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

On 11/7/2024 4:57 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

 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.

Now that you mention it there might be a better case for making a Kender equivalent and calling THAT one a hobbit. Just give them pointy ears and the unnatural ability to steal stuff (unlike actual hobbits where only breakfast might be unsafe) and you should be golden.

 

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.
 

I don't remember where I saw it exactly but in some old fanzine/magazine of the time I recently came across a discussion on copyright that just turned out to grossly misrepresent actual copyright/trademark law. Should have written down where I found that one.
After reading that I understood a bit why people thought they could get away with it: they were working on an understanding of copyright law that was outright wrong.