# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/61 "2017-03-19T01:19:47Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > Is that it hard to accept the fact there this idea that everything has to become public domain someday? It sure is hard to figure out this sentence. If this reflects the level of writing skill you plan to bring to your endeavors, don’t plan on much success at it. I will give you credit for being able to write something entertaining. It’s rather amusing to see you ignore information from people who actually know what they’re talking about and continue to proffer your opinion as if it had any chance of getting anywhere. Rotsa ruck. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/62 "2017-03-19T01:22:25Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > I have not read any Tarzan novel yet but am using that as an example. I plan to do similar letters to the Conan Doyle Estate and the company that owns Zorro. **Baker, your second point could also be applied to these estates. Is that it hard to accept the fact there this idea that everything has to become public domain someday?** Bolding mine. Yes it is that hard to accept. I do not believe that everything has to be public domain someday, and you can’t make me!😃 But seriously, what is your argument that things should become PB? In law that is, not just because you want them to. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > Legally trademarked does not justify a perpetual copyright which is clearly illegal. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/63 "2017-03-19T01:27:26Z")
**Kadmos1** is a brand new poster, and their only posts have been to this thread. It seems likely that the newbie thought they would get approval, and in the absence of that approval they are still plowing on, to prove a point of some kind. **K1** can’t bear being wrong. We’ve had a lot of new posters like that. Maybe we should stop feeding it. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/64 "2017-03-19T01:29:38Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > No, my point is that there has to be a point where they lose all rights to a book series (Tarzan here). Trademark does act as a perpetual copyright (for all intents and purposes). For crying out loud, stop saying this. I already explained to you the difference in protections & the lack of crossover. You. Are. Wrong. > [@RealityChuck](#): > > BTW, the Conan Doyle estate does hold a trademark on Sherlock Holmes. If you actually read what your citation says, it’s complaining about someone who _falsely_ claimed the trademark, but did not own it. I thought it was complaining that CDEL was that entity who falsely claimed Trademark rights that they didn’t own, but I admit I only skimmed it when I saw the gist. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > Legally trademarked does not justify a perpetual copyright which is clearly illegal. Yes, a perpetual Copyright wouldn’t be legal, nor justified by the existence of a Trademark registration. You have not come close to describing that situation though. > [@Gary\_T](#): > > It sure is hard to figure out this sentence. If this reflects the level of writing skill you plan to bring to your endeavors, don’t plan on much success at it. He’s asking if it’s hard for these companies to understand that people hold that idea (that Trademarks should be released & unenforced). At least, that’s how I read it. He’s missing an “is”. What he’s not clear on is why they should care that people hold that idea. > [@Baker](#): > > Cite? He’s not wrong–the Constitution does specify that Copyrights should be “limited” (though it doesn’t define the term). What he’s not correct on is that Trademarks have no place in that discussion, as they aren’t a form of Copyright and they do nothing to extend Copyright protections. > [@Baker](#): > > We’ve had a lot of new posters like that. Maybe we should stop feeding it. I just don’t want anyone else reading this & coming away thinking (even for a second) that this guy has a point. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/65 "2017-03-19T01:37:59Z")
> [@Debillw3](#): > > I mean, I haven’t seen “Tarzan Goes to Walmart” yet. [Now you have](http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/king-jungle/) ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/66 "2017-03-19T01:39:33Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > [Now you have](http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/king-jungle/) 😃 Thanks, **Guin** –after the frustration of this thread, I needed that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/67 "2017-03-19T01:39:37Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > I am going with what the Copyright Clause says and not the rewritten rulings of SCOTUS. You’re free to insist that a dandelion knows calculus. But why should anyone who gets your letter insisting that your view, and not the Supreme Court’s, is the one they should adopt actually listen? ---
