Southampton's The Hobbit pub saved

Daily Echo: The Hobbit in Southampton The Hobbit in Southampton

THE battle over Southampton's famous pub, The Hobbit, could be over, the Daily Echo understands.

The Saul Zaentz Company, which contacted owners Punch Tavern about the Bevois Valley pub's use of The Hobbit brand has told the Daily Echo the row has been a misunderstanding.

Film producer Paul Zaentz has told the Echo he does not necessarily want to remove all reference to Tolkien's work and "certainly doesn't want to run anyone out of business."

He wants to resolve the dispute "amicably" and suggested the pub could be asked to pay a nominal licence fee of $100 a year - about £63.

Mr Zaentz said: “We’ve tried to be very gracious. We think asking for a nominal licence fee is very reasonable.

"Rather than engage in protracted and expensive litigation, (we) would prefer to resolve this matter amicably.

"We said we would be willing to consider any proposition they might make, but to my knowledge we’ve had no response yet."

Mr Zaentz contacted the Echo after the campaign to save the pub garnered worldwide attention, with backing from Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellen, who both appear in the upcoming The Hobbit movie.

Comments (58)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:53pm Thu 15 Mar 12

The Music Man says...

good stuff
good stuff The Music Man
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Thu 15 Mar 12

The Music Man says...

good stuff
good stuff The Music Man
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Thu 15 Mar 12

housewife says...

ROTFLMAOPMPL

silly silly man has just hired new lawyers methinks
ROTFLMAOPMPL silly silly man has just hired new lawyers methinks housewife
  • Score: 0

5:58pm Thu 15 Mar 12

Huffter says...

Sounds a reasonable solution.
Sounds a reasonable solution. Huffter
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Thu 15 Mar 12

sherinsul says...

shouldn't even have to pay the $100 a year for the privalige !!
shouldn't even have to pay the $100 a year for the privalige !! sherinsul
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Thu 15 Mar 12

Just another reader says...

I think the $100 fee is very reasonable, as long as they agree to it remaining at that level and can't hike the price as they wish.
I think the $100 fee is very reasonable, as long as they agree to it remaining at that level and can't hike the price as they wish. Just another reader
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Thu 15 Mar 12

The Music Man says...

what is the point of such a nominal sum? Not not it's going to help their Christmas bonus is it
what is the point of such a nominal sum? Not not it's going to help their Christmas bonus is it The Music Man
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Thu 15 Mar 12

ShakeyWiffles says...

Shouldn't have to pay ANY type of fee at all
Shouldn't have to pay ANY type of fee at all ShakeyWiffles
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Thu 15 Mar 12

Linesman says...

With the millions that the Saul Zaentz Company has, I would suggest that the compromise should be that the $100 goes to a local charity.

Does the Saul Zaentz Company really need another $100 dollars?
With the millions that the Saul Zaentz Company has, I would suggest that the compromise should be that the $100 goes to a local charity. Does the Saul Zaentz Company really need another $100 dollars? Linesman
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Thu 15 Mar 12

Huffter says...

$100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name!
$100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name! Huffter
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Thu 15 Mar 12

ajw1986 says...

the fee might be minimal but a fee nonetheless.
the fee might be minimal but a fee nonetheless. ajw1986
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Thu 15 Mar 12

SOULJACKER says...

Hahahaha, 100 Bucks, what is the point :D

Hollywood Schmollywood.....too freakin' precious :))))
Hahahaha, 100 Bucks, what is the point :D Hollywood Schmollywood.....too freakin' precious :)))) SOULJACKER
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Thu 15 Mar 12

GX Saint says...

Wizard news
Wizard news GX Saint
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Thu 15 Mar 12

ShakeyWiffles says...

Huffter wrote:
$100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name!
Lucky to get away so lightly? Yeah you're right. I mean how dare they name their pub that 23 years before filming ends of a film of the same title
[quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: $100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name![/p][/quote]Lucky to get away so lightly? Yeah you're right. I mean how dare they name their pub that 23 years before filming ends of a film of the same title ShakeyWiffles
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Thu 15 Mar 12

Solomon's Boot says...

I wouldn't be too quick to celebrate,the Echo have probably got it wrong again!
I wouldn't be too quick to celebrate,the Echo have probably got it wrong again! Solomon's Boot
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Thu 15 Mar 12

Rhombus says...

Mmmmm Not been a marketing ploy all along then? >.>


Misunderstanding. haha
Mmmmm Not been a marketing ploy all along then? >.> Misunderstanding. haha Rhombus
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Thu 15 Mar 12

mi76 says...

ShakeyWiffles wrote:
Huffter wrote:
$100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name!
Lucky to get away so lightly? Yeah you're right. I mean how dare they name their pub that 23 years before filming ends of a film of the same title
The LOTR was written in the 1950's. From what I understand the pub itself uses a lot of imagery from the films - so quite clearly they are taking advantage of the films - if not the books before them.

As far as copyright goes, I believe there might be soem legal value in making the pub make a nominal sum rather than letting them use it for free as it could mean they could lose control over their rights if lots of people use copyrighted material willy nilly.
[quote][p][bold]ShakeyWiffles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: $100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name![/p][/quote]Lucky to get away so lightly? Yeah you're right. I mean how dare they name their pub that 23 years before filming ends of a film of the same title[/p][/quote]The LOTR was written in the 1950's. From what I understand the pub itself uses a lot of imagery from the films - so quite clearly they are taking advantage of the films - if not the books before them. As far as copyright goes, I believe there might be soem legal value in making the pub make a nominal sum rather than letting them use it for free as it could mean they could lose control over their rights if lots of people use copyrighted material willy nilly. mi76
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Thu 15 Mar 12

erictholmes says...

