a year." It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu and the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card. A letter from SZC had asked the pub to remove all references to the characters.

      They weren't sued out of existence, just asked to pay the license fee and stop using trademarked items.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    13. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't stop Disney from stealing the work of others.

      You can't win against big media because the court system is designed for those who have the most money.
      Now, THAT needs to stop more than anything.

    14. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I gather you have never heard of fair use.

      Congratulations, you are a big fucking idiot. There's nothing in fair use which permits the use of someone else's IP for your own economic benefit. Fair use is for education and critique. You may make full copies of any materials needed for a formal educational lesson and copy as much as needed of any work for critique. Nothing in there says "you may use small clips, stills, and other unique characteristics from privately owned works to advertise your pub"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Informative

      I gather you have never heard of fair use.

      I gather you're not from the UK, or at least are not familiar with our copyright laws. There is no "fair use" provision. There is a "fair dealing" provision, but by my reading of the details this does not fall under it.

    16. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your business is going to be sued out of existence due to a $100 licensing fee, then you have bigger problems than trademark infringement.

    17. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by mapkinase · · Score: 2

      "This needs to stop, now "

      Yes, tolerance to alcohol consumption should stop. Alcohol destroys family it's addictive dangerous narcotic, it denigrates a human to a state of an animal.

      Prohibition now!

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    18. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair use doesn't mean using for commercial gain. If you're gaining revenue by using materials in such a way that it causes people to think there is a connection between your product/service and the official product/service then that's no longer fair use. Determining whether that's the case (i.e. is this pub gaining unfairly from the association or do all the customers know it's just a bit of fun) is the grey area the law is tasked with resolving.

    19. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      I gather you have never heard of fair use.

      What are you, twelve? No, I'm going with eleven.

      Let me guess, your BFF told you that it's OK to rip stuff off as long as you say that you did do because of Fair Use. And besides, nobody should be able to make money off of making movies anyway, since all actors, screenwriters, camera operators, makeup artists, lighting techs, editors, CGI teams, set desigers, costumers, directors, and everyone else involved are just capitalist pigs and should be forced to make stuff you want, but for free. Does that about cover it?

      The greed of the pigoplist shitheads is just getting out of control with blatant abuses of the law.

      The pub owner may indeed be greedy by using imagery from the movie in marketing her own business, but perhaps you should stop short of calling her a pig and a shithead, and just encourage her to pay an artist of her own choosing to create marketing images that don't rely on ripped off work done by people that Peter Jackson paid to work for him. Anyway, shouldn't you be in school right now?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    20. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But imagery from the LotR movies does not predate Tolkien, and the pub has been gratuitously using that in recent years.

      So why not tell them to stop doing that rather than trying to sue them out of existence?

      Maybe they did, but the pub told them to screw off. You're assuming that the media has told the entire story, instead of the "small business being legally hammered by evil mega-corp" angle.

    21. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by hemanman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The name "Gandalf" was lifted by Tolkien from Norse mythology(along with a shitload of other stuff), and was actually the name of a dwarf.

      Norse mythology is worshiped as Asetro today, and is a legit faith in Scandinavia, so if you try to trademark a name like that, you'd be violating human rights.

      It would be like trying to trademark a name from the Christian Bible, which I don't think is possible, even in USA.

      If so, I think I'll write a novel with this guy, lets call him Jesus, and sue for rights infringement!

      -H

    22. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by pla · · Score: 1

      They're also being sued because they used imagery from the movie on their website.

      I consider that part, and only that part of this mess, somewhat legitimate. As in, "stop doing that" legitimate, not "you used our ball, so we'll take your whole court" legitimate.

      Perhaps one of our resident armchair lawyers can answer a question for me - TFA discusses two of the actors from the movie supporting this pub. If Ian McKellen posed for a picture, totally unrelated to LoTR, in vaguely renny-like attire and gave the pub the right to use it, would that count as kosher? And if Elijah Wood and Liv Tyler and Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett and Orlando Bloom all did the same - At what point does an entirely original combination of "similar" elements become infringing?

      Using images right from the movie, I'll concede as a violation (though still an intolerable offense against all of humanity that we have, as another commenter put it somewhat mockingly, "small business being legally hammered by evil mega-corp"). But using concepts and names that predate The One True Franchise? As I already said, fuck no.

