Hobbit pub saved (From Daily Echo)

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!

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

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

bigfella777 wrote:
Shame,I would rather see it bulldozed,its an eyesore.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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