| |
Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ . This archive contains
scans submitted by hundreds of LEGO fans that are organized, indexed
and presented by Brickshelf. Its availability is made possible
with special permission and generous support from the LEGO Company.
FTP access and ZIP file downloads have been disabled for now to
encourage the online use of the archive and to help control
bandwidth usage. DO NOT download the entire archvie (slurping),
as it is unnecessary and unfair to the other users.
The entire archive has been preserved (no material was deleted),
and we expect to add more as new submissions come in. We will
continue our existing policy of not posting instructions for sets
in the current regular retail assortment.
New scans may be submitted via email to webmaster@brickshelf.com
(other options will be possible in the future). All submissions
become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
The original catalogs and building instructions are copyrighted
materials of the LEGO Group. Brickshelf is neither owned nor operated
by the LEGO Group.
Kevin Loch
Manager,
Brickshelf L.L.C.
|
|
| |
And there was Much Rejoycing!
HUZZAH!
Opps, did my castlehead show itself?
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ . This archive contains
> scans submitted by hundreds of LEGO fans that are organized, indexed
> and presented by Brickshelf. Its availability is made possible
> with special permission and generous support from the LEGO Company.
>
> FTP access and ZIP file downloads have been disabled for now to
> encourage the online use of the archive and to help control
> bandwidth usage. DO NOT download the entire archvie (slurping),
> as it is unnecessary and unfair to the other users.
>
> The entire archive has been preserved (no material was deleted),
> and we expect to add more as new submissions come in. We will
> continue our existing policy of not posting instructions for sets
> in the current regular retail assortment.
>
> New scans may be submitted via email to webmaster@brickshelf.com
> (other options will be possible in the future). All submissions
> become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
>
> The original catalogs and building instructions are copyrighted
> materials of the LEGO Group. Brickshelf is neither owned nor operated
> by the LEGO Group.
>
> Kevin Loch
> Manager,
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
|
|
| |
And the people rejoyced!!!
Hmmm, "generous support from the LEGO Company"? :-)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ . This archive contains
> scans submitted by hundreds of LEGO fans that are organized, indexed
> and presented by Brickshelf. Its availability is made possible
> with special permission and generous support from the LEGO Company.
>
> Kevin Loch
> Manager,
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
This is great news. On behalf of myself, my two sons, and, I'm sure,
numerous users, I thank Kevin for having managed to keep the instruction and
catalog archive alive.
Michel Harnois
Montreal, Canada
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ .
Goodie!
I'm glad you are back in business! :-P
Pedro
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ . This archive contains
> scans submitted by hundreds of LEGO fans that are organized, indexed
> and presented by Brickshelf. Its availability is made possible
> with special permission and generous support from the LEGO Company.
Woo hoo! Alright! Thank you!
*sorry for that rant there*
It's exceptionally great to see those scans back on
brickshelf once again. I applaud Lego's generous support
for bringing those instructions back, and I'd like to let you
know that I'm quite pleased to see everything (mostly) nack on track
for brickshelf.
Respectively,
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Lugnet member No. 1112
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ .
Thank you, thank you, and finally, thank you! It is nice to see something
like this work out!
Mike
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ . This archive contains
> scans submitted by hundreds of LEGO fans that are organized, indexed
> and presented by Brickshelf. Its availability is made possible
> with special permission and generous support from the LEGO Company.
I applaud the integrity shown by Kevin Loch for requesting explicit permission
from The Lego Company to make instruction and catalog scans available on a
commercial web site BEFORE actually doing so. As Kevin and others have
pointed out, a non-profit hobby site is a simple matter, but hosting non-owned
proprietary information on a commercial site is very different.
Thankfully, we got the outcome that is best for Lego fans everywhere.
I also applaud the policy that instructions for currently available items are
not presented for viewing on Brickshelf. The reasons for this are complex and
it is a policy that should persist unless and until The Lego Company makes this
practice unneccessary.