    23. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      No question about the infringement on the issue of the pic on the pub's loyalty card, but there shouldn't be trademark infringement on the cocktails, because while the drinks may be named *AFTER* characters, they can't reasonably be mistaken for the characters themselves, and should no more trademark infringements in that respect than it is trademark infringemement for somebody to name their white cat Gandalf, and put a hit video (one that happens to start generating some revenue) of him up on Youtube.

    24. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Sad, really, and just one more reason we need to get rid of this entire BS charade we call "intellectual property" ASAP

      The worst thing is, the concept of "intellectual property" is a very new one. I'd never heard the term before the Bono Act was dry. Prior to that, copyrights were, in fact, limited in time as our Constitution specifies.

      Of all the things wrong with the extreme length of copyright, besides the destruction of our cultural heritage (imagine if patents lasted as long, how technological progress would suffer), is the idea that one outright owns what one writes, and that the obscenely long terms have some calling for copyright's abolition.

    25. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAD. "Has" implies they still do, which is completely untrue; they removed all copyrighted material.

    26. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Nothing in there says "you may use small clips, stills, and other unique characteristics from privately owned works to advertise your pub"

      From the US Copyright Office:

      Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

      • The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
      • The nature of the copyrighted work
      • The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
      • The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

      I'd say it would be fair use in the US, and IINM it's a US company that's suing. Especially considering "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work." The effect of the Hobbit pub's "infringemet" is selling more copies of the movie.

    27. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that your constitution is not the be all and end all of everything, right? Droits d'auteur has nothing to do with your constitution, and the US is not the only nation in human history to have people who produce creative and artistic works who feel that they can (and should) be able to claim ownership of their creations.

      Also, anyone who thinks patents hamper technological innovation needs to seriously reconsider the perversion that is their definition off innovation (protip, it isn't ripping off others' ideas). The system is in fact designed to foster innovation, the fact that you can improve upon a patent (provided you have permission to use the original patent), and patent the result shows that. As well, the whole basis of it is, you either receive permission to use an existing method, or you INNOVATE and find another way of achieving the same ends. How this sytem, which is expresslydesigned to allow for and encourage innovation somehow hurts innovation is baffling.

      Unless, of course, the anti-patent thing, like the anti-copyright thing, is just the equivalent of "I want shit for free, but lack the testicular fortitude to say it outright, cause I'll come off as a whiny, entitled, self-important twat", in which case, by all means, proceed.

    28. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your forgettting the first bullet they are using it for comercial gain, also the amount used is pretty large considering their pub is based around it, and it definatly affect the potential market of the copyright holder if they wished to open a food chain or something along that line. Also if it's a trademark image I think they have to challenge people who use it or risk loosing it or something.

      I'm not a lawyer but I don't see what your saying as proving your point that this would be fair use. Infact I think this exactly not fair use by what you've stated.

      not dom

    29. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Contractions are the omission of internal letters. I would be grateful if you remained polite and bothered to verify the veracity of your statements before flying off into invective.

      You're welcome.

    30. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's lovely mcgrew, but the pub is in the UK therefore UK law applies.

      I know it's hard for you to get used to this, but not everywhere is subject to US law.

    31. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      ...It features characters from Tolkien's stories on it's signs...

      No, it features characters which are named after those in Tolkien's stories.

      As the images are not taken from the movies, the fact that they share names is not a copyright violation of the movie images or characters.

      Prior to the movies, I'm quite certain most people had their own ideas what the characters Tolkien described actually might have looked like. In my case, the only things that even resembled my imaginings in the movies were the Ents and the Eye of Mordor.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    32. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And besides, nobody should be able to make money off of making movies anyway, since all actors, screenwriters, camera operators, makeup artists, lighting techs, editors, CGI teams, set desigers, costumers, directors, and everyone else involved are just capitalist pigs and should be forced to make stuff you want, but for free.

      Wait, I thought that Hollywood was just a bunch of pinko commie socialist Marxist lefty progressives.

    33. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with blatant abuses of the law.

      I don't agree that there is such a thing as "abusing a law". Laws should be written (and we should treat them) as if ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING which is permissible under the law is perfectly okay (legally speaking).

      The problem happens when people put together laws without taking the time to consider what the laws allow people to do. Or even worse, when they make an assumption that nobody is enough of a dick to interpret the law and it's implications literally.

      The primary problem here is not the people, it's the law itself. You don't really have any right to expect people to not be selfish, greedy dicks? But I think we do have the right to expect that laws are written such that people can't exploit the law to the detriment of people who have not harmed anyone.

