Hobbit Pub Saved By Actors Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellen 169
Fluffeh writes "Recently the Hobbit Pub in England was sued for rights infringement, but it seems Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellen are going to re-pony-up the cash to keep the pub alive. Landlady Stella Roberts said she had been shocked by the actors' offer. She said: 'I had a telephone call on Saturday evening, while we were trading, from Stephen Fry's business partner and manager. That's when he told me. I was very shocked. They've said as soon as they finish filming they would like to come down and visit the pub.' However Ms Roberts said she was not celebrating just yet. She added: 'Until everything is in black and white, on paper, we're going to be a bit reserved because it could be $100 this year and $20,000 next year.'"
What the bloody goddamned fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)
The word "Hobbit" predates Tolkein (the real one) by a good century. The prefix "hob" (from "hobbe"), with a variety of faerie-folksy suffixes, predates that by another three centuries - At least.
JRR knew all this perfectly well, and never claimed exclusive rights to a common word used to describe the wee people of mythology. Only these asshats that have tried to cash in on Grand-dad's legacy have so poor of a grasp of the work of their ancestor as to claim it as a "copyright". He, as a proper good ol' Don, would no doubt have outright disowned his fool-descendants for their ignorance.
Sad, really, and just one more reason we need to get rid of this entire BS charade we call "intellectual property" ASAP.
Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? (Score:5, Informative)
1. I agree this is petty bullshit.
That said...
2. The pub has likenesses FROM THE MOVIE. "It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu, and the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card."
The name "hobbit" is only about 1% of the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
2. The pub has likenesses FROM THE MOVIE. "It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu,
So what? Are names now subject to copyright?
Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? (Score:4, Informative)
No, definitely not. However, the image of a character from the movie is definitely copyrightable, and the names can be trademarked in the context of the movie. So if you just happened to be named Frodo, you could use your name all you want, unless you attempted to present some connection with the movie (or possibly the book).
dom
Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
I gather you have never heard of fair use.
Congratulations, you are a big fucking idiot. There's nothing in fair use which permits the use of someone else's IP for your own economic benefit. Fair use is for education and critique. You may make full copies of any materials needed for a formal educational lesson and copy as much as needed of any work for critique. Nothing in there says "you may use small clips, stills, and other unique characteristics from privately owned works to advertise your pub"
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in there says "you may use small clips, stills, and other unique characteristics from privately owned works to advertise your pub"
From the US Copyright Office: [copyright.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it would be fair use in the US
...because you don't understand English. All four of those factors are considered. It has to pass all four tests, or the value has to be sufficiently high and/or there has to be no way to satisfy all four before you can claim fair use. It would utterly fail the purpose and character test and none of the other factors need even be considered.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's hard for you to get used to this, but not everywhere is subject to US law.
Wanna bet?
Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? (Score:5, Informative)
I gather you have never heard of fair use.
I gather you're not from the UK, or at least are not familiar with our copyright laws. There is no "fair use" provision. There is a "fair dealing" [copyrightservice.co.uk] provision, but by my reading of the details this does not fall under it.
Re: (Score:3)
I gather you have never heard of fair use.
What are you, twelve? No, I'm going with eleven.
Let me guess, your BFF told you that it's OK to rip stuff off as long as you say that you did do because of Fair Use. And besides, nobody should be able to make money off of making movies anyway, since all actors, screenwriters, camera operators, makeup artists, lighting techs, editors, CGI teams, set desigers, costumers, directors, and everyone else involved are just capitalist pigs and should be forced to make stuff you want, but for free. Does that abou
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, I thought that Hollywood was just a bunch of pinko commie socialist Marxist lefty progressives.
You're confusing spoiled, rich actors with the people who actually find and risk the money to make things like movie studios operate. "Hollywood" is a business town, just like Detroit is. But both cities have large demographics made of people with an entitlement world view, or who - realizing that all they really do is act or a living - suffer major liberal guilt when they recognize how much money they bank. They line up their public politics with what they imagine their customers want to see, rather than
Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)
The name "Gandalf" was lifted by Tolkien from Norse mythology(along with a shitload of other stuff), and was actually the name of a dwarf.
Norse mythology is worshiped as Asetro today, and is a legit faith in Scandinavia, so if you try to trademark a name like that, you'd be violating human rights.
It would be like trying to trademark a name from the Christian Bible, which I don't think is possible, even in USA.
If so, I think I'll write a novel with this guy, lets call him Jesus, and sue for rights infringement!
-H
Re: (Score:2)
No, it features characters which are named after those in Tolkien's stories.
As the images are not taken from the movies, the fact that they share names is not a copyright violation of the movie images or characters.