**Author:** ![Kadmos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@Kadmos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kadmos1)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/68 "2017-03-19T01:41:44Z")
Finally someone is somewhat understanding. Let’s consider this. Let’s say all the Tarzan novels here were public domain (this is assuming current copyright laws are kept the same and it is now the year 2061). A fan wants to write a Tarzan novel with that name in the title. They would use the credit format I listed in post#42. However, they can’t because that name is trademarked. As such, the TM acts as a permanent copyright. This is part of the points I am trying to make. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/69 "2017-03-19T01:42:43Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > [Now you have](http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/king-jungle/) Oh God, my eyes, my EYES! ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/70 "2017-03-19T01:47:54Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > Let’s say all the Tarzan novels here were public domain (this is assuming current copyright laws are kept the same and it is now the year 2061). Ok. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > A fan wants to write a Tarzan novel with that name in the title. Ok. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > However, they can’t because that name is trademarked. Correct. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > As such, the TM acts as a permanent copyright. Still not correct. Still just as wrong as it was every other time you made that claim. **Copyrights protect works; Trademarks protect brands.** The works are in the public domain. Copyright’s job is over. The Trademark is not extending the Copyright protections, as it only applies to that which was never affected by the Copyright protections. As such, **it cannot possibly act as a perpetual Copyright**. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/71 "2017-03-19T01:52:44Z")
Here, maybe this will help clear things up. Let’s say I wrote a children’s book called “Fuzzy Bunny Goes to the Dentist”. I would automatically hold the Copyright to that book from inception. If I never asserted Trademark rights to “Fuzzy Bunny” then, even while I still held the Copyright to “Fuzzy Bunny Goes to the Dentist”, other writers would be free to write their own “Fuzzy Bunny” books. Similarly, if, prior to writing the book, I Trademarked “Fuzzy Bunny” in anticipation, then, even before I wrote “Fuzzy Bunny Goes to the Dentist” (and thus before I held the Copyright on it), no other writers would be free to write their own “Fuzzy Bunny” books. The second example gets a bit more complicated because Trademarks can’t be “parked” indefinitely–either you use it or you lose it–but it works for the purposes of this example. See how the two have nothing to do with each other? One could hold a Copyright without holding a Trademark and vice versa. That help? ---
**Author:** ![Kadmos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@Kadmos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kadmos1)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/72 "2017-03-19T01:58:52Z")
Debillw3, your second example I will go with. The problem is someone cannot write “Fuzzy Bunny” in the title. They could use the name in the story but not the title. That is 1 of the things I am trying to get at. So, since an estate has a trademark on a character name, it doesn’t feel like public domain. Public domain is public property but trademarks on a public domain character’s name shifts to private property (of sorts). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/73 "2017-03-19T01:59:53Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > Civil offenses are crimes when you use a dictionary meaning of crime. Just to be clear, what dictionary definition are you using, and what civil offense are you imagining? ---
**Author:** ![Kadmos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@Kadmos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kadmos1)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/74 "2017-03-19T02:06:48Z")
[Crime Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime) (a mix of definitions 1 and 4). For civil offense, in this case, retroactive copyright extensions on a work that went past it’s original expiration date. For limited times, I find the 1909 Copyright Act’s 2 28-year (had to renew during the end of the 1st term or it went to the PD) to be the best case. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/75 "2017-03-19T02:11:55Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > The problem is someone cannot write “Fuzzy Bunny” in the title. They could use the name in the story but not the title. Not necessarily. If it’s a Trademark, you can’t write a Fuzzy Bunny story under any title–regardless of whether or not that title contains the name. You might be able to get away with a brief mention that’s not relevant to the plot, but that’d depend on context & would likely require a consultation with a lawyer… > [@Kadmos1](#): > > So, since an estate has a trademark on a character name, it doesn’t feel like public domain. Public domain is public property but trademarks on a public domain character’s name shifts to private property (of sorts). And? The character is not “public domain”–the stories involving the character are, as, again, **that’s the only thing Copyright deals with**. Copyright is required to have a limit (which only means that it’s not infinite). Trademarks have no such requirement, as you seem to be aware, which is why you keep calling it “perpetual Copyright” (since “perpetual Trademark” means nothing). ---
**Author:** ![Kadmos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@Kadmos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kadmos1)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/76 "2017-03-19T02:15:25Z")
Debillw3 , if your 1st point it in post #75 is true, then for practical purposes, Tarzan has no public domain version. ---