    34. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'd say it would be fair use in the US

      ...because you don't understand English. All four of those factors are considered. It has to pass all four tests, or the value has to be sufficiently high and/or there has to be no way to satisfy all four before you can claim fair use. It would utterly fail the purpose and character test and none of the other factors need even be considered.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I know it's hard for you to get used to this, but not everywhere is subject to US law.

      Wanna bet?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Wait, I thought that Hollywood was just a bunch of pinko commie socialist Marxist lefty progressives.

      You're confusing spoiled, rich actors with the people who actually find and risk the money to make things like movie studios operate. "Hollywood" is a business town, just like Detroit is. But both cities have large demographics made of people with an entitlement world view, or who - realizing that all they really do is act or a living - suffer major liberal guilt when they recognize how much money they bank. They line up their public politics with what they imagine their customers want to see, rather than teaching their customers what it takes to really run a hundred million dollar project that will probably fail.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    37. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      They weren't sued out of existence, just asked to pay the license fee and stop using trademarked items.

      That's what they are saying now, after Stephen Fry got involved. Beforehand I refer you to this article where, I quote:

      Lawyers representing the Saul Zaentz Company (SZC) in California have told the pub it must carry out a complete rebranding before the end of May, or face legal action due to copyright infringement.

      Since the story is that the actors' intervention has saved the pub I expect that the $100 licensing fee is something new. After all receiving a request for a $100 to license your use of the names would hardly be controversial and newsworthy would it?

    38. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless someone wrote a work of fiction featuring Jesus - lets say 'jesus goes to the moon' or some such,
      and there was a unique character called 'moonrock' and you had a bar with all of these elements named after fictional characters called moonibbles
      in which case, you are clearly mimicing popular elements of someone elses popular work in a way which is likely netting you more business,
      and therefore are profiting from someone elses work and are liable for damages

      unless the copyright had expired, in which case it is fair game. which is why noone is suing pubs called the 'moby dick', etc.

      that being said there is a tradition of naming pubs in honor of something else - e.g. the james joyce irish pub, etc -
      so its a tricky line

      soo.. yeah. care to revise that?

    39. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comments were right on track until you threw in "this entire BS charade we call "intellectual property". You are obviously a person who has never created anything or invented anything if you feel this way about Intellectual Property Rights. If you had, you would respect the claims others place on their own IPR. Not stupid and foolish claims like JRR's descendants, but legitimate ones to protect them from predators who steal their ideas, or from thieves who download their work without purchasing it or paying a royalty.

    40. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...bloody goddammed fuck"? "...big fucking idiot"? You people need to be sober when writing anything else...you seem to be mean drunks.

    41. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you are a big fucking idiot.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    42. Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Garbage. The distinction is in your head, and arbitrary to boot. For example take the common French usage when le/la is followed by a vowel, is that external (because the article was originally separate) or internal (because the words have been run together)?

      Both types can be found in both articles here and

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Misleading Cause by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not just the use of the name "The Hobbit" it's the use of Still Images from the LOTR movies in their promotional material. Essentially, these people are lifting copyrighted imagery and using it to promote themselves -- most definitely NOT cool and if I was one of the parties that ponied up hundreds of millions to make these films, I'd be a bit peeved by someone taking that work and using it without permission to make a profit.

    I can only imagine that Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellen do not know the full story here and possibly think that this is a matter of a harmless pub merely using the word "Hobbit" in their name and have not seen the website or promotional material produced by this pub.

    And for the record, the web site and promo material is completely amateur and quite tacky. Hopefully any money given to the pub to support them would mandate that they cease using imagery from the movies and perhaps use hand drawn illustrations by fans and artists who wish to contribute artwork for them to use.

    1. Re:Misleading Cause by Zemran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you honestly think you know more about this than Steven Fry? Themed pubs are part of our culture and part of American culture and it is wrong that they are being litigated out of existence. They are not claiming to be official places, they are just pubs or restaurants and it is time that the legal system started defending them.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    2. Re:Misleading Cause by CoderJoe · · Score: 1

      Can you provide links to any of the promotional material that uses stills from the movies? I poked around on their site, and so far, all I have found are drawings and paintings. (Though the background on one looks very similar to Viggo Mortensen, though not exactly.)