Prior to the movies, I'm quite certain most people had their own ideas what the characters Tolkien described actually might have looked like. In my case, the only things that even resembled my imaginings in the movies were the
Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? (Score:5, Informative)
The sad part is that you actually believe your childish little rant has any bearing on the issue. You don't You're absolutely clueless.
That word "Hobbit" predates JRR is irrelevant. That words starting with "hob" have existed in even less relevant. (Words don't even exist in any human language to express how irrelevant the latter is.)
They aren't being sued because they used the word "Hobbit". They're being sued because they used the word Hobbit in association with The Lord of The Rings - Something JRR did claim exclusive right over by the very act of copyrighting his works. And by establishing a literary estate, he willingly and knowingly granted his descendents the right to enforce that claim.
They're also being sued because they used imagery from the movie on their website.
Re: (Score:2)
I consider that part, and only that part of this mess, somewhat legitimate. As in, "stop doing that" legitimate, not "you used our ball, so we'll take your whole court" legitimate.
Perhaps one of our resident armchair lawyers can answer a question for me - TFA discusses two of the actors from the movie supporting this pub. If Ian McKellen posed for a picture, totally unrelated to LoTR, in vaguely renny-like attire and ga
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
But imagery from the LotR movies does not predate Tolkien, and the pub has been gratuitously using that in recent years.
So why not tell them to stop doing that rather than trying to sue them out of existence?
Re: (Score:2)
FTFA:
He said: "When it's an established business, we like to get the company to acknowledge they are using our trademarks, stop selling infringing articles and then we will grant them a licence for a nominal fee - approximately $100 a year." It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu and the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card. A letter from SZC had asked the pub to remove all references to the characters.
They weren't sued out of existence, just asked to pay the license fee and stop using trademarked items.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? (Score:4, Insightful)
If your business is going to be sued out of existence due to a $100 licensing fee, then you have bigger problems than trademark infringement.
Except (Score:2)
They use actual screencaps and promotional materials ripped from the movies and associated trademarked/copyrighted works, without permission.
Re: (Score:3)
"This needs to stop, now "
Yes, tolerance to alcohol consumption should stop. Alcohol destroys family it's addictive dangerous narcotic, it denigrates a human to a state of an animal.
Prohibition now!
Re: (Score:2)
Sad, really, and just one more reason we need to get rid of this entire BS charade we call "intellectual property" ASAP
The worst thing is, the concept of "intellectual property" is a very new one. I'd never heard the term before the Bono Act was dry. Prior to that, copyrights were, in fact, limited in time as our Constitution specifies.
Of all the things wrong with the extreme length of copyright, besides the destruction of our cultural heritage (imagine if patents lasted as long, how technological progress
Misleading Cause (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just the use of the name "The Hobbit" it's the use of Still Images from the LOTR movies in their promotional material. Essentially, these people are lifting copyrighted imagery and using it to promote themselves -- most definitely NOT cool and if I was one of the parties that ponied up hundreds of millions to make these films, I'd be a bit peeved by someone taking that work and using it without permission to make a profit.
I can only imagine that Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellen do not know the full story here and possibly think that this is a matter of a harmless pub merely using the word "Hobbit" in their name and have not seen the website or promotional material produced by this pub.
And for the record, the web site and promo material is completely amateur and quite tacky. Hopefully any money given to the pub to support them would mandate that they cease using imagery from the movies and perhaps use hand drawn illustrations by fans and artists who wish to contribute artwork for them to use.
Re:Misleading Cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you honestly think you know more about this than Steven Fry? Themed pubs are part of our culture and part of American culture and it is wrong that they are being litigated out of existence. They are not claiming to be official places, they are just pubs or restaurants and it is time that the legal system started defending them.
Re:Misleading Cause (Score:4, Informative)
What cultural heritage do you have to show that illustrates why "The Hobbit Pub" should be able to take still images from the LoTR films and place them on their promotional material?
As I said in my post, I'm all for them using fan art and art inspired by the Hobbit and LoTR in general, that are original and either donated to them or placed under public license. But, taking images from the movie is indeed copyright infringement and they are making use of those works in order to profit from them. Can I make this distinction more clear? Is this not reasonable?
Re: (Score:2)
Is this not reasonable?
Not to me. The owner of a photograph is the picture taker, not the subject. Why should the same not be true for a screen grab?
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you investigate your own question, because your current understanding is incorrect. An image containing copyrighted materials within it does fall under that copyrights restrictions, even tho the image may be owned by someone else.
Re: (Score:3)
You have failed to establish any reason to think otherwise. Just because themed pubs are "part of your culture" doesn't mean that Fry is in fact aware of the story of this particular one.
