UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Offered License In Attempt To Stem PR Disaster

Trademark

from the negotiation-by-threat dept

Fri, Mar 16th 2012 12:17pm — Leigh Beadon

Well, that was fast. We recently wrote about a UK pub called The Hobbit that was threatened with legal action by the Saul Zaentz Company (SZC), which owns certain trademarks associated with the franchise. Perhaps because of the immediate backlash (which included public condemnation by Stephen Fry and Ian McKellan, both of whom are starring in the upcoming film adaptation of The Hobbit), producer Paul Zaentz told the BBC that he is prepared to offer the pub an inexpensive license:

"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."

"We asked to them to contact us and amicably resolve this and are open to any suggestions they have. I'd be glad to raise a pint with them the next time I'm over."

Frankly, it sounds like Zaentz is just trying to smooth over the PR nightmare he was facing. It's hard to amicably resolve a dispute with someone who is already threatening you with legal action. Friendly negotiations come before threats, not after. Why didn't Zaentz just offer them the license in the first place? His description of the process is basically "meet all of our demands, then we'll talk."

All the coverage of this story mentions trademarks and copyrights in passing, without ever being clear about what rights were supposedly violated. Either way, it's entirely possible that SZC does have a valid legal claim here, on at least some of the things the pub was doing—but if they want to pursue those claims, then they have to face the backlash from people who think they are being petty. They can't just make it all okay by offering to have a beer together, while their lawyers still lurk in the wings.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, hobbit, pub, trademark, uk
Companies: saul zaentz company

60 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Someantimalwareguy (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 11:39am

Iron fist in a velvet glove...
...or would that be a velvet fist in an iron glove?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re: Iron fist in a velvet glove...
  Golden bones, iron fist, velvet glove, Armani suit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:24pm

One Copyright to rule them all
One Copyright to find them
One Copyright to bring them all
And in Hollywood bind them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- New Mexico Mark, 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:45pm
  
  Re:
  I'm bemused at the preponderance of Hollywood movies that portray big business as organizations filled with soulless bastards who would stop at nothing for a little more money.
  
  But when you think about it, the folks in Hollywood are experts when it comes to projection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:27pm

Didn't you know?
When the internet voices its displeasure at something, that's not free speech. That's "shouting down" democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re: Didn't you know?
  I didn't realize "the internet" was a cognizant being. Good to know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Didn't you know?
    It's an hydra, when you cut one of its heads 2 more pop up =D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Suja (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Didn't you know?
    it's the collective consciousness, even Hollywood is the internet, they know it, they hate it, that's why they want to destroy it
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - [citation needed or GTFO], 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Didn't you know?
      it's the collective consciousness
      
      Run! It's the Borg vs. the Daleks all over again!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Didn't you know?
        'Run! It's the Borg vs. the Daleks all over again!"
        
        I thought that was the CyberMen vs the Daleks.
        
        "You will be upgraded...or deleted!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re: Didn't you know?
  "When the internet voices its displeasure at something, that's not free speech. That's "shouting down" democracy."
  
  When individuals are able to voice their displeasure at something, that's "free speech", boy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 8:53am
  
  Re: Didn't you know?
  Damn, is them Peoples ruining democracy for everyone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:39pm

Remind me again, why do you need a license for a word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re:
  Well, technically they were using images from the films.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What? You mean people could see them? Images? Out in the open like that?
    
    That is terrible!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There out to be some kind o flaw!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I meant, some kind of law. Oops.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think your first version was actually *more* appropriate :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        art guerrilla, 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        u ment (sic) 'ought', as well...
        hee hee hee
        ho ho ho
        ha ha ha
        ak ak ak
        art guerrilla
        aka ann archy
        eof
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smeagol, 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:46pm

My precious....
My precious copyright....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smeagol, 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:47pm

My precious....
My precious copyright....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:49pm

Looks like there are bigger fish to fry there (couldnt work in chips..).

Notice the front of the building says LIVE MUSIC...

Seems like they're going to have a lot more licenses to pay in the future now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DandonTRJ (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:09pm
  
  Re:
  I'm sure whatever PRO is active in that territory has already shaken them down for a license; those folks' ears prick up the instant any public venue is established.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 12:58pm

Perhaps it was the alignment of the stars, or perhaps they paid attention to an underpaid copyright spewing fresh out of school dork with no actually life skills from Toronto babbling on about it.

Perhaps maybe the entire story was overblown, and this was in fact what was already happening.

Marcus: The man that can change the world! Take an extra kiss on Mike's butt as your reward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:13pm
  
  Re:
  You should try and act more jealous. It looks really good on you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Suja (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Jealous? Even their snowflake is green. Hee hee.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - [citation needed or GTFO], 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Until tomorrow. Then it'll be red.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re:
  lol, you are such a Marcus and Techdirt addict. You just can't get enough of this site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re:
  Ah yes, it was "already happening." Your trolling gets sadder and sadder every day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re:
  One wonders: if I am as pathetic as you claim, what does that say about you?
  