There should be no charge at all. This would be like the Paris pub "Quasimodo" being required to pay for its name. It just happens to be around the corner from Notre Dame Cathedral. Or the "Jabberwocky" Cafe at Syracuse University being required to pay for its name. We've gotten into too much commercialism and not enough culture. Used to be a time when imitation was the sincerest flattery.
There should be no charge at all. This would be like the Paris pub "Quasimodo" being required to pay for its name. It just happens to be around the corner from Notre Dame Cathedral. Or the "Jabberwocky" Cafe at Syracuse University being required to pay for its name. We've gotten into too much commercialism and not enough culture. Used to be a time when imitation was the sincerest flattery. erictholmes
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Thu 15 Mar 12

law_stud says...

Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable.

Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.
Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable. Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along. law_stud
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Thu 15 Mar 12

bemused26 says...

erictholmes wrote:
There should be no charge at all. This would be like the Paris pub "Quasimodo" being required to pay for its name. It just happens to be around the corner from Notre Dame Cathedral. Or the "Jabberwocky" Cafe at Syracuse University being required to pay for its name. We've gotten into too much commercialism and not enough culture. Used to be a time when imitation was the sincerest flattery.
Are you English or From the USA?
[quote][p][bold]erictholmes[/bold] wrote: There should be no charge at all. This would be like the Paris pub "Quasimodo" being required to pay for its name. It just happens to be around the corner from Notre Dame Cathedral. Or the "Jabberwocky" Cafe at Syracuse University being required to pay for its name. We've gotten into too much commercialism and not enough culture. Used to be a time when imitation was the sincerest flattery.[/p][/quote]Are you English or From the USA? bemused26
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Thu 15 Mar 12

Saint2824 says...

law_stud wrote:
Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable.

Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.
What i think people fail to realise, and this is not me agreeing with what has happened, but if a copyright holder does not take action against breaches of its rights then they can potentially loose them entirely. And it doesn't matter on the size of the breach or business they don't go after. Once they identify a breach or potential breach they MUST take action.

I don't think these bully boy tactics of threatening letters is the way forward, as i do not beleive that the hobbit (pub) have deliberately used images etc to increase profits. I think they were in some cases maybe just a little naive.

The $100 licence fee would just be a nominal amount to make it all legal again and that they are receiving some payment for use of their copyrighted images etc.

Without it, they would leave themselves open to numerous others taking the p1ss.
[quote][p][bold]law_stud[/bold] wrote: Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable. Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.[/p][/quote]What i think people fail to realise, and this is not me agreeing with what has happened, but if a copyright holder does not take action against breaches of its rights then they can potentially loose them entirely. And it doesn't matter on the size of the breach or business they don't go after. Once they identify a breach or potential breach they MUST take action. I don't think these bully boy tactics of threatening letters is the way forward, as i do not beleive that the hobbit (pub) have deliberately used images etc to increase profits. I think they were in some cases maybe just a little naive. The $100 licence fee would just be a nominal amount to make it all legal again and that they are receiving some payment for use of their copyrighted images etc. Without it, they would leave themselves open to numerous others taking the p1ss. Saint2824
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Thu 15 Mar 12

clausentum says...

bemused26 wrote:
erictholmes wrote:
There should be no charge at all. This would be like the Paris pub "Quasimodo" being required to pay for its name. It just happens to be around the corner from Notre Dame Cathedral. Or the "Jabberwocky" Cafe at Syracuse University being required to pay for its name. We've gotten into too much commercialism and not enough culture. Used to be a time when imitation was the sincerest flattery.
Are you English or From the USA?
"gotten" rather than "got" is a clue

:-)
[quote][p][bold]bemused26[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]erictholmes[/bold] wrote: There should be no charge at all. This would be like the Paris pub "Quasimodo" being required to pay for its name. It just happens to be around the corner from Notre Dame Cathedral. Or the "Jabberwocky" Cafe at Syracuse University being required to pay for its name. We've gotten into too much commercialism and not enough culture. Used to be a time when imitation was the sincerest flattery.[/p][/quote]Are you English or From the USA?[/p][/quote]"gotten" rather than "got" is a clue :-) clausentum
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Thu 15 Mar 12

Bowmore says...