At least here in America they aren't, and I've never heard of any such movement in the UK either... so, [[citation needed]].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, the British Empire was built on stealing other people's work - just ask India.
Who got their culture from the Greeks (Score:2)
Everyone steals, what is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If you want an example, look at British trains from about the time of the industrial revolution - they're just like the ones they have in India.
Re:Misleading Cause (Score:5, Informative)
If anyone had bothered to actually look up the details they were only asking for $100 to license the rights. As they also explained, they were legally obligated to license the copyrighted/trademarked material, since failure to pursue a known violation would allow anyone else to do the same. So they did the best thing they could, which is to preserve their IP and license the rights for a trivial fee.
$100 to use all of the likenesses and images from the movie to promote the pub? That sounds like a great deal to me. And as the OP said, it does sound like Fry doesn't know the real story, as ponying up $100 to pay for the license is just a PR stunt.
To quote the licensor:
Zaentz has said: “we’ve tried to be very gracious. We said in the letter [that was sent to Roberts], rather than engage in protracted and expensive litigation, we would prefer to resolve this matter amicably.
“We think asking for a nominal licensing fee is very reasonable. I think $100 would be about the maximum we would charge.”
He went on to say that if he is ever in the neighbourhood then he will stop by for a drink.
OH NO! HOW EVIL!
Besides, it's not American culture, it's a British novel and a British pub...
Re:Misleading Cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, what's wrong with that? Have you read the actual correspondence? No, me neither. For all we know it could have gone like this:
1. "Hey, we found some random British pub using a crap load of characters, stills, etc from our movies, we need to send them a legal letter telling them to stop or license our images". [if you don't believe this, GO TO THEIR SITE. Viggo Mortensen's face *still* features prominently]
2. "Oh, sounds like it's a college town pub that's been around for 20 years, why don't w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there is any reason for the AC to start insulting people, jeez, it's just a silly discussion. But Zaentz owns "the worldwide film, stage, and merchandise rights", not the stories.
If Burger King had to pay to plaster the characters' faces all over its packaging, I don't see why it's any different for a pub putting their faces on their signs, walls, menus, etc. That's *merchandise rights*. Of course, a single pub is a lot smaller business, that's why it was $100 and not $1M.
In the end I would
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course he does. Fry's a pizza delivery guy whose best friend is a robot. Anybody knows more about... oh wait a minute. This is a pub, right? Bender knows a lot about beer, so... yeah, maybe Steven has been coached about the topic by an expert after all. Nevermind, carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Using long words and having a posh accent doesn't make a person omniscient.
Re: (Score:2)
Bono.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems they have since removed some of the images from their site. When this issue first went viral, they had still images taken from the movies, such as Elijah Wood as Frodo, a still of the Boromir (the one usually associated with the Boromir "walk into Mordor" meme) and others that all advertised the Hobbit Pub and their products or upcoming live act performances. If you go back to he related headline above, you'll see others bringing this issue up at that time.
Saul Zaentz's lack of character (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Saul Zaentz's lack of character (Score:5, Insightful)
More details (Score:5, Informative)
Website of the pub: http://www.hobbitpub.co.uk/" [hobbitpub.co.uk]
Most of the "infringing material" is mere fan art like this graffiti in the beer garden: http://www.hobbitpub.co.uk/gallery/hobbitgraffiti/67/
Even thought it is just a drawing they were asked to over-paint it.
Here is a still from the movie used as background for a card: http://www.hobbitpub.co.uk/hobbit-cocktails/
That's pretty much it.
I think Steven Fry and Sir Ian McKellen are right when they call the claims "petty". How many pubs are there with images of e.g. Elvis Presley? I am sure someone has a copyright to them as well. So all auxiliary lawyers here should calm the f*** down.
Ian McKellen is getting good at playing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Repony (Score:2)
"Repony" isn't a word. "Prancing Pony" is two, though.
Queer Idea (Score:2)
Imagine I were to open a theme pub where whenever someone orders a certain drink its name flashes on a screen and a buzzer sounds, and all the staff talk like pretentious knobheads except for one who acts intentionally obtuse.
What would Mr Fry think about that?
Clarifying A Few Things (Score:5, Informative)
I feel I should address some of the issues raised in these comments. Firstly, the lawsuit was threatened because of their name. Second, the letter Mr Zaentz sent us was certainly NOT amicable, but we're not allowed to share it for legal reasons. Regarding use of images from the movie, perhaps that wasn't very well thought through, but anyone who has been to the pub could tell you that the places these images are used don't really have a bearing on sales at all - people don't buy loyalty cards because they've got Elijah Wood's face on, and nor do they buy an Aragorn drink simply because the poster has Viggo Mortensen's face on it. The pub has never tried to piggy-back on the movies' success. It's just a slightly geeky pub run by Tolkien fans for students who wouldn't see it changed for the world. Perhaps there have been some foolish but well-meaning errors committed. There are bigger things to deal with in the world of IP than small British pubs.
