Talk:Bran Mak Morn

"Picts in Fantasy"
The following material was added to Picts by an anonymous Australian user. I am the process of updating Picts, and I don't propose to retain it. Gaul does not contain material on Asterix and Obelix. I am copying the material here, firstly so that it does not get lost, secondly because this page may be a better home for it. It probably won't disappear from Picts today, but it will do in the coming week(s).

Material begins

Many writers have been drawn to the idea of the Picts and created fictional stories and mythology about them in the absence of much real data. This romanticised view tends to portray them as occasionally noble savages, much as the view of Europeans on Native Americans in the 18th century.

They are an especial favourite race of Robert E. Howard and are mentioned frequently in his tales, having a continuity from the tales of King Kull of Atlantis, where they are his allies to the Hyborian Age of Conan the Barbarian where they are the mortal enemies of the Cimmerians, who are actually descended from the old Atlanteans though they do not remember their ancestry or old alliance. Howard also wrote tales about the last King of the Picts Bran Mak Morn set in real historical time and they figure commonly as enemies of Cormac mac Art.

Howard's Picts are said to have originated in the westernmost reaches of North America, and gradually migrated into the Mediterranean area. At one time they spread to large areas of the world, but gradually vanished except for several splinter groups. Although some of these groups lived in remote jungles and southern continents, the most prominent body of Picts settled in the British isles, where they displaced a supposedly mongoloid race that had been the initial residents of the isles (though their origins were elsewhere).

An interesting point is that, in the Hyborian age, when they populate the Western edge of Europe and share a border with Aquilonia, which tries to push them further west to colonize new provinces, the Picts show clear native American influence, in their appearance, dress, armament, manner of conducting wars... and even the place names of the new Aquilonian provinces... It is hard to tell whether this is a case of inconsistency on the part of Howard, or a throwback to their earliest origins and savagery, as Hyborian Picts are definitely more primitive and Savage than those Kull knew.

This previous race sought refuge underground, and over long millenia they evolved into stunted and hideous creatures, who were the initial subjects of tales concerning elves and dwarves. The Picts were in turn displaced by the invading Celts, and they fled northward and interbred with a tribe of 'red haired barbarians,' resulting in a genetic shift toward diminished height. Following subsequent Roman, Breton, and Saxon invasions, the Picts too sought refuge underground, just like the natives they had displaced before.

Howard's descriptions of the later Picts portray them as very small in height, squat and muscular, adept at silent movement, and most of all brutish and uncivilised. They painted themselves with woad, much like the historical Picts, and lived in very large caverns, some natural and some artificially expanded. They had a custom of burning enemy prisoners alive, a ceremony usually presided over by their 'wizards' or priests, whom Howard portrayed as having a twisted philosophy and mindset produced by many years of hatred, in direct opposition to the Pictish warrior-king Bran Mak Morn, who attempted to restore the Picts to their honourable place in the world and drive out the Roman invaders.

Bran Mak Morn's mindset was very unusual for his time and location, because he favored an alliance of the 'native' British populations, including the Picts, Bretons, and Celts, against the Romans, in a setting when each of these tribes fostered an intense hatred and mistrust for all the others. Robert E. Howard also mentions that some warriors among the Picts could assume the forms of wolves, in the manner of werewolves, on their own free will. These Picts were a 'race' with whom Howard felt the most affinity, and for this reason they were one of his favourite subjects, despite being almost wholly fictitious and deviating from historical fact.

Material ends

Angus McLellan 21:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Order of stories
I just thought that the order of publication, which at least conveys how the series would have developed to the original readers, and probably has some relation to when the stories were written, is more informative to the reader than alphabetical order, which is essentially random. If it were a longer list, alphabetical order would make it easier to find a particular story, but given how few the stories are there really doesn't seem to be much of a gain that way. Nareek 21:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ownership edits
Ordinarily, I would place this discussion on the talk page of this editor, but as they've got a shifting IP address there's a good chance they'll never see it. Hopefully they'll find it here.

The ownership of a work of art is not generally considered one of the key things about that work by Wikipedia. If you look at articles on films or novels, you're rarely if ever going to find in the lead a mention of who owns the copyright. It's just not that important to the average person's understanding or appreciation of the work.