Huffter wrote:
$100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name!
Huffter You seem to be confusing USA copyright laws with those of the UK, which in the UK are civil laws with no system to register your copyright for it to be enforceable. You simply need to prove that you produced the piece of work in question. Perhaps the action against The Hobbit was about Trademark infringement, which has much stricter UK laws.
[quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: $100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name![/p][/quote]Huffter You seem to be confusing USA copyright laws with those of the UK, which in the UK are civil laws with no system to register your copyright for it to be enforceable. You simply need to prove that you produced the piece of work in question. Perhaps the action against The Hobbit was about Trademark infringement, which has much stricter UK laws. Bowmore
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Thu 15 Mar 12

cantthinkofone says...

erictholmes wrote:
There should be no charge at all. This would be like the Paris pub "Quasimodo" being required to pay for its name. It just happens to be around the corner from Notre Dame Cathedral. Or the "Jabberwocky" Cafe at Syracuse University being required to pay for its name. We've gotten into too much commercialism and not enough culture. Used to be a time when imitation was the sincerest flattery.
There should be no fee for the name, but that's never been the issue. The pub has been using the films' imagery to promote itself, and that's what's got them noticed by the studio.
[quote][p][bold]erictholmes[/bold] wrote: There should be no charge at all. This would be like the Paris pub "Quasimodo" being required to pay for its name. It just happens to be around the corner from Notre Dame Cathedral. Or the "Jabberwocky" Cafe at Syracuse University being required to pay for its name. We've gotten into too much commercialism and not enough culture. Used to be a time when imitation was the sincerest flattery.[/p][/quote]There should be no fee for the name, but that's never been the issue. The pub has been using the films' imagery to promote itself, and that's what's got them noticed by the studio. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

7:55pm Thu 15 Mar 12

law_stud says...

Saint2824 wrote:
law_stud wrote:
Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable.

Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.
What i think people fail to realise, and this is not me agreeing with what has happened, but if a copyright holder does not take action against breaches of its rights then they can potentially loose them entirely. And it doesn't matter on the size of the breach or business they don't go after. Once they identify a breach or potential breach they MUST take action.

I don't think these bully boy tactics of threatening letters is the way forward, as i do not beleive that the hobbit (pub) have deliberately used images etc to increase profits. I think they were in some cases maybe just a little naive.

The $100 licence fee would just be a nominal amount to make it all legal again and that they are receiving some payment for use of their copyrighted images etc.

Without it, they would leave themselves open to numerous others taking the p1ss.
Actually, that's not true about copyrights; you must be thinking about trade marks, which I don't think are in dispute here.

I do agree with you about the Hobbit's naivety, though.
[quote][p][bold]Saint2824[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]law_stud[/bold] wrote: Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable. Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.[/p][/quote]What i think people fail to realise, and this is not me agreeing with what has happened, but if a copyright holder does not take action against breaches of its rights then they can potentially loose them entirely. And it doesn't matter on the size of the breach or business they don't go after. Once they identify a breach or potential breach they MUST take action. I don't think these bully boy tactics of threatening letters is the way forward, as i do not beleive that the hobbit (pub) have deliberately used images etc to increase profits. I think they were in some cases maybe just a little naive. The $100 licence fee would just be a nominal amount to make it all legal again and that they are receiving some payment for use of their copyrighted images etc. Without it, they would leave themselves open to numerous others taking the p1ss.[/p][/quote]Actually, that's not true about copyrights; you must be thinking about trade marks, which I don't think are in dispute here. I do agree with you about the Hobbit's naivety, though. law_stud
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Thu 15 Mar 12

timjim says...

Anyone think this bloke actually did bother to ring the Echo? I am not so sure - this may rumble on for some time yet!!!
Anyone think this bloke actually did bother to ring the Echo? I am not so sure - this may rumble on for some time yet!!! timjim
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Thu 15 Mar 12

Saint2824 says...

law_stud wrote:
Saint2824 wrote:
law_stud wrote:
Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable.

Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.
What i think people fail to realise, and this is not me agreeing with what has happened, but if a copyright holder does not take action against breaches of its rights then they can potentially loose them entirely. And it doesn't matter on the size of the breach or business they don't go after. Once they identify a breach or potential breach they MUST take action.

I don't think these bully boy tactics of threatening letters is the way forward, as i do not beleive that the hobbit (pub) have deliberately used images etc to increase profits. I think they were in some cases maybe just a little naive.

The $100 licence fee would just be a nominal amount to make it all legal again and that they are receiving some payment for use of their copyrighted images etc.

Without it, they would leave themselves open to numerous others taking the p1ss.
Actually, that's not true about copyrights; you must be thinking about trade marks, which I don't think are in dispute here.

I do agree with you about the Hobbit's naivety, though.
meh... tomato tomato.. lol
[quote][p][bold]law_stud[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint2824[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]law_stud[/bold] wrote: Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable. Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.[/p][/quote]What i think people fail to realise, and this is not me agreeing with what has happened, but if a copyright holder does not take action against breaches of its rights then they can potentially loose them entirely. And it doesn't matter on the size of the breach or business they don't go after. Once they identify a breach or potential breach they MUST take action. I don't think these bully boy tactics of threatening letters is the way forward, as i do not beleive that the hobbit (pub) have deliberately used images etc to increase profits. I think they were in some cases maybe just a little naive. The $100 licence fee would just be a nominal amount to make it all legal again and that they are receiving some payment for use of their copyrighted images etc. Without it, they would leave themselves open to numerous others taking the p1ss.[/p][/quote]Actually, that's not true about copyrights; you must be thinking about trade marks, which I don't think are in dispute here. I do agree with you about the Hobbit's naivety, though.[/p][/quote]meh... tomato tomato.. lol Saint2824
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Thu 15 Mar 12

IronLady2010 says...

$100 and a contract no doubt! No Company in the world would give in for such pennies.

This is not the full story!
$100 and a contract no doubt! No Company in the world would give in for such pennies. This is not the full story! IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Thu 15 Mar 12

techsture says...