  Food for thought, weirdo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 6:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's fun as it gets to point out just how full of shit you are. You and Glyn both seem intent on pushing your self-serving agendas. You just happen to have learned how to write in Mikey-style so you sound both pompous and full of shit at the same time.
    
    When are you going to get the Superman cape with the big M on the front?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 9:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He can't have that. Kim Dotcom has already got it. Let's hope he comes in for a hard landing on you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 1:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh gods, the mental image...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re:
  Chris Dodd would say it's Google's fault. But then again you aren't a multi-million wage-CEO of an anti-piracy outfit so you blame a smaller guy instead. The people being responsible? BS.
  
  Good thing Marcus was very far from being the first to talk about the case and the outrage had already built when he picked up. Hey, that's precisely what happened with Google, they caught up in the middle =O
  
  Fail troll is fail.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- [citation needed or GTFO], 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re:
  Take an extra kiss on Mike's butt as your reward.
  
  "No homo, right?"
  "ALL OF THE HOMO!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 16 Mar 2012 @ 3:04pm
  
  Re: Over Fucking Blown
  Yeah, right. Bring in the legal heavies, threaten the lawsuit, get ready to destroy the business and the lives of those running it, then suddenly back off and claim that it was all �overblown� or a �simple mistake�, ha-ha, no harm done, all�s well that ends well, right?
  
  Wanker.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:02pm

Nuke from orbit first, offer a license later after you get caught.
It's the only way to be sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Baldaur Regis (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 3:21pm
  
  Re: Nuke from orbit first, offer a license later after you get caught.
  From the BBC article:
  The Hobbit pub had been accused of copyright infringement by lawyers representing the Saul Zaentz Company (SZC) in California. (emphasis added)
  
  Given typical corporate structuring, it's possible that producer Paul Zaentz wasn't even aware these actions were being taken by the company's lawyers until it hit the news.
  
  Lawyers are nuclear weapons these days. SZC could have continued the typical MPAA butt-hurt stance and demanded the bar be closed, owners sued into oblivion, etc., but chose a more rational reaction- even if it was because of protest.
  
  Although the question remains, if all "infringing articles" are removed, what's left that needs licensing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BeachBumCowboy (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:09pm

License counter offer.
"The Hobbit" pub should come back with a counter offer of licensing the name and characters for $100 a year in free beer for the folks of SZC. They would probably be much happier and they might start to lead a more hobbit-like life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DandonTRJ (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:16pm

Some copyright owners still haven't woken up to the fact that the general public now views the issue of copyright enforcement as an issue of equity. They don't care that you have a valid copyright claim if you're using it to extract millions of dollars from an elderly grandmother or six-year-old boy. Similarly, when you've got a pub that's been operating for two decades with no evidence of consumer confusion and a sizable client base endeared to it, just because they may have crossed some minor IP lines does not mean you won't be excoriated in the court of public opinion if you go about enforcing your rights the wrong way. And that'll cost you far more in the long-run than whatever license fees you forfeit by not playing hardball. Maybe this will encourage artists' estates to do a little bit more homework on their targets before they go rent-seeking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 2:47pm
  
  Re:
  This. The *AAs & their ilk have done incredible damage to copyright. Their overreaching, ludicrous claims, and blatant attempts to "steal" (to use their word) from the general public (by extending copyright terms indefinitely and attempting to eliminate fair use) have caused people to generally disregard copyright as an issue with any real validity and has discredited those entities generally.
  
  If they had limited themselves to something reasonable, like holding to the intention of copyright and only harming those who violate that, they -- and copyright in general -- would have a lot more sympathy and support. Instead, they decided engage in what amounts to war against culture.
  
  They shat in their own pool, and really only have themselves to blame.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:29pm

I'm sure it was the Frodo pinch with Freddo chocolate the pub sent SZC lawyers. Yeah, nothing can make one happier than beer and chocolate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowardly Anon, 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:35pm

...we like to get the company to acknowledge they are using our trademarks, stop selling infringing articles...

This is what I hate most about copyright and trademarks. SZC did not created the the content in question here. They just managed to get the rights to something popular. What did this company do to create the content? Nothing.

As for the trademark claim, would a moron in a hurry really think this pub was set up by SZC or is apart of the LotR movie empire? I think not.

This pub has been open and operating long before SZC had the rights. They built up their own brand outside long before the movies were out. Did they play on the movies some? Yes. Dos that hurt SZC? No.

Frankly, I think the nominal fee should be $0 and an apology letter.

Also, I'd like to travel there and have a drink now b/c it looks like a cool pub :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re:
  In fairness, the pub was using actual images from the films themselves. Those were certainly created by the movie company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re:
  "This pub has been open and operating long before SZC had the rights. They built up their own brand outside long before the movies were out. Did they play on the movies some? Yes. Dos that hurt SZC? No."
  