It's true that articles of comic book characters will generally mention if the character belongs to DC, Marvel etc. But that identification places the character in an extended continuity; if Conan the Barbarian is part of an extended continuity, it's one defined by his creator, not by whomever holds the copyright. Note that the DC articles do not typically mention that DC is owned by Time Warner; who eventually pockets the royalties is not considered to be in itself particularly relevant.

In many cases the ownership of these characters is highly disputed. Attempts to maintain ownership of characters whose stories have clearly passed into the public domain are debatable at best. The Robert E. Howard copyrights are quite questionable.

It's not good to be reverting edits over and over again--we should discuss these changes globally rather than flipping them back and forth. Nareek 12:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Characters and their likenesses as well as place names are trademarks of their respective companies and protected by fereral law. Just because copyrights on the original works may have expired, it doesn't give anyone the right to use the characters without permission.  I have contacted the various mark holders of these characters informing them that their ownership rights are being infringed upon by the public domain claims.  Being that this is an encyclopedia, it is important that all FACTS about these characters are included in their entries including the FACTS concerning their ownership. 69.182.106.50 19:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can the "likeness" of Conan (say) be trademarked when he's completely different depending on who draws him ? Can one trademark a fictional character if the works in which he originally appeared are in the public domain ? Please cite some sources. -- Beardo 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely they can be trademarked. I can't post links from the USPTO because sessions expire on the site but you can look them up youself here: http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm 69.182.106.50 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My main point is that the ownership of works of art is not generally considered to be one of the most important facts about the art. It's a fact mainly of interest to people who want to purchase or republish the art, which is a tiny group compared to those who just want to understand or appreciate it.  Thus articles about novels, films, songs etc. generally do not include information about ownership in the lead.


 * That's not to say that information about ownership can't be part of the article in the appropriate section. But it has to be discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, meaning that with disputed facts we have to present all legitimate points of view, not just those that we find most persuasive.  The claim that a character originally published in a work whose copyright has expired (which may include most REH characters) can be kept from public use via copyright is certainly a controversial one, and competing points of view need to be presented. Nareek 01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the response above about trademarks. The works aren't being kept from the public because of copyrights. They are protected by trademarks which are indefinite as long as they are renewed.  Nothing involving these characters can be published using their original name without permission from the trademark holders.


 * I don't buy this for one second. A trademark only operates in trade; you may be able to keep the name of the character off the cover, but that's about it.  Marvel snapped up the trademark to Captain Marvel when it went into disuse.  When DC wants to publish Captain Marvel stories they must use another name like "Shazam" on the cover; but they can still publish the stories and they can still call him Captain Marvel inside the comic.
 * Another example are the Superman cartoons that went into public domain. Superman is a trademark of DC, but as long as anyone is reprinting the Superman cartoons, they can say Superman without problems, and since it's a reprint of an old story, they can even put it on the cover.  There must be dozens of cheap DVD companies all doing that.  This has also happened to Flash Gordon, Tarzan, and the Shadow; some movies about them have become public domain, and cheap DVD companies constantly release the same movies using the characters' actual names.  By your reasoning anyone who releases a Superman DVD would have to take out all occurrences of the name Superman for the DVD to be legal.  This just isn't true.
 * You also see it a lot for Sherlock Holmes and the Wizard of Oz. Most of the original stories are out of copyright, but not all, and they're still protected by trademarks (at least Oz is, I'm not sure about Holmes).  Anyone can use them and write stories about them, with the original names. Ken Arromdee 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Trademark protects against someone passing off their work as belonging to another. For example if I were to build computers and call them IBMs I would be viotatiing trademark.  It does not, however, stop me from building computers.  Similarly, I can write whatever stories I want using conan, cimmeria, etc as long as I don't call them by a trademarked name or use a trademarked immage to make people beleive it is a production of the trademark holders.  ( though really, who with any taste would book produced in the last twenty years?).  Write a conan story, call it something like " the big barbarian" and you are fine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.157.40 (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Universal, through Working Title, seems to have purchased the rights to BMM, per this: http://www.paradox-entertainment.com/news/delar2008q3.pdf (Swedish language). CapnZapp (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bran Mak Morn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704071954/http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm to http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)