    3. Re:Misleading Cause by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Informative

      What cultural heritage do you have to show that illustrates why "The Hobbit Pub" should be able to take still images from the LoTR films and place them on their promotional material?

      As I said in my post, I'm all for them using fan art and art inspired by the Hobbit and LoTR in general, that are original and either donated to them or placed under public license. But, taking images from the movie is indeed copyright infringement and they are making use of those works in order to profit from them. Can I make this distinction more clear? Is this not reasonable?

    4. Re:Misleading Cause by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      It seems they have since removed some of the images from their site. When this issue first went viral, they had still images taken from the movies, such as Elijah Wood as Frodo, a still of the Boromir (the one usually associated with the Boromir "walk into Mordor" meme) and others that all advertised the Hobbit Pub and their products or upcoming live act performances. If you go back to he related headline above, you'll see others bringing this issue up at that time.

    5. Re:Misleading Cause by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Do you honestly think you know more about this than Steven Fry?

      You have failed to establish any reason to think otherwise. Just because themed pubs are "part of your culture" doesn't mean that Fry is in fact aware of the story of this particular one.
       

      Themed pubs are part of our culture and part of American culture and it is wrong that they are being litigated out of existence.

      At least here in America they aren't, and I've never heard of any such movement in the UK either... so, [[citation needed]].
       

      They are not claiming to be official places

      And here's where you go even further away from reality - because the place in question does seek to imply that it's official, by using material from the movie on it's website.

    6. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There ya go, right on the top of main page.

      IIRC, when the story first appeared on /., there were more stuff like that on front page - I remember a banner with Elijah Wood. If you dig around the site, you'll probably find more.

    7. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After all, the British Empire was built on stealing other people's work - just ask India.

    8. Re:Misleading Cause by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Informative

      If anyone had bothered to actually look up the details they were only asking for $100 to license the rights. As they also explained, they were legally obligated to license the copyrighted/trademarked material, since failure to pursue a known violation would allow anyone else to do the same. So they did the best thing they could, which is to preserve their IP and license the rights for a trivial fee.

      $100 to use all of the likenesses and images from the movie to promote the pub? That sounds like a great deal to me. And as the OP said, it does sound like Fry doesn't know the real story, as ponying up $100 to pay for the license is just a PR stunt.

      To quote the licensor:

      Zaentz has said: “we’ve tried to be very gracious. We said in the letter [that was sent to Roberts], rather than engage in protracted and expensive litigation, we would prefer to resolve this matter amicably.

      “We think asking for a nominal licensing fee is very reasonable. I think $100 would be about the maximum we would charge.”

      He went on to say that if he is ever in the neighbourhood then he will stop by for a drink.

      OH NO! HOW EVIL!

      Besides, it's not American culture, it's a British novel and a British pub...

    9. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for those $100 they got a huge promotion campaign all over the internet (did you ever hear about them before this story? Thought so) AND Stephen Fry's and Ian McKellen's endorsement.

      It's a boon.

    10. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... if I was one of the parties that ponied up hundreds of millions to make these films, I'd be a bit peeved by someone taking that work and using it without permission to make a profit.

      You sound a little sociopathic, and your basis for ethics and morality is DEFINITELY not grounded in a reality the majority of human beings share. When you ride someone else's coattails, you should expect others to join the gravy train. Expecting different behavior from others that you practice yourself is not a healthy way for any person to exist in society.

    11. Re:Misleading Cause by MisterMidi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, they weren't just asking for $100, they were demanding to stop using "Hobbit" and all references to the book. Only after all the bad press and the support of Stephen Fry, Neil Gaiman and Ian McKellen they offered licensing for $100 a year. That's what this story is about, they're saved by this offer. What you're quoting is from when they decided to license existing businesses for this nominal fee.

    12. Re:Misleading Cause by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      Do you honestly think you know more about this than Steven Fry?

      Of course he does. Fry's a pizza delivery guy whose best friend is a robot. Anybody knows more about... oh wait a minute. This is a pub, right? Bender knows a lot about beer, so... yeah, maybe Steven has been coached about the topic by an expert after all. Nevermind, carry on.

    13. Re:Misleading Cause by houghi · · Score: 2

      Ever been to a pub? Ever seen anything hanging around that has a trademark/copyright on it an yet was not licensed in any way? (Yet is not advertisement given to them to promote sales directly) Almost every pub I go to has them.

      What they want to do is get money. If they wanted, they could give it away for free, if that is what they actually wanted. They don't.

