Are they allowed to use the term "Ent"?

[Aesthetica Purple]

I thought that term was a copyright of the the Tolkien Estate, thus most fantasy medias using the term "Treant" or something similar. Why does this game use it? Are there some more complexities to the copyright and usage of this term that I don't know about?

[␥]

The etymology doesn't really matter in this context, but the derived concept Tolkien created does. Skirting too close to that opens you up to potential legal issues.

Moreover, there's literally a legal precedent for staying clear of "Ent" in particular. D&D originally used the term but got C&D'd from Tolkien, which led to them swapping to "treant." Ditto on hobbits vs halflings and balrogs vs balor.

That being said, things like this aren't 100% cut and dry, but as OP mentioned, most companies proactively avoid using the term to avoid potential legal repercussions.

[Sea Base]

Originally posted by ␥:

The etymology doesn't really matter in this context, but the derived concept Tolkien created does. Skirting too close to that opens you up to potential legal issues.

Moreover, there's literally a legal precedent for staying clear of "Ent" in particular. D&D originally used the term but got C&D'd from Tolkien, which led to them swapping to "treant." Ditto on hobbits vs halflings and balrogs vs balor.

That being said, things like this aren't 100% cut and dry, but as OP mentioned, most companies proactively avoid using the term to avoid potential legal repercussions.

Did WoTC actually go to court about those names? Im guessing not.
Even if you can use a name for something doesn't mean you have the money or resources to argue that you rightfully do unfortunately.

[Aesthetica Purple]

Originally posted by Cackle:

Man, imagine copyrighting words you didn't even invent yourself. What a buttface

Was it Tolkien himself that enforced the copyright, though? Like, was Tolkien himself still alive when this D&D C&D happened? In all honesty, I'd be willing to believe he was already passed, and this was more his infamously litigious estate protecting their precious brand, than anything. I don't know for sure, though.

[Hunu]

"Dungeons & Dragons is no stranger to controversy and the game has been dogged by legal issues for decades. The Tolkien Estate is one of many organizations that had an issue with the content in Dungeons & Dragons, which resulted in a lawsuit that was eventually settled out of court. According to Gary Gygax (the co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons) in a post on EN World, the Tolkien estate wanted the words dragon, dwarf, elf, ent, goblin, hobbit, orc, and warg removed from the game. According to Dangerous Games: What the Moral Panic Over Role-Playing Games Says about Play, Religion, and Imagined Worlds, the lawsuit was headed by Hollywood mogul Saul Zaentz on behalf of his company, Middle-earth Enterprises, who would go on to have his own complicated history with the Middle-earth movies.

It was successfully argued that most of those names belonged in the public domain and could be freely used by anyone, but there were three names that had to be changed. The earliest Dungeons & Dragons books featured hobbits as a playable race, while ents and balrogs could be fought by the player. Once the lawsuit was settled, hobbits were turned into halflings, ents were turned into treants, and balrogs were turned into balor.

Treants were still similar to ents after the name change, as there is really only so many possible variations of sentient trees."

Excerpt from post by Scott Baird - Screen Rant dot com



No, they're probably not "allowed", but I don't think anyone bought this game because they thought it was related to LotR or the Middle-earth... So I don't expect there's much money in it to do something about it. Besides it could be easily solved by calling them Tree-dudes or something.