Just another toilet pub surviving by selling toilet water at close to a fiver a pint.

It will go the way of the rest, clinging on to the coattails of anothers intellectual property or not.
Just another toilet pub surviving by selling toilet water at close to a fiver a pint. It will go the way of the rest, clinging on to the coattails of anothers intellectual property or not. techsture
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Thu 15 Mar 12

IronLady2010 says...

techsture wrote:
Just another toilet pub surviving by selling toilet water at close to a fiver a pint.

It will go the way of the rest, clinging on to the coattails of anothers intellectual property or not.
I can't comment on the venue as I've never been in there. But they employ local people, so they have my support.
[quote][p][bold]techsture[/bold] wrote: Just another toilet pub surviving by selling toilet water at close to a fiver a pint. It will go the way of the rest, clinging on to the coattails of anothers intellectual property or not.[/p][/quote]I can't comment on the venue as I've never been in there. But they employ local people, so they have my support. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Thu 15 Mar 12

Huffter says...

Bowmore wrote:
Huffter wrote: $100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name!
Huffter You seem to be confusing USA copyright laws with those of the UK, which in the UK are civil laws with no system to register your copyright for it to be enforceable. You simply need to prove that you produced the piece of work in question. Perhaps the action against The Hobbit was about Trademark infringement, which has much stricter UK laws.
No confusion - just 10 years experience of working in copyright.
[quote][p][bold]Bowmore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: $100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name![/p][/quote]Huffter You seem to be confusing USA copyright laws with those of the UK, which in the UK are civil laws with no system to register your copyright for it to be enforceable. You simply need to prove that you produced the piece of work in question. Perhaps the action against The Hobbit was about Trademark infringement, which has much stricter UK laws.[/p][/quote]No confusion - just 10 years experience of working in copyright. Huffter
  • Score: 0

9:29pm Thu 15 Mar 12

bigfella777 says...

Shame,I would rather see it bulldozed,its an eyesore.
Shame,I would rather see it bulldozed,its an eyesore. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Thu 15 Mar 12

IronLady2010 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Shame,I would rather see it bulldozed,its an eyesore.
It employs local people. Surely we wouldn't wish to see more people out of work?
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Shame,I would rather see it bulldozed,its an eyesore.[/p][/quote]It employs local people. Surely we wouldn't wish to see more people out of work? IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

9:45pm Thu 15 Mar 12

The Music Man says...

are they allowed to sell rip-off tshirts now then?
are they allowed to sell rip-off tshirts now then? The Music Man
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Thu 15 Mar 12

IronLady2010 says...

The Music Man wrote:
are they allowed to sell rip-off tshirts now then?
You can always address your issues to Trading Standards if they aren't up to standard.
[quote][p][bold]The Music Man[/bold] wrote: are they allowed to sell rip-off tshirts now then?[/p][/quote]You can always address your issues to Trading Standards if they aren't up to standard. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

11:10pm Thu 15 Mar 12

dolomiteman says...

techsture wrote:
Just another toilet pub surviving by selling toilet water at close to a fiver a pint.

It will go the way of the rest, clinging on to the coattails of anothers intellectual property or not.
Why make comments like that when you have clearly never been in that pub, if you had you would know that a pint is nowhere near £5 and toilet water is free, they will even give you a glass to put the toilet water in.
[quote][p][bold]techsture[/bold] wrote: Just another toilet pub surviving by selling toilet water at close to a fiver a pint. It will go the way of the rest, clinging on to the coattails of anothers intellectual property or not.[/p][/quote]Why make comments like that when you have clearly never been in that pub, if you had you would know that a pint is nowhere near £5 and toilet water is free, they will even give you a glass to put the toilet water in. dolomiteman
  • Score: 0

12:52am Fri 16 Mar 12

City Saint says...

dolomiteman wrote:
techsture wrote:
Just another toilet pub surviving by selling toilet water at close to a fiver a pint.

It will go the way of the rest, clinging on to the coattails of anothers intellectual property or not.
Why make comments like that when you have clearly never been in that pub, if you had you would know that a pint is nowhere near £5 and toilet water is free, they will even give you a glass to put the toilet water in.
Wow. This whole kerfuffle has realty brought out some of the best and worst of Southampton. Successful cities needs strong employment, a wide variety of things to see and do, and a spectrum of social locations. I don't go to The Hobbit myself anymore, but that's only because as a working middle aged man I now prefer to share my toilet water at home with friends of a similar ilk. Live and let live, dude.
[quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]techsture[/bold] wrote: Just another toilet pub surviving by selling toilet water at close to a fiver a pint. It will go the way of the rest, clinging on to the coattails of anothers intellectual property or not.[/p][/quote]Why make comments like that when you have clearly never been in that pub, if you had you would know that a pint is nowhere near £5 and toilet water is free, they will even give you a glass to put the toilet water in.[/p][/quote]Wow. This whole kerfuffle has realty brought out some of the best and worst of Southampton. Successful cities needs strong employment, a wide variety of things to see and do, and a spectrum of social locations. I don't go to The Hobbit myself anymore, but that's only because as a working middle aged man I now prefer to share my toilet water at home with friends of a similar ilk. Live and let live, dude. City Saint
  • Score: 0

8:51am Fri 16 Mar 12

Urbane Forager says...