      Oh how noble of him to ask ONLY $100. And he is apparently not even sure about that.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:Misleading Cause by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Honestly, what's wrong with that? Have you read the actual correspondence? No, me neither. For all we know it could have gone like this:

      1. "Hey, we found some random British pub using a crap load of characters, stills, etc from our movies, we need to send them a legal letter telling them to stop or license our images". [if you don't believe this, GO TO THEIR SITE. Viggo Mortensen's face *still* features prominently]
      2. "Oh, sounds like it's a college town pub that's been around for 20 years, why don't we just offer them a trivial licensing fee to keep everyone happy."
      3. OMFG GIANT SCANDAL STORY GOT OUT AFTER FIRST LETTER IGNORING SECOND! EEEEVVVIIIILLLLLL!

    15. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the use of the name "The Hobbit" it's the use of Still Images from the LOTR movies in their promotional material. Essentially, these people are lifting copyrighted imagery and using it to promote themselves -- most definitely NOT cool and if I was one of the parties that ponied up hundreds of millions to make these films, I'd be a bit peeved by someone taking that work and using it without permission to make a profit.

      Its called remixing. Deal with it.

    16. Re:Misleading Cause by MisterMidi · · Score: 2

      This pub was one of the first targets in a campaign by the Saul Zentz Company, demanding small businesses in the UK to stop using their trademarks. It doesn't matter in this case if the pub uses stills from the movies, because this is not Warner Bros sueing over copyrights of the Peter Jackson movies. The SZC acquired rights to the Hobbit and LOTR stories in '76, but never bothered enforcing them to small businesses, until well after Peter Jackson repopularized the stories (some 20 years after the pub started).

    17. Re:Misleading Cause by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think you know more about this than Steven Fry?

      Using long words and having a posh accent doesn't make a person omniscient.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they weren't just asking for $100, they were demanding to stop using "Hobbit" and all references to the book.

      Did you even read the summary, you moron?

    19. Re:Misleading Cause by MisterMidi · · Score: 1

      Yes I did, did you? Nowhere does it say movie. Did you even follow the case? Guess not. The Sael Zaentz Company is not Warner Bros. The Sael Zaentz Company owns the rights to the Hobbit and LOTR stories, Warner Bros. owns the rights to the movies. Idiot.

    20. Re:Misleading Cause by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      Is this not reasonable?

      Not to me. The owner of a photograph is the picture taker, not the subject. Why should the same not be true for a screen grab?

    21. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The films are a decade old. The filmmakers have made their pile - they should be out of copyright. It's not like this pub is detracting from their royalties at all.

    22. Re:Misleading Cause by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I suggest you investigate your own question, because your current understanding is incorrect. An image containing copyrighted materials within it does fall under that copyrights restrictions, even tho the image may be owned by someone else.

    23. Re:Misleading Cause by Y2KDragon · · Score: 1

      This pub was one of the first targets in a campaign by the Saul Zentz Company, demanding small businesses in the UK to stop using their trademarks. It doesn't matter in this case if the pub uses stills from the movies, because this is not Warner Bros sueing over copyrights of the Peter Jackson movies. The SZC acquired rights to the Hobbit and LOTR stories in '76, but never bothered enforcing them to small businesses, until well after Peter Jackson repopularized the stories (some 20 years after the pub started).

      More proof that no one really cares about their stuff until they can see a way to make money from it. Sounds to me like SZC, after being openly exposed for their actions, is trying to fix what could end up being a PR nightmare. Plus, it's a chance to get in cozy with a few celeBRITies. And, like it was stated above, the pub gets some public notice as well. In the end, everyone makes money. Isn't that the way it should be?

    24. Re:Misleading Cause by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      the British Empire was built on stealing other people's work - just ask India.

      Indeed. If you want an example, look at British trains from about the time of the industrial revolution - they're just like the ones they have in India.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The owner of a photograph is the original owner. I can't just take a photo of someone else's photo and suddenly I own the copyright to what is to all intents and purposes an existing photo. In the case of movies, the original camera crew (or rather, the studio employing them) are the original photographers, my taking a screen grab doesn't somehow create a new and distinct work.

    26. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $100 figure was likely set to disuade a slew of "me too" cases - it's a small price for a business with legitimate reason to want to use the name, but high enough that jokers will be put off.

    27. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card"

      Want some "you're an idiot" with that portion of fail?