Now, for everyone who was upset or angry with the temporary removal of the Scan
Library, please consider how complicated the entire matter has been for Kevin
Loch. His efforts on behalf of the Scan Library have paid off in a very short
period of time. We are now left with the best possible outcome.
Remember that all good things take time.
__Kevin Salm__
....Over 20 years experience playing with Lego toys....
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Salm writes:
> We are now left with the best possible outcome.
Hear hear!
|
|
| |
I admit I was one of those who was upset, but I was not angry at Kevin.
After all, he DID do all the right things that are necessary when making the
transition from a hobbyist to a business person. I am glad that LEGO(r) has
given him special permission to have the scans available. As for not having
current instructions/catalogs available - perfectly understandable. After
all, LEGO is in this business for the money (of course, so long as they keep
the customers happy, the customers will happily give them more money for
more products).
Now I can continue on my private little LEGO Castle History project. :)
Of course, when my finances allows ("in between jobs" as they say), I'll be
wanting to make a donation to the Brickshelf L.L.C. operating fund.
Brickshelf is definately worth keeping around. :)
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Salm writes:
> In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> > Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> > instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> > http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ . This archive contains
> > scans submitted by hundreds of LEGO fans that are organized, indexed
> > and presented by Brickshelf. Its availability is made possible
> > with special permission and generous support from the LEGO Company.
>
>
> I applaud the integrity shown by Kevin Loch for requesting explicit permission
> from The Lego Company to make instruction and catalog scans available on a
> commercial web site BEFORE actually doing so. As Kevin and others have
> pointed out, a non-profit hobby site is a simple matter, but hosting non-owned
> proprietary information on a commercial site is very different.
> Thankfully, we got the outcome that is best for Lego fans everywhere.
>
> I also applaud the policy that instructions for currently available items are
> not presented for viewing on Brickshelf. The reasons for this are complex and
> it is a policy that should persist unless and until The Lego Company makes this
> practice unneccessary.
>
> Now, for everyone who was upset or angry with the temporary removal of the Scan
> Library, please consider how complicated the entire matter has been for Kevin
> Loch. His efforts on behalf of the Scan Library have paid off in a very short
> period of time. We are now left with the best possible outcome.
> Remember that all good things take time.
>
>
> __Kevin Salm__
> ....Over 20 years experience playing with Lego toys....
|
|
| |
Hello Kevin, hello everybody,
I certainly appreciate the enormous amount of work that you and others put
into brickshelf over the years, and the value this has created for the LEGO
community. This is why I found it very disturbing to see the LEGO(r)
instruction and catalog archive go offline a few weeks ago. I certainly
didn't understand the reason for it, because the press release didn't say
that the LEGO Group has intervened in any way. Also, it was no entirely
clear from it, what the reasons for transforming brickshelf into a company
were, and why this made it necessary to take the archive off the net. Maybe
that has been discussed here but then, I am just subscribing to this group
as I write this ...
Now, all of this did not seem important and disputable enough when it
happened to start a discussion back then. However, in the announcement I am
replying to, one sentence caught my attention:
> All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
the LEGO Group's copyright)?
Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
them)?
I think this point needs modification or at least clarification before I
will submit any more scans ...
In a nutshell, I would like to prevent ...
... that the availability of a resource like the LEGO(r) instruction and
catalog archive depends on a single individual and his decisions [1]
... that anybody can make commercial profit from the work of others.
[2] [3]
This is not intended to charge upon you, Kevin, but mostly the result of my
thoughts and conclusions from a couple of weeks without the brickshelf
archive. The announcement just gave me a hook to get started writing
something down. I hope you can see some constructive ideas shine through the
cover of frustration ...
Greetings
Horst
[1] Not because I mistrust that individual, or because I neglect his work
on the project, but because all the others, who have also put work
into it, should have their share in deciding its fate. This requires
that they at least have the right to put the scans they personally
created on other web sites of their choice, in addition to personal
use.
[2] Note that this does not rule out potential commercial services per se.