Saint2824 wrote:
law_stud wrote: Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable. Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.
What i think people fail to realise, and this is not me agreeing with what has happened, but if a copyright holder does not take action against breaches of its rights then they can potentially loose them entirely. And it doesn't matter on the size of the breach or business they don't go after. Once they identify a breach or potential breach they MUST take action. I don't think these bully boy tactics of threatening letters is the way forward, as i do not beleive that the hobbit (pub) have deliberately used images etc to increase profits. I think they were in some cases maybe just a little naive. The $100 licence fee would just be a nominal amount to make it all legal again and that they are receiving some payment for use of their copyrighted images etc. Without it, they would leave themselves open to numerous others taking the p1ss.
I am a copyright holder, via both books and DVDs. I always chase down illegal copying and downloads, which are now numerous but if someone merely copies a picture, quotes or titles etc. - I always consider it as flattery and good marketing for me/my products.
I think that as the Hobbit pub was named after the original book/fictional creature not the film that is about to be made/released then the whole thing is a bit silly but non-the-less a stunning viral PR coup for the good old Hobbit...
Keep up the good work Southampton!
btw. Has anyone spotted that we are back on the national weather maps now? I noticed that we were replaced by Portsmouth for a while, when we dropped out of the Prem.
[quote][p][bold]Saint2824[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]law_stud[/bold] wrote: Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable. Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.[/p][/quote]What i think people fail to realise, and this is not me agreeing with what has happened, but if a copyright holder does not take action against breaches of its rights then they can potentially loose them entirely. And it doesn't matter on the size of the breach or business they don't go after. Once they identify a breach or potential breach they MUST take action. I don't think these bully boy tactics of threatening letters is the way forward, as i do not beleive that the hobbit (pub) have deliberately used images etc to increase profits. I think they were in some cases maybe just a little naive. The $100 licence fee would just be a nominal amount to make it all legal again and that they are receiving some payment for use of their copyrighted images etc. Without it, they would leave themselves open to numerous others taking the p1ss.[/p][/quote]I am a copyright holder, via both books and DVDs. I always chase down illegal copying and downloads, which are now numerous but if someone merely copies a picture, quotes or titles etc. - I always consider it as flattery and good marketing for me/my products. I think that as the Hobbit pub was named after the original book/fictional creature not the film that is about to be made/released then the whole thing is a bit silly but non-the-less a stunning viral PR coup for the good old Hobbit... Keep up the good work Southampton! btw. Has anyone spotted that we are back on the national weather maps now? I noticed that we were replaced by Portsmouth for a while, when we dropped out of the Prem. Urbane Forager
  • Score: 0

9:03am Fri 16 Mar 12

voiceinthecrowd says...

Urbane Forager wrote:
Saint2824 wrote:
law_stud wrote: Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable. Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.
What i think people fail to realise, and this is not me agreeing with what has happened, but if a copyright holder does not take action against breaches of its rights then they can potentially loose them entirely. And it doesn't matter on the size of the breach or business they don't go after. Once they identify a breach or potential breach they MUST take action. I don't think these bully boy tactics of threatening letters is the way forward, as i do not beleive that the hobbit (pub) have deliberately used images etc to increase profits. I think they were in some cases maybe just a little naive. The $100 licence fee would just be a nominal amount to make it all legal again and that they are receiving some payment for use of their copyrighted images etc. Without it, they would leave themselves open to numerous others taking the p1ss.
I am a copyright holder, via both books and DVDs. I always chase down illegal copying and downloads, which are now numerous but if someone merely copies a picture, quotes or titles etc. - I always consider it as flattery and good marketing for me/my products.
I think that as the Hobbit pub was named after the original book/fictional creature not the film that is about to be made/released then the whole thing is a bit silly but non-the-less a stunning viral PR coup for the good old Hobbit...
Keep up the good work Southampton!
btw. Has anyone spotted that we are back on the national weather maps now? I noticed that we were replaced by Portsmouth for a while, when we dropped out of the Prem.
I do hope the Hobbit owners now agree to what is a very generous offer.
I wish them well if they do
[quote][p][bold]Urbane Forager[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint2824[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]law_stud[/bold] wrote: Sorry ZSC, but you don't hire world-class IP lawyers (Edwards Wildman are rather well known in the field) to extract nominal fees. You'll spend more on the lawyers' fees than you'll get back in a few years from the license, maybe adding in an extra year in if you take into account the discount rate when valuing future fees payable. Oh, and then there's the negative press attention. All in all, they would have been better off to leave well alone if this were, in fact, their intention all along.[/p][/quote]What i think people fail to realise, and this is not me agreeing with what has happened, but if a copyright holder does not take action against breaches of its rights then they can potentially loose them entirely. And it doesn't matter on the size of the breach or business they don't go after. Once they identify a breach or potential breach they MUST take action. I don't think these bully boy tactics of threatening letters is the way forward, as i do not beleive that the hobbit (pub) have deliberately used images etc to increase profits. I think they were in some cases maybe just a little naive. The $100 licence fee would just be a nominal amount to make it all legal again and that they are receiving some payment for use of their copyrighted images etc. Without it, they would leave themselves open to numerous others taking the p1ss.[/p][/quote]I am a copyright holder, via both books and DVDs. I always chase down illegal copying and downloads, which are now numerous but if someone merely copies a picture, quotes or titles etc. - I always consider it as flattery and good marketing for me/my products. I think that as the Hobbit pub was named after the original book/fictional creature not the film that is about to be made/released then the whole thing is a bit silly but non-the-less a stunning viral PR coup for the good old Hobbit... Keep up the good work Southampton! btw. Has anyone spotted that we are back on the national weather maps now? I noticed that we were replaced by Portsmouth for a while, when we dropped out of the Prem.[/p][/quote]I do hope the Hobbit owners now agree to what is a very generous offer. I wish them well if they do voiceinthecrowd
  • Score: 0

9:10am Fri 16 Mar 12

userds5050 says...