**Author:** ![Debillw3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@Debillw3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debillw3)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/77 "2017-03-19T02:18:16Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > Debillw3 , if your 1st point it in post #75 is true, then for practical purposes, Tarzan has no public domain version. I mean, if you ignore the definitions of “Copyright” and “Public domain”, I guess that argument could be made. Of course, I won’t ignore the definitions, so I’m going to (once again) point out that you’re incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/78 "2017-03-19T02:25:21Z")
> [@Kadmos1](#): > > [Crime Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime) (a mix of definitions 1 and 4). For civil offense, in this case, retroactive copyright extensions on a work that went past it’s original expiration date. For limited times, I find the 1909 Copyright Act’s 2 28-year (had to renew during the end of the 1st term or it went to the PD) to be the best case. Definition 1 is: “an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government.” Definition 4 is: “something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful.” It’s not clear to me what you mean when you say “a mix” of those two. For example, do you mean _an illegal act for which someone can be reprehensible, foolish, or punished by the government?_ ---
**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 19, 2017, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/79 "2017-03-19T02:28:04Z")
> [@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? > [@Trinopus](#): > > If they died in 1950 and nobody’s lived there since? If the family still held the deed to the property and all necessary fees and taxes have been paid - yes, they still own it even if they don’t live in/on it. > [@Trinopus](#): > > 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. Nonsense - if you reprint a copy of _Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar_ you most certainly COULD print the trademarked name in the title because that name and title is a part of the (now public domain) work. > [@Debillw3](#): > > 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. As noted, you certainly can reprint _Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar_ and use “Tarzan” in the title. What you can’t do is publish a story titled “Tarzen on the Starship Enterprise”. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > In terms of that 1880s home, the difference is the home is more of a physical property, so I think intellectual property can be harder to compare. What so many people fail to understand is that _intellectual property is still property_. Just as an antique desk can be your legal property that you can pass down to your heirs, trademarks you own can likewise be passed down. > [@Baker](#): > > How well do you, Kadmos1, know the works of ERB, or in particular Tarzan? Could you truly write a good Tarzan story, one that could be taken as the work of ERB? Having read a LOT of ERB stories… look, he wasn’t that stellar a writer. We’re talking pulp fiction here, not Shakespeare. He had great characters and ideas but honestly, in execution he was a bit of a hack. And I say that as a fan. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > I have not read any Tarzan novel yet but am using that as an example. Holy _shit_ - you haven’t read any of the actual Tarzan books? Have you read _any_ ERB novel? Any? Do you have any idea how arrogant that is? > [@](#): > > I plan to do similar letters to the Conan Doyle Estate and the company that owns Zorro. Baker, your second point could also be applied to these estates. Is that it hard to accept the fact there this idea that everything has to become public domain someday? Have you noticed that there is not one but TWO contemporary Sherlock Holmes TV series these days? _Elementary_ and _Sherlock_, if you didn’t know. CLEARLY the CDEL is willing to license people to use those characters, and even riff off the original stories. Yet you won’t make the effort to get similar permission yourself. Yes, you CAN in fact write a new and original Sherlock Holmes story _legally_ and even _profit_ from doing so… but you have to get permission first from the entity holding the trademark. So why don’t you work on convincing the CDEL to give a stamp of approval to your work? Clearly it’s NOT impossible, more than one person has done so. > [@Kadmos1](#): > > No, my point is that there has to be a point where they lose all rights to a book series (Tarzan here). Trademark does act as a perpetual copyright (for all intents and purposes). The original Tarzan books ARE, in fact, public domain. If you republish those works the ERB estate has no claim on any profits you make from it, nor can they even scold you for printing them off and giving them away for free. What trademark does is control the use of the character in new works. If you don’t like that it has to do with trademark law, not copyright. As has been explained to you more than once in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-please-critique-this-letter-to-the-estate-of-tarzans-creator-long-posts-before-the-letter/782491/80 "2017-03-19T02:55:11Z")
Is it me, or are all people answering to **Kadmos 1** deliberately obtuse? Regardless of his misuse of the word “copyright”, what he means is quite blatantly clear. He thinks that it shouldn’t be lawful to trademark the name of a fiction character because it forever prevents people from freely writing new fiction involving this character, and he believes that at some point people should be able to do that. So, why aren’t people adressing this, instead of telling him over and over again what are the differences between trademark and copyright? Surely, doing so two or three times should be enough, and eventually people should begin to discuss the validity of this opinion, if only so that he won’t try to explain the same thing 20 times because he thinks that nobody understands what he means. [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=3) [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=5)