Linux Distributors, for example, are providing distribution and support
services around Linux, which I don't see as making money from the work
of others. I can imagine a similar model for the brickshelf archive,
but, again, that needs clarification, much in the way the GNU Public
License and its derivates provides for the industry built around free
software.
[3] I have always been very annoyed when I saw ebayers sell CDs of LEGO
instruction scans, which in most cases presumably have been copies of
the brickshelf archive. So, also from this direction, I see the need
to be a lot clearer on what people are allowed to do with data they
get from brickshelf and what not.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner wrote:
> I certainly appreciate the enormous amount of work that you and others
> put into brickshelf over the years, and the value this has created for
> the LEGO community. This is why I found it very disturbing to see the
> LEGO(r) instruction and catalog archive go offline a few weeks ago. I
> certainly didn't understand the reason for it, because the press
> release didn't say that the LEGO Group has intervened in any way.
> Also, it was no entirely clear from it, what the reasons for
> transforming brickshelf into a company were, and why this made it
> necessary to take the archive off the net. Maybe that has been
> discussed here but then, I am just subscribing to this group as I
> write this ...
Personally, I think Kevin did the right thing. And he gets extra points
from doing it on his own. Why do you think that he should have waited
for LEGO to complain? The fact that he probably _could_ get away with it
doesn't mean he _should_ try... As for the need for Brickshelf to go
commercial, I think we all knew the day would come where Kevin employer
would refuse to front the HUGE bill for all the traffic. It was only a
matter of time.
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner wrote:
> > I certainly appreciate the enormous amount of work that you and others
> > put into brickshelf over the years, and the value this has created for
> > the LEGO community. This is why I found it very disturbing to see the
> > LEGO(r) instruction and catalog archive go offline a few weeks ago. I
> > certainly didn't understand the reason for it, because the press
> > release didn't say that the LEGO Group has intervened in any way.
> > Also, it was no entirely clear from it, what the reasons for
> > transforming brickshelf into a company were, and why this made it
> > necessary to take the archive off the net. Maybe that has been
> > discussed here but then, I am just subscribing to this group as I
> > write this ...
>
> Personally, I think Kevin did the right thing. And he gets extra points
> from doing it on his own.
I agree, and further, the people here jiggling his elbow (including,
regrettably, me) while he was engaged in what had to be delicate
negotiations probably weren't helping matters with their thoughts, analysis
and suggestions although surely they were TRYING to be helpful.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> ...ZIP file downloads have been disabled for now to encourage the online use
> of the archive and to help control bandwidth usage.
Ouch! The zipfiles were THE manner in which I would view instruction
manuals. If the zipfiles were too much hassle bandwidth-wise, how about
making cd-roms of the library available for sale to fund the library? If I
could get the extant collection on cd-rom up through the year 1999 or 2000,
I'd never have to use ANY bandwidth again. Anyway, I hope the "for now"
part means that the zipfile issue will go away soon...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner writes:
> In a nutshell, I would like to prevent ...
> ... that the availability of a resource like the LEGO(r) instruction and
> catalog archive depends on a single individual and his decisions [1]
I think Kevin gets this privilege de facto because he is the one maintaining
the library. That some other person(s) should have a backed up copy of the
library would probably be prudent and has hopefully already been accomplished.
> ... that anybody can make commercial profit from the work of others.
I don't have a problem if the profit is either for Kevin or to fund the
library. I suppose it depends on the amount of the profit in question, but
this remains speculative for now...
> [3] I have always been very annoyed when I saw ebayers sell CDs of LEGO
> instruction scans, which in most cases presumably have been copies of
> the brickshelf archive. So, also from this direction, I see the need
> to be a lot clearer on what people are allowed to do with data they
> get from brickshelf and what not.
As stated elsewhere, I think it might be cool if Brickshelf made disks like
this itself and preempted others from doing so...again in the hopes of
funding the online library or giving Kevin some payback for the time he has
invested.
I think it goes without saying that the true owners of the scanned material
remains TLC. If someone scans something, they can probably do with it as
they will unless TLC objects. Kevin probably doesn't have standing to
pursue the matter.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
Thank you Brickshelf & LEGO,
This has been on my mind nearly daily, wondering if the scans would return
and in what form. With the re-release of sets from TLC in the LEGENDS theme
I was sure that LEGO would have to sanction set instructions. Thanks to a
good working relationship between people such as Kevin Loch, Suzanne Rich
and Brad Justus we are able to preserve a database of these scans, files and
documents to rival the Libary of Congress!!!! I am so glad to hear this
news that I will now kiss my dog.
> smooch<
Play Well,
-Aaron-
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ . This archive contains
> scans submitted by hundreds of LEGO fans that are organized, indexed
> and presented by Brickshelf. Its availability is made possible
> with special permission and generous support from the LEGO Company.
>
> FTP access and ZIP file downloads have been disabled for now to
> encourage the online use of the archive and to help control
> bandwidth usage. DO NOT download the entire archvie (slurping),
> as it is unnecessary and unfair to the other users.
>
> The entire archive has been preserved (no material was deleted),
> and we expect to add more as new submissions come in. We will
> continue our existing policy of not posting instructions for sets
> in the current regular retail assortment.
>
> New scans may be submitted via email to webmaster@brickshelf.com
> (other options will be possible in the future). All submissions
> become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
>
> The original catalogs and building instructions are copyrighted
> materials of the LEGO Group. Brickshelf is neither owned nor operated
> by the LEGO Group.
>
> Kevin Loch
> Manager,
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner writes:
>
> > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
>
> In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
> Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
> submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
> the LEGO Group's copyright)?
> Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
> commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
> them)?
> I think this point needs modification or at least clarification before I
> will submit any more scans ...
That is required to prevent claims from those who submit material to us.
It is standard business practice (think of contests where people submit
entries). To be clear, yes it does mean that you give up any and all rights
to scans you submit to Brickshelf. Keep in mind that the overriding factor
in this case is the original copyrighted material owned and controlled
by the LEGO Company.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Aaron West writes:
> I am so glad to hear this
> news that I will now kiss my dog.
> > smooch<
Ewww!
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/.
Huzzah for the shopkeep! Wonderful, stupendous, super terrific. How much
if any did threads like this:
http://news.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=3803
affect Lego's decision?
Aaron D.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ . This archive contains
> scans submitted by hundreds of LEGO fans that are organized, indexed
> and presented by Brickshelf. Its availability is made possible
> with special permission and generous support from the LEGO Company.
[SNIP-PED]
> Kevin Loch
> Manager,
> Brickshelf L.L.C.
Thank you for the effort and thank you for keeping the site alive. It's my
almost-most favorite website on the whole of the Internet!
Mark -LUGNET being THE most favorite- de Kock
|
|
| |
I just want to add my thanks too. Thanks for maintaining such a great site.
Duane
|
|
| |
I have a quick question for ya. I have a few catalogs which are not shown
(Shop at home, product catalogs, etc). Is there interest to have these too?
Alternate covers? Etc etc? I could bring them back from home to scan if
there is.
Also, how about "LEGO Mania Magazine"? This probably can't be added for
copyright reasons, but I just wanted to put forth the question.
plucky
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Brett Kingery writes:
> I have a quick question for ya. I have a few catalogs which are not shown
> (Shop at home, product catalogs, etc). Is there interest to have these too?
> Alternate covers? Etc etc? I could bring them back from home to scan if
> there is.
Yes, every version of every catalog (except current vendors catalogs)
are acceptable.
> Also, how about "LEGO Mania Magazine"? This probably can't be added for
> copyright reasons, but I just wanted to put forth the question.
We don't currently have Mania Magazines in the collection, and
I don't believe we have permission to post them.
KL
|
|
| |
> Brickshelf L.L.C is pleased to announce that its LEGO(r)
> instruction and catalog archive is now available online at
> http://library.brickshelf.com/scans/ . This archive contains
> scans submitted by hundreds of LEGO fans that are organized, indexed
> and presented by Brickshelf. Its availability is made possible
> with special permission and generous support from the LEGO Company.
Obviously, it's great to have the scans back and good to hear that Lego is
giving permission and "generous support".
But, what is not so clear to me is just how generous Lego's support is? Is it
sufficient to cover all of brickshelf's volume charges or is there still a
need to find ways to generate some additional income to cover the costs? Many
people have written previously indicating their willingness to take up a
subscription etc. Do we still need to consider this?
Obviously I don't expect Kevin to reveal the precise details of his
arrangements with Lego, but it would be worthwhile having some indication of
whether we still need to think about additional ways to fund brickshelf.
Also, is there a person in Lego whom we should contact to thank them for their
part in keeping the scan database available, so they realise just how many
people do appreciate their efforts?
Kerry
|
|
| |
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> writes:
> In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> > ...ZIP file downloads have been disabled for now to encourage the online use
> > of the archive and to help control bandwidth usage.
>
> Ouch! The zipfiles were THE manner in which I would view instruction
> manuals. If the zipfiles were too much hassle bandwidth-wise, how about
> making cd-roms of the library available for sale to fund the library? If I
> could get the extant collection on cd-rom up through the year 1999 or 2000,
> I'd never have to use ANY bandwidth again. Anyway, I hope the "for now"
> part means that the zipfile issue will go away soon...
That's an excellent idea. I hope Kevin reads this and LEGO would
support it. I think $20 for such a CDROM would not be unreasonable
and lots of people would happily pay it.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
|
|
| |
Hello Dan,
> Why do you think that he should have waited for LEGO to complain?
Actually, I don't think that.
> The fact that he probably _could_ get away with it doesn't mean he
> _should_ try...
I agree.
> As for the need for Brickshelf to go
> commercial, I think we all knew the day would come where Kevin employer
> would refuse to front the HUGE bill for all the traffic. It was only a
> matter of time.
I understand that. I don't see, however, for now, how the bill is going to
be paid for from now on. But I guess Kevin has an idea ...
I think I have understood more of the transition, why it happened, and why
it had to happen the way it happened. I didn't get that understanding from
the press release, however, but from reading a few posts in this group
(which I haven't been subscribed to prior to my posting).
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
Hello Richard,
> > In a nutshell, I would like to prevent ...
> > ... that the availability of a resource like the LEGO(r) instruction and
> > catalog archive depends on a single individual and his decisions [1]
>
> I think Kevin gets this privilege de facto because he is the one maintaining
> the library. That some other person(s) should have a backed up copy of the
> library would probably be prudent and has hopefully already been accomplished.
I have no problem with Kevin deciding alone what to do with his copy of the
scans. However, trying to exclude people who contributed the scans, which is
what I understand from the sentence:
is not something I will accept for the scans I submit.
> > ... that anybody can make commercial profit from the work of others.
>
> I don't have a problem if the profit is either for Kevin or to fund the
> library. I suppose it depends on the amount of the profit in question, but
> this remains speculative for now...
Funding the library is not profit. Profit Kevin gets for his work is not
profit from the work of others. So, I think I can agree to what you say.
> > [3] I have always been very annoyed when I saw ebayers sell CDs of LEGO
> > instruction scans, which in most cases presumably have been copies of
> > the brickshelf archive. So, also from this direction, I see the need
> > to be a lot clearer on what people are allowed to do with data they
> > get from brickshelf and what not.
>
> As stated elsewhere, I think it might be cool if Brickshelf made disks like
> this itself and preempted others from doing so...again in the hopes of
> funding the online library or giving Kevin some payback for the time he has
> invested.
Agree 100%.
> I think it goes without saying that the true owners of the scanned material
> remains TLC.
I am well aware of that fact.
> If someone scans something, they can probably do with it as
> they will unless TLC objects. Kevin probably doesn't have standing to
> pursue the matter.
Right. But if someone get scans from Kevin's archive, Kevin probably HAS
standing to pursue that matter. Of course, he can still decide not to do so.
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
Hello Larry, hello everybody,
> > Personally, I think Kevin did the right thing. And he gets extra points
> > from doing it on his own.
>
> I agree, and further, the people here jiggling his elbow (including,
> regrettably, me) while he was engaged in what had to be delicate
> negotiations probably weren't helping matters with their thoughts, analysis
> and suggestions although surely they were TRYING to be helpful.
I do understand by now what was going on in the last few weeks, and why.
However, there hasn't been much response to my second point, which was about
Brickshelf L.L.C. claiming all rights with uploaded scans:
> > > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
> > > Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
> > > submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
> > > the LEGO Group's copyright)?
> > > Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
> > > commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
> > > them)?
Maybe I'm wrong there as well, but I haven't heard the arguments yet ...
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
Hello Kevin,
> > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
> >
> > In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
> > Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
> > submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
> > the LEGO Group's copyright)?
> > Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
> > commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
> > them)?
> > I think this point needs modification or at least clarification before I
> > will submit any more scans ...
>
>
> That is required to prevent claims from those who submit material to us.
Which types of claims are you talking here? I can see that submitting does
not GIVE them any rights above and beyond the ones they have, so they cannot
CLAIM anything. But how could they claim any rights, from submitting to
Brickshelf?
> It is standard business practice (think of contests where people submit
> entries).
That does make sense for contests where a non-digital work is being sent in,
because it is not even possible to keep an identical copy for personal use.
So, what use could I make from any retained rights?
It is not acceptable (and I never take part in such contests) when even my
personal use of a digital work is prohibited after I send it in.
> To be clear, yes it does mean that you give up any and all rights
> to scans you submit to Brickshelf.
And this exactly is what I think is unreasonable. Assume I need a printout,
or want to give one to a friend. Do I really need to download the scan again
from brickshelf before I am allowed to print? Or assume the brickshelf
archive disappears at some point, but I still have a copy of the scans I
submitted. Wouldn't it at least then be reasonable to let me put up the
scans on my website, or submit to another archive?
And what about scans submitted prior to this policy change?
> Keep in mind that the overriding factor in this case is the original
> copyrighted material owned and controlled by the LEGO Company.
I understand that. So, if the LEGO Company objects to any of the things I
could do with the scans I submitted, that's a different thing. But why would
you want to object?
Again, this discussion is not intended to neglect your work on the
brickshelf archive. In fact, I am as thankful as many others who have
expressed so in response to your announcement. I just don't see why this one
point needs to be regulated so narrowly. I may accept if a good explanation
is given, but, so far, I don't see one.
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
I'm not a lawyer, but I understand this to mean:
Anything uploaded to Brickshelf, bet it scans, digital pics, gif files, text
files, whatever, becomes property of Brickshelf in the regards that
Brickshelf can do whatever with those files (print them, delete them, give
them away for free, etc). Everything EXCEPT selling the material. The
original rights of the property still resides with the original owner. This
means that while you are the owner of the jpg file of that LEGO(r) model you
submitted to Brickshelf (and you can do whatever you want with that file,
including selling copies if you want), Brickshelf can do whatever they want
to the COPY you uploaded to them (including editing or using in some fashion
to promote Brickshelf). They can even make copies of the copies, but the
only thing I believe they can NOT due without your express permission is to
sell the copy.
This, by the way, is the crux of the Instruction Scans issue. The
Instructions are the property of TLC. Period. They do not belong to
Brickshelf, nor to whoever made the original scan, nor to whoever downloaded
them. Scanning (a form of copying, remember), is allowed, but SELLING the
scans (ie: copies, be it digital or paper) is NOT allowed without TLC's
permission. While Brickshelf was a "personal" page, it was ok to display the
instructions as that was "personal usage". (I'm sure a real Lawyer out there
might even point out that DOWNLOADING the scans was in fact a technical
violation of the "no copies without express permission" clause that you
always see with a tradmark statement).
Does anyone remember Napster? And what was the crux of their problem?
Afterall, Napster didn't charge a penny to any of it's users that was
downloading mp3's right and left. So why were they sued out of existance?
Did they somehow violate the Copyright laws? Of course they did! And that
is why Brickshelf L.L.C. (the business entity, not the "personal page") had
to remove the scans until they were able to obtain the express permission
from TLC to make them available again. And I would guess the permission
that Brickshelf received from TLC included specifications about weither or
not Brickshelf can make available for sale CD's containing the instruction
scans, and may even contained restrictions as to how the scans can be made
available (ie: full size images ok, but zipped files are not, etc).
Remember, everyone, that Brickshelf (prior to Brickshelf L.L.C.) was a
"PERSONAL PAGE". It was NOT part of The Lego Company. There is NO mandate or
requirement that it had to have the instruction scans available in the first
place - afterall, those scans were in Kevin Loch's personal collection which
he was GENEROUS in making freely available to everyone. The rights of
ownership between an individual (Kevin Loch) and a business entity
(Brickshelf L.L.C.) are different.
Too many people today, living the life of Internet luxury, feel that
"information should be free", with no regard for Intellectual Property and
Copyright laws (can anyone guess why Copyright laws have been around in some
form or fashion since even before the existance of Xerox and computers???).
I will admit that I would like to get free copies of things, and prolly (if
I really thought about it) would think that "oh, copying an instruction is
not the same as getting the bricks for free from TLC), but in fact that is
the same thing.
Ok, I'll get off the soapbox now. I'm really really happy that the scans are
back, and am glad that TLC has allowed Brickshelf to host the scans. You
the reader can agree with me or not, get angry at me or not, or just ignore
this all together.
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner writes:
> However, there hasn't been much response to my second point, which was about
> Brickshelf L.L.C. claiming all rights with uploaded scans:
>
> > > > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
> > > > Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
> > > > submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
> > > > the LEGO Group's copyright)?
> > > > Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
> > > > commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
> > > > them)?
>
> Maybe I'm wrong there as well, but I haven't heard the arguments yet ...
>
> Greetings
>
> Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner writes:
>
> Which types of claims are you talking here? I can see that submitting does
> not GIVE them any rights above and beyond the ones they have, so they cannot
> CLAIM anything. But how could they claim any rights, from submitting to
> Brickshelf?
Read what I wrote carefully. It adresses material *submitted*
to the Library. That means you have no control over what Brickshelf
does with it's copies of what you submit. In other words, you can't
revoke your submission, or suddenly decide you want a royalty for it's use.
Imagine what might happen if TLC authorized us to sell Instruction CD's?
None of this concerns what you do with your scanner or your copies of
what you submit, it only concerns Brickshef's rights to the material
submitted to it. If we meant to control what you do with your copies,
there would be other language to that effect. (think of contests
where all submissions become their property, but if you win you have
to agree to sign over all rights to receive the prize).
Also, this only applies to Library submissions, not gallery content uploaded
by users (which is covered by the gallery TOS).
KL
|
|
| |
Hello Kevin,
> None of this concerns what you do with your scanner or your copies of
> what you submit, it only concerns Brickshef's rights to the material
> submitted to it. If we meant to control what you do with your copies,
> there would be other language to that effect. (think of contests
> where all submissions become their property, but if you win you have
> to agree to sign over all rights to receive the prize).
I am glad to hear this from you directly. Maybe the whole issue here is that
English is not my mother tongue, so I didn't get the proper meaning of the
jurisdictional terms.
How will you handle scans that have been uploaded before this policy change?
For my part, you can handle them as you do with new submissions ... but
that's just me.
> Imagine what might happen if TLC authorized us to sell Instruction CD's?
They hopefully will also be usable on non-Wintel computers ;-)
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
Oops, there was something missing in my posting here:
> I have no problem with Kevin deciding alone what to do with his copy of the
> scans. However, trying to exclude people who contributed the scans, which is
> what I understand from the sentence:
>
> > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
>
> is not something I will accept for the scans I submit.
|
|
| |
Hello Mark,
> Anything uploaded to Brickshelf, bet it scans, digital pics, gif files, text
> files, whatever, becomes property of Brickshelf in the regards that
> Brickshelf can do whatever with those files (print them, delete them, give
> them away for free, etc). Everything EXCEPT selling the material.
Well, if that is what it means, this certainly differs from what I
understood when I read:
> > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
because with property I am usually free to even sell it. Also, since we are
talking intellectual property here, I thought it would exclude others,
including the submitter, from using it in any way.
Now, Kevin has made clear that this is not what he means, and, since I trust
him, that's enough for me.
> This means that while you are the owner of the jpg file of that LEGO(r)
> model you submitted to Brickshelf (and you can do whatever you want with
> that file, including selling copies if you want)
I didn't see it that way if I handed over property to Brickshelf. But,
again, that is now clarified by Kevin's statement.
Other than that, I agree to your posting.
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Mark Chittenden writes:
> I'm not a lawyer, but I understand this to mean:
>
> Anything uploaded to Brickshelf, bet it scans, digital pics, gif files, text
> files, whatever, becomes property of Brickshelf in the regards that
Only materials submitted to the Brickshelf _Library_ become property of
Brickshelf. Materials uploaded to the _Gallery_ remain with the original
owner.
This really isn't complicated, you just can't control what Brickshelf does
with scans you submit to the Library. It has nothing to do with
your own (copies of) scans, or anything you upload to the gallery.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> > ...ZIP file downloads have been disabled for now to encourage the online use
> > of the archive and to help control bandwidth usage.
>
> Ouch! The zipfiles were THE manner in which I would view instruction
> manuals. If the zipfiles were too much hassle bandwidth-wise, how about
> making cd-roms of the library available for sale to fund the library? If I
> could get the extant collection on cd-rom up through the year 1999 or 2000,
> I'd never have to use ANY bandwidth again. Anyway, I hope the "for now"
> part means that the zipfile issue will go away soon...
>
> -- Hop-Frog
I'm with you on that one. If I can't download in one lump to print it out
or store for archival use, then its of no real value to me. I am not going
to memorize a couple of steps, then run to the Lego room and build, come
back and do the process all over again because I have to look at it on the
internet. On larger models, a person like me with low bandwidth could spend
hours trying to download invidual page scans. I think that would take up
even more bandwidth.
-Rob "Bring the zipfiles back) Hendrix
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Rob Hendrix writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.announce.brickshelf, Kevin Loch writes:
> > > ...ZIP file downloads have been disabled for now to encourage the online use
> > > of the archive and to help control bandwidth usage.
> >
> > Ouch! The zipfiles were THE manner in which I would view instruction
> > manuals. If the zipfiles were too much hassle bandwidth-wise, how about
> > making cd-roms of the library available for sale to fund the library? If I
> > could get the extant collection on cd-rom up through the year 1999 or 2000,
> > I'd never have to use ANY bandwidth again. Anyway, I hope the "for now"
> > part means that the zipfile issue will go away soon...
> >
> > -- Hop-Frog
>
> I'm with you on that one. If I can't download in one lump to print it out
> or store for archival use, then its of no real value to me. I am not going
> to memorize a couple of steps, then run to the Lego room and build, come
> back and do the process all over again because I have to look at it on the
> internet. On larger models, a person like me with low bandwidth could spend
> hours trying to download invidual page scans. I think that would take up
> even more bandwidth.
>
> -Rob "Bring the zipfiles back) Hendrix
Yeah, I have to agree with you. The computor with internet as at the
oppisite side of the house. I used to zip instructions and move them to my
personal, non-internet computor. Now I can't do that!
John Kruer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, John Henry Kruer writes:
> Yeah, I have to agree with you. The computor with internet as at the
> oppisite side of the house. I used to zip instructions and move them to my
> personal, non-internet computor. Now I can't do that!
Does FTP still work? If so, couldn't you download the lot and move them
en masse to your non-interent computer?
Dave!
|
|
|