Bowmore wrote:
Huffter wrote:
$100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name!
Huffter You seem to be confusing USA copyright laws with those of the UK, which in the UK are civil laws with no system to register your copyright for it to be enforceable. You simply need to prove that you produced the piece of work in question. Perhaps the action against The Hobbit was about Trademark infringement, which has much stricter UK laws.
We can be charged under US law and extradited to the states these days without so much as a whimper from our government. Just ask the student due to be extradited to the US for film copyright infringement.
[quote][p][bold]Bowmore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: $100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name![/p][/quote]Huffter You seem to be confusing USA copyright laws with those of the UK, which in the UK are civil laws with no system to register your copyright for it to be enforceable. You simply need to prove that you produced the piece of work in question. Perhaps the action against The Hobbit was about Trademark infringement, which has much stricter UK laws.[/p][/quote]We can be charged under US law and extradited to the states these days without so much as a whimper from our government. Just ask the student due to be extradited to the US for film copyright infringement. userds5050
  • Score: 0

9:11am Fri 16 Mar 12

St Retford says...

City Saint wrote:
dolomiteman wrote:
techsture wrote: Just another toilet pub surviving by selling toilet water at close to a fiver a pint. It will go the way of the rest, clinging on to the coattails of anothers intellectual property or not.
Why make comments like that when you have clearly never been in that pub, if you had you would know that a pint is nowhere near £5 and toilet water is free, they will even give you a glass to put the toilet water in.
Wow. This whole kerfuffle has realty brought out some of the best and worst of Southampton. Successful cities needs strong employment, a wide variety of things to see and do, and a spectrum of social locations. I don't go to The Hobbit myself anymore, but that's only because as a working middle aged man I now prefer to share my toilet water at home with friends of a similar ilk. Live and let live, dude.
This.
[quote][p][bold]City Saint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]techsture[/bold] wrote: Just another toilet pub surviving by selling toilet water at close to a fiver a pint. It will go the way of the rest, clinging on to the coattails of anothers intellectual property or not.[/p][/quote]Why make comments like that when you have clearly never been in that pub, if you had you would know that a pint is nowhere near £5 and toilet water is free, they will even give you a glass to put the toilet water in.[/p][/quote]Wow. This whole kerfuffle has realty brought out some of the best and worst of Southampton. Successful cities needs strong employment, a wide variety of things to see and do, and a spectrum of social locations. I don't go to The Hobbit myself anymore, but that's only because as a working middle aged man I now prefer to share my toilet water at home with friends of a similar ilk. Live and let live, dude.[/p][/quote]This. St Retford
  • Score: 0

9:23am Fri 16 Mar 12

Smartiepants says...

On Radio Solent this morning, the landlady said that she had been selling TShirts promoting The Hobbit's name. Surely this is promotional material. This isn't just pictures in a pub with a name, if she's selling stuff to promote it then I'm not sure that's right.
On Radio Solent this morning, the landlady said that she had been selling TShirts promoting The Hobbit's name. Surely this is promotional material. This isn't just pictures in a pub with a name, if she's selling stuff to promote it then I'm not sure that's right. Smartiepants
  • Score: 0

9:58am Fri 16 Mar 12

Here, There says...

Fantastic exposure for the Pub which would have cost thousands in advertising, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of it all the copyright holder has done our town Pub a great service ! Just hope they find out about my Pub 'Harry Potter'
Fantastic exposure for the Pub which would have cost thousands in advertising, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of it all the copyright holder has done our town Pub a great service ! Just hope they find out about my Pub 'Harry Potter' Here, There
  • Score: 0

10:10am Fri 16 Mar 12

Shoong says...

I'm opening a bar up soon myself, I'm going to call it 'Star Wars'.
I'm opening a bar up soon myself, I'm going to call it 'Star Wars'. Shoong
  • Score: 0

10:58am Fri 16 Mar 12

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
With the millions that the Saul Zaentz Company has, I would suggest that the compromise should be that the $100 goes to a local charity.

Does the Saul Zaentz Company really need another $100 dollars?
They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect.
This $100 USD is just way for them to save face, and once the landlord of the pub pays it, they will be corned them selfs and will have to pay it every year and Saul Zaentz Company will increase how much they got to pay. (once you give them money, you are agreeing with them that they do own the full rights)
I reply would be a no to any payment not even for 1/2 cent. and I would tell them to come to the UK and take it to court, knowing to-well they would lose, and would put them wide open to be sued.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: With the millions that the Saul Zaentz Company has, I would suggest that the compromise should be that the $100 goes to a local charity. Does the Saul Zaentz Company really need another $100 dollars?[/p][/quote]They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect. This $100 USD is just way for them to save face, and once the landlord of the pub pays it, they will be corned them selfs and will have to pay it every year and Saul Zaentz Company will increase how much they got to pay. (once you give them money, you are agreeing with them that they do own the full rights) I reply would be a no to any payment not even for 1/2 cent. and I would tell them to come to the UK and take it to court, knowing to-well they would lose, and would put them wide open to be sued. southy
  • Score: 0

11:26am Fri 16 Mar 12

rightway says...

