Scientist Refused Permission To Call Hominids 'Hobbits', Even Though Word First Used In Print In 1895 -- And Not By Tolkien
from the always-check-your-sources dept
Techdirt has written before about the aggressive enforcement habits of the Tolkien estate, once in connection with the name "Tolkien", and once regarding the word "Hobbit". Looks like they're at it again, down in New Zealand:
Victoria University's Brent Alloway has organised a free public lecture on Homo floresiensis, a species closely related to humans which lived on Flores Island, but has been told he is not allowed to call the free public lecture 'The Other Hobbit'.
That's pretty ridiculous from many viewpoints. First, this is a free public lecture from a scientist -- not a commercial use of any kind. Secondly, the hominids in question have been called "hobbits" by the scientific community almost since their discovery in 2004, so this is a very well-established usage. Finally -- and most interestingly -- over on Twitter, Chris Puttick pointed out that Tolkien wasn't even the first to use the term "hobbit" in this sense:
The volcanologist wrote to the estate of Hobbit author JRR Tolkein about the event on December 1 as a courtesy, but was told by Wellington lawyers AJ Park representing the estate that he was not allowed to use the word.The word also turns up in a very long list of folkloric supernatural creatures in the writings of Michael Aislabie Denham (d.1859), printed in volume 2 of "The Denham Tracts" [ed. James Hardy, London: Folklore Society, 1895], a compilation of Denham's scattered publications. Denham was an early folklorist who concentrated on Northumberland, Durham, Westmoreland, Cumberland, the Isle of Man, and Scotland.
Since the book appeared in 1895, and Denham died in 1859, that would seem to place all of its text – and hence the creature known as a "hobbit" - in the public domain. I wonder what the Tolkien Estate will say to that?
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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, free speech, hobbits, science, tolkien
Reader Comments
The First Word
“He shouldn't have asked...
...because he didn't need their permission.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Otherwise, we might get a dreadfully boring anthropological documentary called "The Hobbit" or something. Snore... even if it IS in 3D...
Bullet = dodged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-.-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is this, Hobbit Day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is this, Hobbit Day?
You were told bits of it were from Beowulf, which seems reasonable enough seeing as how both stories end with freaking dragons sitting on piles of gold. There are probably hundreds of other themes and influences.
Maybe that's why you have as problem with the other users of this site? You never actually read what people write, you skim it and alter words in your head...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is this, Hobbit Day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is this, Hobbit Day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He shouldn't have asked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He shouldn't have asked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should we all start marking up our textbook to change Homo floresiensis to something more accurate like Homo tolkienheirsarejackassesis?
Just a thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm actually surprised that this involves the Estate, by the way; I would expect it to involve Tolkien Enterprises, which holds the trademarks and which is much more aggressive than the Estate in going after alleged infringers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's fun to learn that apparently neither prior use nor even creative responsibility have any actual bearing on copyright claims. Good thing nobody would ever use such laws in ways they were not intended - that is what the mafiaa keep assuring us, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue the bastards
Regards
J.R.R. Tolkien
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sue the bastards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And when the claim is so obviously bogus on its face that it can be dismissed so fast the plaintiff's head spins, there's a good chance of being able to assert that the suit was filed in bad faith and get a judgment that the plaintiff has to pay your legal fees, too.
(Note though: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if it were used in commerce, there would be no trademark infringement as there is exactly zero chance of confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have NEVER made a legal threat or tried to stop the word being used in regards to these hominids since then and all of a sudden they do. This then leads them to have no standing due to their acquiescence of the usage (Though it's noteworthy they would have no standing anyway under trademark law in Australia either.. no dilution here) and therefore the doctrine of laches comes into play absolutely.
This is a New Zealand law firm acting on directions of an American client trying to tell an Australian what they can and cannot do.
Hopefully (after a few emails I will send) a Trademark solicitor/barrister will contact Mr Alloway and present to him options most likely starting with a letter in the gist of "thankyou for your letter , we regret to inform you we are not intimidated due to xxx reasons and kindly now ask you to piss off"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hobbits
How ethical is it for a solicitor to deliberately misstated the law, I wonder (rhetorical question)?
Who'd have expected copyright trolls to appear in this context....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably a dick advertising move
Glyn, you've probably been had.
This move gives lots of free advertising world wide (worth millions) due to the net Streisand effect keeping Hobitt (and all the associated products) top-of-mind at almost no cost.
Don't be manipulated like that - fight back so that moves such as this move costs them much more than it benefits them. They deserve nothing less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I do think there could be sane copyright rules to help protect works from commercial exploitation this is precisely one of the cases that makes me think we'd be better off if we abolished copyright entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]