It’s dynamite
Can you please critique this letter to the estate of Tarzan's creator? Long posts before the letter.
Exploding sales?
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?
Because I don’t have the money and because I am more public domain than copyright.
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:
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.
They have had Tarzan long enough. Civil offenses are crimes when you use a dictionary meaning of crime.
I am going with what the Copyright Clause says and not the rewritten rulings of SCOTUS.
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.
The law cares what the law says words mean. Dictionaries are not recognized parties in a court of law–and for good reason.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You owe the creators of Frozen money now.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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!” *
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, TRZN and the Jewels of Opar. Whatever.
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.
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/