All the little children who dress up will be happy.
All the little children who dress up will be happy. rightway
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Fri 16 Mar 12

wr0ng1 says...

I'm loving how bitter some of the people who don't like the pub sound. Makes the good result all the sweeter.
I'm loving how bitter some of the people who don't like the pub sound. Makes the good result all the sweeter. wr0ng1
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Fri 16 Mar 12

MisterGrimsdale says...

If that picture on the front of the Echo shows the typical clientelle I'll give it a miss.
If that picture on the front of the Echo shows the typical clientelle I'll give it a miss. MisterGrimsdale
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Fri 16 Mar 12

Gridironprince says...

Bring Iron Maiden to The Hobbit to celebrate!!!
Bring Iron Maiden to The Hobbit to celebrate!!! Gridironprince
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Fri 16 Mar 12

wr0ng1 says...

"If that picture on the front of the Echo shows the typical clientelle I'll give it a miss"

Good. A nice pub ought to be free of those who are pointlessly judgemental of others. Other people can be at the pub having fun while you mutter disapproval of them under your breath through your net curtains.
"If that picture on the front of the Echo shows the typical clientelle I'll give it a miss" Good. A nice pub ought to be free of those who are pointlessly judgemental of others. Other people can be at the pub having fun while you mutter disapproval of them under your breath through your net curtains. wr0ng1
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Fri 16 Mar 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
With the millions that the Saul Zaentz Company has, I would suggest that the compromise should be that the $100 goes to a local charity.

Does the Saul Zaentz Company really need another $100 dollars?
They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect.
This $100 USD is just way for them to save face, and once the landlord of the pub pays it, they will be corned them selfs and will have to pay it every year and Saul Zaentz Company will increase how much they got to pay. (once you give them money, you are agreeing with them that they do own the full rights)
I reply would be a no to any payment not even for 1/2 cent. and I would tell them to come to the UK and take it to court, knowing to-well they would lose, and would put them wide open to be sued.
'They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect.'

How do you know the above happened?

If you found out, tell us how, or did you guess or just go & make it up pretending you are in the know.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: With the millions that the Saul Zaentz Company has, I would suggest that the compromise should be that the $100 goes to a local charity. Does the Saul Zaentz Company really need another $100 dollars?[/p][/quote]They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect. This $100 USD is just way for them to save face, and once the landlord of the pub pays it, they will be corned them selfs and will have to pay it every year and Saul Zaentz Company will increase how much they got to pay. (once you give them money, you are agreeing with them that they do own the full rights) I reply would be a no to any payment not even for 1/2 cent. and I would tell them to come to the UK and take it to court, knowing to-well they would lose, and would put them wide open to be sued.[/p][/quote]'They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect.' How do you know the above happened? If you found out, tell us how, or did you guess or just go & make it up pretending you are in the know. Shoong
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Fri 16 Mar 12

Gridironprince says...

wr0ng1 wrote:
"If that picture on the front of the Echo shows the typical clientelle I'll give it a miss"

Good. A nice pub ought to be free of those who are pointlessly judgemental of others. Other people can be at the pub having fun while you mutter disapproval of them under your breath through your net curtains.
Pub question: Annually, how many old people are found hanging in their net curtains?
[quote][p][bold]wr0ng1[/bold] wrote: "If that picture on the front of the Echo shows the typical clientelle I'll give it a miss" Good. A nice pub ought to be free of those who are pointlessly judgemental of others. Other people can be at the pub having fun while you mutter disapproval of them under your breath through your net curtains.[/p][/quote]Pub question: Annually, how many old people are found hanging in their net curtains? Gridironprince
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Fri 16 Mar 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
With the millions that the Saul Zaentz Company has, I would suggest that the compromise should be that the $100 goes to a local charity.

Does the Saul Zaentz Company really need another $100 dollars?
They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect.
This $100 USD is just way for them to save face, and once the landlord of the pub pays it, they will be corned them selfs and will have to pay it every year and Saul Zaentz Company will increase how much they got to pay. (once you give them money, you are agreeing with them that they do own the full rights)
I reply would be a no to any payment not even for 1/2 cent. and I would tell them to come to the UK and take it to court, knowing to-well they would lose, and would put them wide open to be sued.
'They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect.'

How do you know the above happened?