  The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings animated films, which SZC did, came out in the late 1970s-early 1980s, predating the bar, which is only 20 years old (1990).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BuckRogers1965 (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 1:45pm

Trademark does not transfer across industries.
The trademark for the Hobbit that the people that own the rights to the book does not transfer over to an entirely different industry. You are free to create a Ford vibrator or an Apple iPlug that are sex toys without violating trademark law, because Ford and Apple are not in the industry of making sex toys. The same way a pub can freely name themselves after literary creations without being in violation of trademark because pubs are not publishing houses and publishing houses don't serve patrons beer and greasy good foods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steerpike (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re: Trademark does not transfer across industries.
  That's not necessarily true. It is generally true of trademarks, but not true of 'famous' marks. I suspect the owners of "the Hobbit" for movies etc. will try to argue it is famous. Probably a bit of a stretch, but who knows.
  
  The Apple iPlug example is not a good one, because Apple would likely be successful in the argument for a famous mark.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jac, 16 Mar 2012 @ 2:18pm

They should pay the license, cordially invite them for a beer and then charge them $100 for the beer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 2:50pm

Quite frankly this pub should be left alone. There's absolutely no doubt that no one is going to confuse the pub and the movie so what's the issue here?

If they're really hot on licensing the pub I'd say $0 per year in perpetuity is quite enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
loki, 16 Mar 2012 @ 2:54pm

Well for this and other reasons, I already know about 6-7 people who are going to boycott the movie, and about a dozen more who are on the fence about it.

Now given that this movie stand a good chance to make a billion+ dollars worldwide, a few hundred or even a few thousand isn't going to make a big dent in the box office, but it's still going to be more than they make from some of these piddling licenses.

Of course they'll never admit their own behavior is driving people from wanting to attend their movies. Hell, they've flat out said they believe they are the only ones who can make and deliver content people want to see. No, any drop in attendance has to be because people are stealing their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Melissa Ruhl (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 3:13pm

Good job Internetites, once again
I think this is awesome. Once again, democratic pressure from Internet outrage made a tangible difference.

This reminds me of my alma mater, the University of Oregon, which was indebted to Disney for its mascot, a relationship that has before inflamed into controversy when the UO admin freaked out that some fans used the mascot in a video. Disney and the admin became such a source of ridicule and the viral video couldn't be stopped that in 2010 Disney and the UO made a more reasonable agreement.

TechDirt on the issue: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091120/1627157035.shtml
The original video:
http://youtu.be/_hrjpe1VCNg
UO and Disney making a new agreement:
http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/03/disney_uo_mascot_part_ways.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr Evil, 16 Mar 2012 @ 9:56pm

the price
Well, now the rights holders have given the pub owner a budget. $100K a year to fight the claim.

they could have chosen to license for free, and avoided the entire mess while giving them firm footing on the high road...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 10:04pm
  
  Re: the price
  > they could have chosen to license for free, and avoided the entire mess while giving them firm footing on the high road...
  
  There is a thing in law that a payment as small as One Dollar would be significant enough to seal the deal. If they were really smart there would be a big party at the Hobbit on opening night hosted by the studio.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
k-h, 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:37am

Is it now worth it?
If it's only worth $100 per year, it can hardly be worth enough to take to them to court over.

I'd've thought it'd be laughed out of court if they tried to take the pub to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boo Boo, 17 Mar 2012 @ 1:13pm

viral
Tell them shove their offer up their fat ass and watch their precious brand get shat all over as this PR train wreck has gone global,viral.
Next time think about it , you arrogant SOBs, you don't rule the world actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 3:36pm

There needs to be a phrase, along the lines of The Streisand Effect, to describe IP bullies who see the error of their ways, even if through bad publicity, and come back from the dark side to be one of the good guys again. Some kind of positive connotation that rewards them with good will for changing their minds. Like a merit badge.

Dare I coin The Hobbit Effect? Nah, there must be something better. What should it be? Hey Mike, why not start a contest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- k-h, 17 Mar 2012 @ 11:47pm
  
  Re:
  >come back from the dark side to be one of the good guys again.
  
  What? They haven't come back from the dark side:
  
  >"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."
  
  They've just realised they've been sprung in an embarassing position and are trying to pretend they are not as bad as everyone thinks. I thought the pub was selling drinks - how are drinks "infringing articles"? What are these trademarks? The name hobbit?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete Austin, 18 Mar 2012 @ 9:50am

What would Bilbo do?
I don't think hobbits would think much of legal blackmail. Also Tolkien's books were a largely patchwork of ideas from existing myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:14pm

petty or not, this is the exact reason the law is there, whether you agree with it or not, this one is legit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2012 @ 11:08pm

"stop selling infringing articles" ?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]