What next, Comic Con? (Score:2)
Good. I find it ridiculous that this pub can be in existence for so long without one hushed word from Tolkien's people, then BANG, IZZA MOVIE and those involved in the film (The Money) start throwing their toys out of the pram. The only way I could see this as a problem is if the place was built less than ten years ago, with every inch of wall space coated in movie stills and there was hard evidence that the pub somehow affected New Line's economic climate. Everyone involved in the films does understand how
OB: H2G2 (Score:2)
Except The Owners Are WRONG WRONG WRONG! (Score:2)
That pub might've been operated under the name "The Hobbit" for 20 years .. but I'll bet dollars (or pounds) to donuts (or hashers) that the sign with the blatant movie character ripoffs is not nearly that old. THERE is the copyright infringement, and the owners were damned fools to put up that sign.
Take down the sign, put up something elfish or wizardry, anything that isn't readily identifiable from the LOTR movie, and THEN fight the greedy movie lawyer bastiges.
Remember the old adage (American, I do beli
I've been there OR2008 (Score:2)
Surely there are others here who've been to the pub? I was there on the Open Repositories Conference 2008. Huge beer garden straight out of Spinal Tap without the budget (check out the gallery on the website). Great disturbed poet (think McGonagall after 20 years of acid) on a synth that night. Great black-painted old-school longhairds' pub. Good luck to them.
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Funny)
It's the Hobbit pub. It comes in half pints, you insensitive clod!
Is that a European or an American hobbit? (An American Hobbit is only 0.42 pints).
Re: (Score:2)
It's the Hobbit pub. It comes in half pints, you insensitive clod!
Is that an American hobbit or Everywhere-else-in-the-world hobbit? (An American Hobbit is only 0.42 pints).
There I fixed that for you. Wait... my bad... Liberia and Myanmar also don't use the metric system. :)
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Funny)
It's the Hobbit pub. It comes in half pints, you insensitive clod!
"Do you think they'll make jokes about our height?"
"Of course not! If we behave like tall people, we'll be treated tall people!"
"What'll it be, gents?"
"We'd like a half pint of ale, a plate of short ribs with small fries, and a short order of shrimp!"
"That's tellin' 'im, Mr. Frodo!"
(From The Ring and I [flickr.com], musical parody of the Bakshi version of Lord of the Rings, in Mad Magazine ~1978).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the "Little House on the Prairie" pub sell those..
Too early for an obscure reference?
Re: (Score:2)
That's obscure?
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of Slashdot readers probably thought is was both funny and a much better answer to your (cave?) troll than was deserved.
If you can't see the point or the humor the problem may not be whether the post belongs on Slashdot, but whether you do...
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Funny)
I see you are a new user here...we can let it slide this time, but any real /. user would understand why this is a story here!!!!
ttyl
Farrell
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Insightful)
I could go on, but you get the general drift...
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's a matter of freedom... of speech AND beer!
Re: (Score:3)
Hobbits AND an IP infringement lawsuit AND beer! How can you even question this story? It's one of the most typical of /. stories up at the moment...
Re: (Score:2)
Because geeks
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, mods, that's a new one... you can't call the First Post "Redundant".
Obviously, you can. Are you doubting the evidence of your own eyes?
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Funny)
It's redundant in that practically every story has at least one post saying how it's a nonstory. The guy claiming this one to be a nonstory is particularly off base in that the story involves Lord of the Rings, intellectual property law, and beer... the only way it could be more relevant to Slashdot's collective interests is if the ghost of Steve Jobs was found drinking there with Linus Torvalds.
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Funny)
Either Jobs or Torvalds would need to be using a car analogy.
Re:Pub? Where? What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes they should have driven.
No... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the car analogy would be using them!
Re: (Score:3)
Only if Mordor is in Soviet Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not new. It happens all the time and has for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bah. (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference here is, from TFA:
The pub in Bevois Valley, which is popular with students, has traded with the name for more than 20 years.
That pub existed wayyy before the movies made the franchise famous. It's not like they decided to name the business to ride on the films' fame.
Re:Bah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bah. (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I'm going to a pub, and it has Coca-Cola posters, than Coca-Cola can sue them ?
It's a theme, that's all.
I agree that paying some royalties, would solve this problem, but I'm sure the pub would do that, if asked, and if the cost was reasonable.
However, in this case : they are just being fined into oblivion, after 20 years.
However, this is not about the pub : it's a cheap way for the film producer to get the film under attention. And judging for slashdot , it's working.
Re:Bah. (Score:5, Informative)
So if I'm going to a pub, and it has Coca-Cola posters, than Coca-Cola can sue them ?
Probably. However, usually Coca-Cola pays people to display their posters. It's called ad-ver-tise-ment.
However, in this case : they are just being fined into oblivion, after 20 years.
If by "fined into oblivion" you mean
Producer Paul Zaentz told the BBC trademark law dictated it had to act against infringements of its brands, but were open to licensing the pub to use them.
He said: "When it's an established business, we like to get the company to acknowledge they are using our trademarks, stop selling infringing articles and then we will grant them a licence for a nominal fee - approximately $100 a year.
Please, go away and take your stupid with you before it rubs off on others.
Re: (Score:2)
stop selling infringing articles
It features characters from Tolkien's stories on its signs, has "Frodo" and "Gandalf" cocktails on the menu and the face of Lord of the Rings film star Elijah Wood on its loyalty card.
I sense a conflict that $100 will not resolve. Let the fining (license feeing) into oblivion commence!
Re: (Score:3)
Form letter from lawyers that was also sent to multiple other businesses that had anything in their names relating to LOTR or The Hobbit ..
When enquiries were made as to what had to be changed to comply, the answer was anything relating to the Hobbit or LOTR, including fan artwork, character names, and many things not actually covered by the licence SZC holds on the copyright ...
Huge outcry fanned by Twitter and Facebook groups, Actors in the Films weigh in ....
Suddenly SZC are all sweetness and light, an
Re: (Score:2)
>including fan artwork //
They don't have rights to prevent people being inspired by their works. This sort of [attempted] infringement of the publics rights should be treated as harshly, if not more so, than the original infringement. In Europe I think this would read pretty well on to an attempt to circumvent a persons human rights (according with ECHR).
>character names //
A name is generally considered too short to be a work for the purposes of copyright. They could be trademarked but then it would b
Re: (Score:2)
True and in general I think it is a pretty dick move, but they are using images from the movies on their websites which I think is a bit of a no no.
Also, one thing to be remembered is that trademarks _must_ be defended, or you lose them. If they didn't go after this pub, they stand the risk of losing their trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks are not copyrights. Copyrights do not need defense, and you cannot lose them. Sorry if you already know that, but others are hugely confused about this.
Re: (Score:2)
>*trademarks _must_ be defended, or you lose them* //
I think this is actually a myth - certainly in Europe, not sure about the USA & elsewhere.
Moreover, you can give anyone a license to use your marks without making a charge. The point is not to allow the terms to pass in to general use - to become a verb for example - that's why Google never talk about "googling" as a term for 'using a search engine'.
If it weren't a myth then mega-corps would be forever getting out of trademark infringement proceedi
Re:Bah. (Score:5, Informative)
The difference here is, from TFA:
The pub in Bevois Valley, which is popular with students, has traded with the name for more than 20 years.
That pub existed wayyy before the movies made the franchise famous. It's not like they decided to name the business to ride on the films' fame.
Perhaps not, but they certainly started selling stuff with the images of the characters from the movie including putting Elijah Woods face on things. That's what prompted the legal action.
Cite needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps not, but they certainly started selling stuff with the images of the characters from the movie including putting Elijah Woods face on things. That's what prompted the legal action.
I haven't seen any indication that the character image infringement issues were what "really" prompted the action. If that were so, this would be a non-story now (since they've removed all copyrighted pictures from their website and fliers) The copyright infringement may be where the pub was most definitively in the wrong, but it is far from the core of the issue.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe so, but the people suing don't have the rights to the images of the characters from the movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC it was shite.
On the contrary, it had the hugest hair-styles of any of the LOTR adaptations: Saruman [tolkiengateway.net]
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer some of it to the Steve Jackson version. It was the first film I ever saw in the cinema and had to be carried out crying, it was pretty dark for a 6 year old, still is. I'm gutted that they didn't manage to finish it (IIRC it ends with the defeat of Saruman - possibly the entirity of TTT). It certainly deserves a viewing.
the issue is not the name (Score:2, Insightful)
The pub uses (used?) images from the movies on its loyalty cards.
So yeah, they decided to ride on the films fame to bolster the pub's business.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't make any sense and I don't think it would stand up in court.
Since when has an English pub ever had to bolster business?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, it wasn't famous long before the movies? Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if Bilbo Baggins Pub in Alexandria, VA is still there? Ued to frequent it in the late 70's.