If you found out, tell us how, or did you guess or just go & make it up pretending you are in the know.
Shoong Your so lazy
Go and check up your self, go to the nearest Library and look all those names and place up and look at maps and drawings that date back 200 years.
And those historians was up on facebook giving the name off all the books to look under.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: With the millions that the Saul Zaentz Company has, I would suggest that the compromise should be that the $100 goes to a local charity. Does the Saul Zaentz Company really need another $100 dollars?[/p][/quote]They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect. This $100 USD is just way for them to save face, and once the landlord of the pub pays it, they will be corned them selfs and will have to pay it every year and Saul Zaentz Company will increase how much they got to pay. (once you give them money, you are agreeing with them that they do own the full rights) I reply would be a no to any payment not even for 1/2 cent. and I would tell them to come to the UK and take it to court, knowing to-well they would lose, and would put them wide open to be sued.[/p][/quote]'They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect.' How do you know the above happened? If you found out, tell us how, or did you guess or just go & make it up pretending you are in the know.[/p][/quote]Shoong Your so lazy Go and check up your self, go to the nearest Library and look all those names and place up and look at maps and drawings that date back 200 years. And those historians was up on facebook giving the name off all the books to look under. southy
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Fri 16 Mar 12

IronLady2010 says...

southy wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
With the millions that the Saul Zaentz Company has, I would suggest that the compromise should be that the $100 goes to a local charity.

Does the Saul Zaentz Company really need another $100 dollars?
They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect.
This $100 USD is just way for them to save face, and once the landlord of the pub pays it, they will be corned them selfs and will have to pay it every year and Saul Zaentz Company will increase how much they got to pay. (once you give them money, you are agreeing with them that they do own the full rights)
I reply would be a no to any payment not even for 1/2 cent. and I would tell them to come to the UK and take it to court, knowing to-well they would lose, and would put them wide open to be sued.
'They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect.'

How do you know the above happened?

If you found out, tell us how, or did you guess or just go & make it up pretending you are in the know.
Shoong Your so lazy
Go and check up your self, go to the nearest Library and look all those names and place up and look at maps and drawings that date back 200 years.
And those historians was up on facebook giving the name off all the books to look under.
I'm sure Shoong has better things to do. I always go on the principle that if you say something is correct, then it is generally incorrect. No need for a Library, just await your post and go with the opposite.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: With the millions that the Saul Zaentz Company has, I would suggest that the compromise should be that the $100 goes to a local charity. Does the Saul Zaentz Company really need another $100 dollars?[/p][/quote]They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect. This $100 USD is just way for them to save face, and once the landlord of the pub pays it, they will be corned them selfs and will have to pay it every year and Saul Zaentz Company will increase how much they got to pay. (once you give them money, you are agreeing with them that they do own the full rights) I reply would be a no to any payment not even for 1/2 cent. and I would tell them to come to the UK and take it to court, knowing to-well they would lose, and would put them wide open to be sued.[/p][/quote]'They been back into a corner Linesman, a few Historians e-mail there Lawers, and told them to check refences books (not the web sites but books) about all the names and what they mean and where they come from, check maps for locations names ect.' How do you know the above happened? If you found out, tell us how, or did you guess or just go & make it up pretending you are in the know.[/p][/quote]Shoong Your so lazy Go and check up your self, go to the nearest Library and look all those names and place up and look at maps and drawings that date back 200 years. And those historians was up on facebook giving the name off all the books to look under.[/p][/quote]I'm sure Shoong has better things to do. I always go on the principle that if you say something is correct, then it is generally incorrect. No need for a Library, just await your post and go with the opposite. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

8:42am Sat 17 Mar 12

ottostrasser says...

Great publicity stunt
Great publicity stunt ottostrasser
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Sat 17 Mar 12

threaterino says...

Wow first the Heads is saved , now The Hobbit can stay as it is , I've been known as the Hobbit for years as well ,in bands so now i gotta change my nickname ...I can't afford the yearly fee , ah well.
Wow first the Heads is saved , now The Hobbit can stay as it is , I've been known as the Hobbit for years as well ,in bands so now i gotta change my nickname ...I can't afford the yearly fee , ah well. threaterino
  • Score: 0

1:14am Sun 18 Mar 12

AspieMum says...

ShakeyWiffles wrote:
Huffter wrote:
$100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name!
Lucky to get away so lightly? Yeah you're right. I mean how dare they name their pub that 23 years before filming ends of a film of the same title
If the pub came first shouldn't the film company have to pay for their use of the pub's name? But as always big business always wins when its big business Vs little business & the pub probably didn't copyright the name.
[quote][p][bold]ShakeyWiffles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: $100 dollars is a minimal fee in terms of copyright - The Hobbit should think themselves lucky to get away so lightly. I have to say I would go to a pub for the quality of the beer and good service - not because of it's name![/p][/quote]Lucky to get away so lightly? Yeah you're right. I mean how dare they name their pub that 23 years before filming ends of a film of the same title[/p][/quote]If the pub came first shouldn't the film company have to pay for their use of the pub's name? But as always big business always wins when its big business Vs little business & the pub probably didn't copyright the name. AspieMum
  • Score: 0

9:40am Sun 18 Mar 12

Rymenhild says...

The Southampton Tolkien Reading Group understands that devotion to Tolkien's work takes many forms. We also recognise the requirements of copyright, but were sad to see anything to do with Tolkien's work caught up in commercial and legal controversy and hoped the situation would be resolved in the spirit of Fellowship associated with Tolkien's best-loved characters. So we are relieved to see a resolution based on common sense and pragmatism.
The Southampton Tolkien Reading Group understands that devotion to Tolkien's work takes many forms. We also recognise the requirements of copyright, but were sad to see anything to do with Tolkien's work caught up in commercial and legal controversy and hoped the situation would be resolved in the spirit of Fellowship associated with Tolkien's best-loved characters. So we are relieved to see a resolution based on common sense and pragmatism. Rymenhild
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree