Re: 'hobbit' generic/scientific term now that should be used

On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:47:46 +0100, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/4/2024 8:07 AM, David Chmelik wrote:

'Hobbit' is a generic/scientific term now that should be used.  For over
20 years, science refers to ancient small humans as 'hobbits', which might
even fit some current-day people.  So, Dungeons & Dragons should just re-
add the term.  Most/all my D&D groups used the term.
 
Of course, D&D can't re-add terms 'balrog', 'ent', 'nazgul', etc., which
are in first edition, replaced in second edition (literary edition, not
ruleset edition, which didn't change).
 

>
I think unless you specifically base the creature you describe with it
on the specific hominid you still might be in hot water. By now the
rights holders have learned how to actually deal with IP rights for game
properties. Back then they were likely unaware of how it worked, and
only TSR's release of The Battle of the Five Armies board game made them
even aware of the use of hobbits in DND.

Yeah, regardless of what the original poster believes, "hobbit" is
still a copyrighted term. It is very much _not_ a generic term and the
rights-holders would probably look askance at any attempt to make use
of it without their permission.

You could argue that copyrights are far too broad and long, and that
terms like "hobbit" --specifically referring to a short race of
very-humanlike humanoids with a tendency towards furry feet and big
appetites-- shouldn't still be protected, as its most famous use was
first popularized in 1937. That's a long time for it to enter public
domain! But you'll need to get the law changed first. Until then, the
term is protected _at least_ until 2032.

The word "hobbit" existed before Tolkien, of course, but it was one of
a many names for supernatural critters, and could just as well have
described a bugbear as an elf. If you want to write a book where your
characters refer to a poltergeist as a hobbit, the Tolkienist's
probably wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on (although you can be
sure they'd fight it in court anyway, and they have more money than
you ;-). But if you're trying to refer to a short human as a hobbit...
you're probably not going to win.

By the way I recently leared that ICE gained the rights to publish the
Middle-Earth Roleplaying Game by the outrageous act of "actually asking
the rights holder".

Presumably, they did this because those same rights holders made quite
a fuss with TSR/D&D using the names without permission. ICE saw an
opportunity and swooped in. And, having discovered -again thanks to
their dispute with TSR- that there was such a thing as RPGs, the
Tolkien estate saw an opportunity and accepted.

But yeah... the early years of tabletop (and computer gaming, for that
matter) were a free-for-all when it came to copyrights, with
intellectual property rights being violated quite unconcernedly.