# Can you please critique this letter to the estate of Tarzan's creator? Long posts before the letter. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 18, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491 "2017-03-18T17:34:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/21 "2017-03-18T19:58:24Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Nobel, huh? > > I look forward to reading it. It’s dynamite ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/22 "2017-03-18T20:00:23Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > It’s dynamite Exploding sales? ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/23 "2017-03-18T20:01:15Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > Well, let’s see, there’s the 1st Amendment issue of not being to use Tarzan in a title. Ok, that made me laugh. But seriously, why does it need to be “Tarzan”? If the answer is “he already has name recognition, so I stand to get more out of it”, you’re really going to have a hard time here. Also, why don’t you just buy the licensing rights if you absolutely need to make a “Tarzan” story? ---
**Author:** ![Kadmos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@Kadmos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kadmos1)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/24 "2017-03-18T20:03:34Z")
Because I don’t have the money and because I am more public domain than copyright. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/25 "2017-03-18T20:18:51Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > Calder v. Bull may have said it applies to criminal laws, but there is a technicality (not necessarily legally speaking). A civil offense is a type of crime. Also, the ex post facto prohibition mentions neither criminal or civil, so it could technically apply to both. A civil offense is not a type of crime. And the Ex Post Facto Clause that binds Congress says: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” A bill of attainder is a legislative act declaring that a named individual or a specific group of people are guilty of a crime, and punishing them. An ex post facto law is a law that makes an action a crime after the action has been committed, or increases the punishment for a crime that was already committed. _Calder v Bull_ laid out the specific requirements. It involved the legislature of Connecticut passing a law that took specific actions concerning the last will and testament of a guy named Normand Morrison. Morrison was dead already, and the courts had ruled that his will was invalid. Morrison’s will had disposed of property that Caleb Bull and his wife believed they were entitled to. So Caleb and his wife were quite happy when the probate court declared that Morrison’s will was invalid, and they were quite pissed when the legislature passed a law after the fact declaring that the probate court had to give the matter another hearing, and they were outright livid when the probate court’s new hearing went against them. They sued, saying that the legislature’s actions violated the Ex Post Facto law concept. The legislature, they said, could certainly pass a new law regulating matters like this, but they couldn’t meddle by rewriting the rules that had already been applied. Said the Supremes: > [@Supreme Court](#): > > The sole enquiry is, whether this resolution or law of Connecticut, having such operation, is an ex post facto law, within the prohibition of the Federal Constitution? > . > . > . > The prohibition, ‘that no state shall pass any ex post facto law,’ necessarily requires some explanation; for, naked and without explanation, it is unintelligible, and means nothing. > . > . > . > 1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. All these, and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive. In my opinion, the true distinction is between ex post facto laws, and retrospective laws. Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; **but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law: The former, only, are prohibited.** ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/26 "2017-03-18T20:22:25Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > Because I don’t have the money and because I am more public domain than copyright. Which is why we revert back to original characters. See, what you’re insisting here is that other people who legally own something should give up those legal rights so that you could utilize the thing that they legally own for your own benefit. Your only chance to do that would be to either: a) convince them to give you that chance to use their property or b) convince them (or a court) that they don’t own the legal rights that they claim to own So far, you’re on the B path. It’s not working out for you, as the facts are not on your side. So you need to either switch to the A path or give up the endeavor all together. ---
**Author:** ![Kadmos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@Kadmos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kadmos1)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/27 "2017-03-18T20:37:46Z")
They have had Tarzan long enough. Civil offenses are crimes when you use a dictionary meaning of crime. ---
**Author:** ![Kadmos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@Kadmos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kadmos1)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/28 "2017-03-18T20:39:59Z")
I am going with what the Copyright Clause says and not the rewritten rulings of SCOTUS. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/29 "2017-03-18T20:41:34Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > They have had Tarzan long enough. See, you keep saying this. It means nothing. Your choices are to either get their permission or convince them or the courts that you don’t need their permission. The latter will not work out for you. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > Civil offenses are crimes when you use a dictionary meaning of crime. The law cares what the law says words mean. Dictionaries are not recognized parties in a court of law–and for good reason. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/30 "2017-03-18T21:27:15Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > The point is I am trying to point to them they need to learn to let go. If I was an attorney and part of a prestigious law firm, I would take them to court for it. Why? If a family has owned the same plot of land since 1880 do they need to “learn to let go” and give it to someone else, or do they still own it? Under the law the estate of ERB still owns Tarzan, or at least the trademarked part of Tarzan. It’s property. They legal owners get to keep it as long as they like, and even pass it down to their heirs. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > Good business sense to them? They have had over 90 years of gaining royalties from the Burroughs catalog. And THAT is exactly why they won’t give it up! _It makes them money_. Why do you expect people to give up a profitable asset? Do you go up to Warren Buffet and tell him he’s owned a particular stock long enough and he needs to “learn to get go” and give it to you? Because that’s the sort of thing you’re doing here. > [@](#): > > At some point they have to lose all rights to Tarzan where they cannot make any trademark or copyright-eligible work from it. Um… no they don’t. There is no requirement for them to “lose all right” and give up the trademark. You don’t like that you’ll have to talk to Congress about changing the law. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > I have no problem coming up with my own characters, beyond making them unique. However, I would also make Tarzan stories. Then you’ll have to contact the trademark owner and ask them very, very nicely if you can do that. Have you even _tried_ to do that? Of course, they might well reserve the right to review your work prior to publication, and refuse approval if they don’t like it, but that’s a risk you take. On the other hand, if you’re good and they do like it they might well approve because more profits for them. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > Well, let’s see, there’s the 1st Amendment issue of not being to use Tarzan in a title. I would clearly list this story is not from the estate and list ERB as the original creator. That should be enough. Are you sure? Have you even _asked_ them that? Here’s an idea - instead of writing a screed demanding that they give up a profitable bit of property they own why don’t you take the approach “hey, I have an idea that might make all of us some money”? Because, frankly, that’s the only thing with even a chance to work. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > Because I don’t have the money and because I am more public domain than copyright. Have they demanded a license fee upfront, or are you just assuming they will? And if you DO write a Tarzan story, even with ERB, Inc. approval, I highly doubt they’ll be OK with you turning it over to the public domain. ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/31 "2017-03-18T21:55:14Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > The point is I am trying to point to them they need to learn to let go. You owe the creators of _Frozen_ money now. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/32 "2017-03-18T22:21:09Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Copyright is a separate issue from trademark. Did you read the OP? OK me neither (TLDR), but the Burroughs estate is using Trademark law to prevent Tarzan fan fiction from being published. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/33 "2017-03-18T22:34:49Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > They have had Tarzan long enough. Civil offenses are crimes when you use a dictionary meaning of crime. “Long enough” according to whom? You? What law gives you the right to make that determination? Why does your opinion carry more weight than anyone else’s? This isn’t an argument over the legalities involved; it’s just you trying to get what you want. But if you were any kind of a writer at all, you wouldn’t need to use Tarzan: you’d create your own. You’d be far better off creating your own world instead of using another writer’s hard work as your crutch. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/34 "2017-03-18T23:20:56Z")
> [@tnetennba](#): > > Did you read the OP? OK me neither (TLDR), but the Burroughs estate is using Trademark law to prevent Tarzan fan fiction from being published. But what does that have to do with Copyright? If they own the Trademark, it’s their obligation to protect their Trademark. Copyrighted works falling into the public domain would lessen neither that obligation nor that legal right of ownership. This confusion comes up a lot with Mickey Mouse. People think that if Mickey cartoons have their Copyrights expire, they’d be free to use Mickey as a character however they want. That’s not the case. Copyrights protect works. Trademarks protect brands. A specific Tarzan story is protected by Copyright. Tarzan as a character is protected by Trademark. The two aren’t affiliated. ---
**Author:** ![Kadmos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@Kadmos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kadmos1)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/35 "2017-03-18T23:29:37Z")
If you think a TM does not act as an eternal copyright, you should re-think that. It does. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/36 "2017-03-18T23:37:50Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > If you think a TM does not act as an eternal copyright, you should re-think that. It does. I mean, if you ignore what a Copyright is, anything can act as an eternal Copyright. Once again, Copyrights protect works. A Trademark has no bearing on the Copyright protections of a work. Works featuring a Trademarked character can, do, will, & have fall, will fall, and have fallen into the public domain. That has no bearing on the ability to use that character for other works. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/37 "2017-03-18T23:39:12Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > I have no problem coming up with my own characters, beyond making them unique. However, I would also make Tarzan stories. So what you really want is to make money off of the creation of someone else. The gist of what you have been whining about seems to be \*“Waaaah!! It’s not fair! They need to share!” \* ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/38 "2017-03-18T23:40:00Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > . . . If a family has owned the same plot of land since 1880 do they need to “learn to let go” and give it to someone else, or do they still own it? . . . If they died in 1950 and nobody’s lived there since? As noted above, the novels themselves are falling into the public domain. It’s silly to be able to sell the entire book, but not be able to print its title. But, hey, T_RZ_N and the Jewels of Opar. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/39 "2017-03-18T23:47:12Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It’s silly to be able to sell the entire book, but not be able to print its title. If they’re actually saying you can’t do that, then I rescind my points, as the TM owners are legally in the wrong. The OP should’ve lead with that instead of their error-filled screed. Based off the OP, I thought this was about the usage of the character in original stories (which they have every obligation to protect). Telling people they can’t use the word in the title of public domain works that were originally published with that title is legally ridiculous. If that’s what this is about, I join the OP in ridiculing them. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2017, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/40 "2017-03-18T23:55:10Z")
I see problems in this. How are you going to address Tarzan’s mating rights? Gorillas have harems and breed them constantly. Tarzan would have to make love with female gorillas in his harem all the time if he expected to keep his position as head of the troop. Are you ready to take that on? Well… are you? [http://www.berggorilla.org/en/gorillas/general/social-life/do-gorillas-live-in-families/](http://www.berggorilla.org/en/gorillas/general/social-life/do-gorillas-live-in-families/) > [@](#): > > Gorillas are social animals who usually form harems: One silverback male lives together with several adult females and their offspring. However, in mountain gorillas about 40% of groups contain several adult males who are closely related. > > As groups contain more females than males, many males are ‘left over’. They roam the forests on their own. Such loners make up 5-10% of the gorilla population. Mountain gorilla males occasionally form all-male groups. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491.md?page=3)