    28. Re:Misleading Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly think you know more about this than Steven Fry?

      Does anyone honestly think they know more about anything than Stephen Fry?

    29. Re:Misleading Cause by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Bono.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:Misleading Cause by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is any reason for the AC to start insulting people, jeez, it's just a silly discussion. But Zaentz owns "the worldwide film, stage, and merchandise rights", not the stories.

      If Burger King had to pay to plaster the characters' faces all over its packaging, I don't see why it's any different for a pub putting their faces on their signs, walls, menus, etc. That's *merchandise rights*. Of course, a single pub is a lot smaller business, that's why it was $100 and not $1M.

      In the end I wouldn't disagree that Zaentz is kind of a sleaze-ball. But legally, he clearly has standing...

  11. She should have kept her gobb shut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that the copyright holders know there are people with money they'll be asking a lot more for the license.

  12. the issue is not the name by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The pub uses (used?) images from the movies on its loyalty cards.

    So yeah, they decided to ride on the films fame to bolster the pub's business.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:the issue is not the name by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      This doesn't make any sense and I don't think it would stand up in court.

      Since when has an English pub ever had to bolster business?

  13. No big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't we seen all this before? The trademark owners have to do this to protect their rights, or they get diluted? Then afterwards to come to some reasonable arrangement?

  14. Saul Zaentz's lack of character by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'll mince no words: Saul Zaentz is and always has been an ahole. He only owns the rights to the film version of the book, he does not own the book. He ripped off Credence Clearwater's John Fogerty long ago, and then had the audacity to sue Fogerty for hundreds of millions, claiming John did not have the right to use his own riffs. He lost the suit but remained a complete dick. This man is the epitomy of wrong.

    1. Re:Saul Zaentz's lack of character by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Zaentz#The_Hobbit

      [...]In 2012, Zaentz' company began several legal actions against small businesses in the UK to enforce their "Hobbit" trade mark. Beginning with the Hungry Hobbit cafe[8][9] and a pub in Southampton, England, which had traded as The Hobbit for twenty years.[10] This raised the ire of many British correspondents such as Stephen Fry, who described it as "pointless, self-defeating bullying."[11][...]

      Saul Zaentz is 91 and will die, hopefully, soon.

    2. Re:Saul Zaentz's lack of character by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just nit-picking here but actually, I'd say that using "ahole" instead of "arsehole" (or "asshole" if you prefer) is a good example of mincing your words - rewording something so as to not cause (as much) offence.

  15. Re:Pub? Where? What? by osu-neko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Okay, mods, that's a new one... you can't call the First Post "Redundant".

    Obviously, you can. Are you doubting the evidence of your own eyes?

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  16. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The vast majority of Slashdot readers probably thought is was both funny and a much better answer to your (cave?) troll than was deserved.

    If you can't see the point or the humor the problem may not be whether the post belongs on Slashdot, but whether you do...

  17. Re:Pub? Where? What? by osu-neko · · Score: 3

    Hobbits AND an IP infringement lawsuit AND beer! How can you even question this story? It's one of the most typical of /. stories up at the moment...

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  18. More details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Website of the pub: http://www.hobbitpub.co.uk/"

    Most of the "infringing material" is mere fan art like this graffiti in the beer garden: http://www.hobbitpub.co.uk/gallery/hobbitgraffiti/67/

    Even thought it is just a drawing they were asked to over-paint it.

    Here is a still from the movie used as background for a card: http://www.hobbitpub.co.uk/hobbit-cocktails/

    That's pretty much it.

    I think Steven Fry and Sir Ian McKellen are right when they call the claims "petty". How many pubs are there with images of e.g. Elvis Presley? I am sure someone has a copyright to them as well. So all auxiliary lawyers here should calm the f*** down.

  19. Think more carefully, please by Shauni · · Score: 1

    If this was just a dispute over promotional material, the pub wouldn't need any licensing fees at all -- it would just have to stop using the screencaps. The studio demanded the pub stop all references to all "trademarked" characters (which would require them to change drink names and the pub name), despite the fact that it's clearly had rights for less than the pub's been operation (20 years). That's not a debate over copyright imagery, and indeed the article calls it a "trademark dispute." That's just absurd. I only regret that Fry and McKellen are actually paying these trademark trolls.

  20. Ian McKellen is getting good at playing... by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...an old guy who stands in front of implacable foes. Granted, lawyers are worse than ancient supernatural fire demons.

    1. Re:Ian McKellen is getting good at playing... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Would be funny if he went to the pub owners and said "You shall not pay"

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  21. Cite needed by Shauni · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps not, but they certainly started selling stuff with the images of the characters from the movie including putting Elijah Woods face on things. That's what prompted the legal action.

    I haven't seen any indication that the character image infringement issues were what "really" prompted the action. If that were so, this would be a non-story now (since they've removed all copyrighted pictures from their website and fliers) The copyright infringement may be where the pub was most definitively in the wrong, but it is far from the core of the issue.

  22. Re:Pub? Where? What? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's redundant in that practically every story has at least one post saying how it's a nonstory. The guy claiming this one to be a nonstory is particularly off base in that the story involves Lord of the Rings, intellectual property law, and beer... the only way it could be more relevant to Slashdot's collective interests is if the ghost of Steve Jobs was found drinking there with Linus Torvalds.

  23. The sad thing about this thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is how much people still use "gay" as an insult of sorts.

    These guys are made from solid class.

  24. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And especially so in the context of rule 34.

  25. Re:Pub? Where? What? by digitig · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the Hobbit pub. It comes in half pints, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  26. Except by AdamJS · · Score: 1

    They use actual screencaps and promotional materials ripped from the movies and associated trademarked/copyrighted works, without permission.

  27. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the Hobbit pub. It comes in half pints, you insensitive clod!

    Is that a European or an American hobbit? (An American Hobbit is only 0.42 pints).

  28. Who got their culture from the Greeks by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Everyone steals, what is your point?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  29. Re:Pub? Where? What? by ynp7 · · Score: 1

    That's not new. It happens all the time and has for years.

  30. Re:Pub? Where? What? by ynp7 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Either Jobs or Torvalds would need to be using a car analogy.

  31. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Dave+Emami · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the Hobbit pub. It comes in half pints, you insensitive clod!

    "Do you think they'll make jokes about our height?"
    "Of course not! If we behave like tall people, we'll be treated tall people!"
    "What'll it be, gents?"
    "We'd like a half pint of ale, a plate of short ribs with small fries, and a short order of shrimp!"
    "That's tellin' 'im, Mr. Frodo!"
    (From The Ring and I, musical parody of the Bakshi version of Lord of the Rings, in Mad Magazine ~1978).

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  32. Repony by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    "Repony" isn't a word. "Prancing Pony" is two, though.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  33. Repony? WTF does that mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repony? Really?

  34. Queer Idea by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Imagine I were to open a theme pub where whenever someone orders a certain drink its name flashes on a screen and a buzzer sounds, and all the staff talk like pretentious knobheads except for one who acts intentionally obtuse.

    What would Mr Fry think about that?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  35. Clarifying A Few Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I feel I should address some of the issues raised in these comments. Firstly, the lawsuit was threatened because of their name. Second, the letter Mr Zaentz sent us was certainly NOT amicable, but we're not allowed to share it for legal reasons. Regarding use of images from the movie, perhaps that wasn't very well thought through, but anyone who has been to the pub could tell you that the places these images are used don't really have a bearing on sales at all - people don't buy loyalty cards because they've got Elijah Wood's face on, and nor do they buy an Aragorn drink simply because the poster has Viggo Mortensen's face on it. The pub has never tried to piggy-back on the movies' success. It's just a slightly geeky pub run by Tolkien fans for students who wouldn't see it changed for the world. Perhaps there have been some foolish but well-meaning errors committed. There are bigger things to deal with in the world of IP than small British pubs.

  36. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Half pints, surely for hobbits?

  37. Re:Pub? Where? What? by advocate_one · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One does not simply walk into Mordor...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  38. What next, Comic Con? by Cazekiel · · Score: 2

    Good. I find it ridiculous that this pub can be in existence for so long without one hushed word from Tolkien's people, then BANG, IZZA MOVIE and those involved in the film (The Money) start throwing their toys out of the pram. The only way I could see this as a problem is if the place was built less than ten years ago, with every inch of wall space coated in movie stills and there was hard evidence that the pub somehow affected New Line's economic climate. Everyone involved in the films does understand how much money they've made in the last 13 years, correct? Hell, in a perfect world, people and businesses SHOULD be able to cash in on the freakin' films; we're all owed for the trickling-in of the first DVD release then OH, here's the extended edition... oh hey, five years later, theatrical... you've made your nickel, guys, let it go.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
  39. Re:Pub? Where? What? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

    Yes they should have driven.

  40. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Y2KDragon · · Score: 1

    One does not simply walk into Mordor...

    No, you need a reservation.

  41. OB: H2G2 by laejoh · · Score: 2

    I can imagine the owners of http://www.hotblackdesiato.co.uk/ getting scared too :)

    1. Re:OB: H2G2 by cybernanga · · Score: 1

      They existed first, Douglas Adams saw the name and liked it, so he asked if he could use it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotblack_Desiato#Hotblack_Desiato

      --
      www.Buy-Proxy.com - A "buyer-driven" global marketplace.
  42. Re:Pub? Where? What? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Because geeks

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  43. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to find it interesting enough news to comment upon.

  44. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    It's the Hobbit pub. It comes in half pints, you insensitive clod!

    Actually the "Little House on the Prairie" pub sell those..

    Too early for an obscure reference?

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  45. Why do I know that name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Stephen Fry said, shut up and take my money?

  46. No... by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Funny

    You need to have a Mordor Car.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  47. Re:Pub? Where? What? by queBurro · · Score: 1

    imagine if Steve Jobs was still available over telnet, that would be awesome!

    --
    sag
  48. YOUR RIGHTS ONLINE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummmmm, samzenpus, WHAT does this have to do with YRO? Are your hands covered in vaseline from jacking off to hentai and you just slipped when you hit "accept" but meant to hit "reject?" I look forward to your reply.

  49. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Bigby · · Score: 1

    Or the car analogy would be using them!

  50. Am I the only one commenting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that has drunk in this establishment? I am a bit bewildered by the mention of the decor. It's just standard crappy pub decor, crappy benches outside, a few pool tables and a few fruities (slot machines). What -isn't- mentioned that this pub charges people on the busier nights of the week an entrance fee. Something you'll be hard pressed to find in ANY other pub in the entirety of the United Kingdom, let alone Southampton. I smell a rat.

  51. Re:Pub? Where? What? by residieu · · Score: 1

    A yankee? I was going to blame the Tolkien estate for this, but apparently it's even more ridiculous.

  52. Do not take me for some peddler of cheap booze! by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

    Drink, you fools!

  53. Except The Owners Are WRONG WRONG WRONG! by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    That pub might've been operated under the name "The Hobbit" for 20 years .. but I'll bet dollars (or pounds) to donuts (or hashers) that the sign with the blatant movie character ripoffs is not nearly that old. THERE is the copyright infringement, and the owners were damned fools to put up that sign.

    Take down the sign, put up something elfish or wizardry, anything that isn't readily identifiable from the LOTR movie, and THEN fight the greedy movie lawyer bastiges.

    Remember the old adage (American, I do believe): "Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute." Tell those generous actors thank you very much, but we'll use your money to defend in court, not to pay tribute in the form of licensing.

    Toad

  54. Re:Pub? Where? What? by narcc · · Score: 1

    That's obscure?

  55. Re:Pub? Where? What? by ynp7 · · Score: 2

    Only if Mordor is in Soviet Russia.

  56. Re:Pub? Where? What? by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    It's the Hobbit pub. It comes in half pints, you insensitive clod!

    Is that an American hobbit or Everywhere-else-in-the-world hobbit? (An American Hobbit is only 0.42 pints).

    There I fixed that for you. Wait... my bad... Liberia and Myanmar also don't use the metric system. :)

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  57. I've been there OR2008 by illtud · · Score: 1

    Surely there are others here who've been to the pub? I was there on the Open Repositories Conference 2008. Huge beer garden straight out of Spinal Tap without the budget (check out the gallery on the website). Great disturbed poet (think McGonagall after 20 years of acid) on a synth that night. Great black-painted old-school longhairds' pub. Good luck to them.

  58. Plausibility by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Maybe they did, but the pub told them to screw off. You're assuming that the media has told the entire story

    So it comes down to whether journalists are being honest or lawyers are being reasonable. I now wonder if there is a third, more plausible explanation.

  59. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    A fun Easter egg would be that if you switched it to walking directions is responded that you can't just walk into Mordor. That is just directions between two places that happen to have interesting names.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  60. Re:Pub? Where? What? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Which apparently it does if you switch to walking mode...

    Walking directions are in beta.
    Use caution – One does not simply walk into Mordor.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?