 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, David Simmons writes:
> Okay, so they didn't mention the URL or anything, but this is a HUGE leap of
> recognition by TLG of the adult market since they would allow placement of
> Lugnet's logo in a Magazine that receives such massive distribution. Not
> only that, but the fact the Lego Maniac, TLG's version of Ronald McDonald,
> is showing pursuing such information, will undoubtedly lead many young kids
> who read this magazine to ask Mom & Dad exactly what Lugnet is. This could
> lead to a large influx of new people in the online community and
> significantly increase the amount of participation in the various
> newsgroups. I am so jazzed! Fantastic! Great! Stupendous! Superlative!
> Yippee!
How exactly will it make any difference (assuming some kid puts the image and
word on the computer together with a place they can get info) if some kid asks
his Dad "hey, what is LUGNET" and his Dad answers, "I dunno." ?
Without the URL this is mostly worthless. I'm sure a few random people may go
far enough to type in LUGNET in their browsers (and I just did this on a fresh
install of Win98 with IE5 and, believe it or not, just "lugnet" brought up
IE's search pane on the left and Lugnet's main page on the right) but how many
more people would try to go to Lugnet if the actual URL had been there?
And how much happier would Todd & Suz be if their trademark weren't tossed
around like it didn't mean anything in a mag where TLC gives the Lucas
trademarks the respect they deserve (and the respect their continued good
relationship demands)?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Mike Stanley writes:
>
> How exactly will it make any difference (assuming some kid puts the image and
> word on the computer together with a place they can get info) if some kid asks
> his Dad "hey, what is LUGNET" and his Dad answers, "I dunno." ?
>
> Without the URL this is mostly worthless. I'm sure a few random people may go
> far enough to type in LUGNET in their browsers (and I just did this on a fresh
> install of Win98 with IE5 and, believe it or not, just "lugnet" brought up
> IE's search pane on the left and Lugnet's main page on the right) but how many
> more people would try to go to Lugnet if the actual URL had been there?
>
> And how much happier would Todd & Suz be if their trademark weren't tossed
> around like it didn't mean anything in a mag where TLC gives the Lucas
> trademarks the respect they deserve (and the respect their continued good
> relationship demands)?
And people who *do* happen to find it may very well think something like "Hey,
cool! Lego created a website where I can talk to other fans!" And that would
be bad...
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jeff Stembel writes:
> And people who *do* happen to find it may very well think something like "Hey,
> cool! Lego created a website where I can talk to other fans!" And that would
> be bad...
Man, even worse than I had pictured when I wrote that.
This sucks.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jeff Stembel <aulddragon@wamalug.org> wrote:
> And people who *do* happen to find it may very well think something like "Hey,
> cool! Lego created a website where I can talk to other fans!" And that would
> be bad...
1) not very likely considering the prominent disclaimer on the LUGnet page.
2) certainly not something Lego wants.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> Jeff Stembel <aulddragon@wamalug.org> wrote:
> > And people who *do* happen to find it may very well think something • like "Hey,
> > cool! Lego created a website where I can talk to other fans!" And that • would
> > be bad...
>
> 1) not very likely considering the prominent disclaimer on the LUGnet page.
>
> 2) certainly not something Lego wants.
And certainly not something Todd or any of us want. Think
about it, lugnet by TLG, with flash and stupid animations.
It sends shivers down my spine! Yick!
-John Rudy
>
> --
> Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
> Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
> Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, John Rudy writes:
> In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> > Jeff Stembel <aulddragon@wamalug.org> wrote:
> > > And people who *do* happen to find it may very well think something • like "Hey,
> > > cool! Lego created a website where I can talk to other fans!" And that • would
> > > be bad...
> >
> > 1) not very likely considering the prominent disclaimer on the LUGnet page.
> >
> > 2) certainly not something Lego wants.
> And certainly not something Todd or any of us want. Think
> about it, lugnet by TLG, with flash and stupid animations.
> It sends shivers down my spine! Yick!
> -John Rudy
This is making me sick. Lego went out of their way to give us a little
smile when we opened up our mania magazine and we show our respect by doing
nothing but criticizing them for the past 24 hours! They put that logo in the
mag because they thought we would like it, not to disrespect Todd, or LUGNET.
They did not put in a URL etc. because they did not want to put a LUGNET
advertisement, that is why they put it a small computer less than and inch
big. They put it there as a private message for us. I doubt a typical 8
year old will look at that small logo and say "what is that" they will look at
the King Leos castle next to it.
Yes I agree that there should have been a URL or TM but the legal crowd
here needs to take a back seat and appreciate all the progress we have made in
our relationship with the company that creates the toys that we all love.
Rich
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Rich Manzo wrote:
> This is making me sick. Lego went out of their way to give us a little
> smile when we opened up our mania magazine and we show our respect by doing
> nothing but criticizing them for the past 24 hours! They put that logo in the
> mag because they thought we would like it, not to disrespect Todd, or LUGNET.
> They did not put in a URL etc. because they did not want to put a LUGNET
> advertisement, that is why they put it a small computer less than and inch
> big. They put it there as a private message for us. I doubt a typical 8
> year old will look at that small logo and say "what is that" they will look at
> the King Leos castle next to it.
I've got just one comment here:
A trademark owner is obligated to pursue situations like this or they
could lose their trademark. That perhaps doesn't justify the discussion
which is going on here, but that's beside the point. Note also that this
is exactly why TLC makes the requests it does about its own trademarks.
followups to: lugnet.off-topic.debate
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Rich Manzo writes:
> This is making me sick. Lego went out of their way to give us a little
Well, aside from the fact that you're fantasizing about the motivation or
intent behind the placement of the LUGNET logo...
Trademarks are a serious thing. If you don't vigorously protect your
trademarks you risk losing them. Just because you don't think it is important
doesn't mean it isn't.
> Yes I agree that there should have been a URL or TM but the legal crowd
> here needs to take a back seat and appreciate all the progress we have made in
> our relationship with the company that creates the toys that we all love.
The "legal crowd"? How about the thinking crowd?
And exactly what progress has been made in our relationship with the company
that makes the toys we love and has, until very recently, ignored us and
treated us like we didn't matter?
Oh yeah, I forgot, one person from their company has posted what, a total of 4
or 5 messages here, dropped out of site for weeks at a time after making
mostly vague flattering statements about how much they want to work with us
and promises about Lego Direct. Is that the progress you're talking about?
Pardon me if I'm taking a wait and see attitude towards a company that has had
its head in the sand for the last 10 years.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.general, Rich Manzo writes:
> > This is making me sick. Lego went out of their way to give us a little
>
> Well, aside from the fact that you're fantasizing about the motivation or
> intent behind the placement of the LUGNET logo...
>
> Trademarks are a serious thing. If you don't vigorously protect your
> trademarks you risk losing them. Just because you don't think it is important
> doesn't mean it isn't.
>
> > Yes I agree that there should have been a URL or TM but the legal crowd
> > here needs to take a back seat and appreciate all the progress we have made • in
> > our relationship with the company that creates the toys that we all love.
>
> The "legal crowd"? How about the thinking crowd?
This is a good point. These days, within society as a whole, people are too
concerned about staying within the law (often just within the law). I think one
can be inside the law - but still be morally wrong. If "thinking people", as
Mike puts it, are those who are concerned with rights and wrongs, rather than
illegalities and legalities of a situation - I'll join that club.
Whatever the law says on this thing - TLC/G were wrong not to credit Todd… just
imagine if it was the Coca Cola Logo!
Scott A
>
> And exactly what progress has been made in our relationship with the company
> that makes the toys we love and has, until very recently, ignored us and
> treated us like we didn't matter?
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot, one person from their company has posted what, a total of 4
> or 5 messages here, dropped out of site for weeks at a time after making
> mostly vague flattering statements about how much they want to work with us
> and promises about Lego Direct. Is that the progress you're talking about?
> Pardon me if I'm taking a wait and see attitude towards a company that has had
> its head in the sand for the last 10 years.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Whatever the law says on this thing - TLC/G were wrong not to credit Todd…
> just imagine if it was the Coca Cola Logo!
Agreed! I was wondering, though; does the Mania magazine have anything like
a general Trademark disclaimer? I've read other magazines that say something
like "individual trademarks are held by their respective owners, and their
mention here should not be construed as a challenge to their status."
My question is more for my own curiosity than for the situation at hand--I
agree absolutely that appropriate credit should have been given.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > Whatever the law says on this thing - TLC/G were wrong not to credit Todd…
> > just imagine if it was the Coca Cola Logo!
>
> Agreed! I was wondering, though; does the Mania magazine have anything like
> a general Trademark disclaimer? I've read other magazines that say something
> like "individual trademarks are held by their respective owners, and their
> mention here should not be construed as a challenge to their status."
> My question is more for my own curiosity than for the situation at hand--I
> agree absolutely that appropriate credit should have been given.
>
> Dave!
I haven't seen one, but I don't think anyone would have recognized as needing
a trademark or I don't think it would have appeared at all. I'm pretty sure
most people at Lego didn't make the connection at all or even know our
existence.
I think it was probably an "easter egg" put in by an artist who is probably
lurking here and his higher ups never even thought that it was a logo for
anything. Your probably thinking, "Why wouldn't this person have told us?"
I can tell you why...everyone would always be bugging them about "the inside
scoop." We're a pretty hardcore group here and I think that the person would
always be under pressure to cough up some more info for us. I'm actually
thankful about how it appeared as all of a sudden a bunch of our bandwidth
hasn't been sucked dry by a bunch of kids looking around. Besides anyone
smart could find Lugnet by using a search engine to find us anyway.
Also, if your thinking TLC is going to "officially acknowledge" this site,
your out of your mind. I would bet that is why there was talk of anonamously
donating to us. TLC doesn't own this site and can't control the content,
that's Todd's call. I do contracts for a living and I can tell you that you
can bet that both TLC and Lucas have huge contracts to limit their liability
in the case that one of the "partners" heads in a bad direction. I mean there
is nothing that keeps Todd from running a LUGNET ad in a magazine and changing
the whole site to a gigantic toy store that handles competitors blocks too the
next day.
That being said, my opinion remains that it was an unauthorized usage by a fan
of this site who was trying to put something in just for us. You can bet that
if TLC hand known anything about it, it would have been Lego's logo.
Matt
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.general, Rich Manzo writes:
> > This is making me sick. Lego went out of their way to give us a little
>
> Well, aside from the fact that you're fantasizing about the motivation or
> intent behind the placement of the LUGNET logo...
>
> Trademarks are a serious thing. If you don't vigorously protect your
> trademarks you risk losing them. Just because you don't think it is important
> doesn't mean it isn't.
>
> > Yes I agree that there should have been a URL or TM but the legal crowd
> > here needs to take a back seat and appreciate all the progress we have made • in
> > our relationship with the company that creates the toys that we all love.
>
> The "legal crowd"? How about the thinking crowd?
>
> And exactly what progress has been made in our relationship with the company
> that makes the toys we love and has, until very recently, ignored us and
> treated us like we didn't matter?
Thats right. They did ignore the online LEGO community for a very long time,
but now thet are not. I good example of this is the fact that the LUGNET logo
is in the Mania Magazine.
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot, one person from their company has posted what, a total of 4
> or 5 messages here, dropped out of site for weeks at a time after making
> mostly vague flattering statements about how much they want to work with us
> and promises about Lego Direct. Is that the progress you're talking about?
> Pardon me if I'm taking a wait and see attitude towards a company that has had
> its head in the sand for the last 10 years.
Yes that is the progress I am talking about. They did ignore the online LEGO
for a very long time. But they put the logo in their magazine so apparently we
are not totally ignored anymore. That is why I am happy that they put the logo
in that small monitor, it tells me that we are not ignored anymore.
Look, the bottom line is that they were wrong to put the logo in there
without the proper disclaimer or TM but lets not go crazy over this. They put
that logo in there to tell us that they know we are here, not to create an
advertisement for LUGNET, which a disclaimer would have done. I believe
somebody in this thread mentioned that they could have made a broad disclaimer
like "all trademarks are the properties of their owners". That would have been
a good idea. But unfortunately they did not. So let me ask the group, what
action do you think should be taken? Should we let it go? Should Todd demand a
written apology? Or should we go even further than that? I would like to hear
the group’s opinion on this.
-Rich
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> Thats right. They did ignore the online LEGO community for a very long time,
> but now thet are not. I good example of this is the fact that the LUGNET logo
> is in the Mania Magazine.
I guess if that's all it takes (for you) to have them make up for years of
blowing us off, you must be pretty happy.
> Yes that is the progress I am talking about. They did ignore the online LEGO
> for a very long time. But they put the logo in their magazine so apparently we
> are not totally ignored anymore. That is why I am happy that they put the logo
> in that small monitor, it tells me that we are not ignored anymore.
Does it? Exactly who in TLC/TLG contacted you to explain the purpose behind
having that there. I gotta tell you, I'm leaning towards the lone peon
graphic artist throwing it in there for the heck of it theory, but even if
that is or is not the case, I don't think your rosy interpretation holds any
more water than some of the doom and gloom ones.
In other words, I don't interpret the placing of that logo as being
significant or indicative of some massive swing in how they're going to be
treating us. It's a tiny image on a tiny page and I think interpreting it as
some sort of "hey guys - we think you're cool and we want to treat you right"
message is silly.
> Look, the bottom line is that they were wrong to put the logo in there
> without the proper disclaimer or TM but lets not go crazy over this. They put
> that logo in there to tell us that they know we are here, not to create an
How do you know WHY they did it? I don't think you do. You may think you
have a theory about it, but you don't know why it happened any more than I
do. You just seem to be a lot happier about your theory than I am about mine.
a good idea. But unfortunately they did not. So let me ask the group, what
> action do you think should be taken? Should we let it go? Should Todd demand a
> written apology? Or should we go even further than that? I would like to hear
> the group’s opinion on this.
Well, I don't really care what the group's opinion is about this. WE
shouldn't "go further" at all. Ultimately its not your (or my) business - it
is Todd & Suz's trademark. Todd's done something already and not that he
needs my approval or consent, I'm sure he did what he thought best, which is
all that matters.
But I'm still free to complain about it, just like you're still free to paint
this as some sort of earth-shatteringly kind act on their part meant to
indicate how much they love us or something.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> I guess if that's all it takes (for you) to have them make up for years of
> blowing us off, you must be pretty happy.
No, but I think it is a step in the right direction.
>
> Does it? Exactly who in TLC/TLG contacted you to explain the purpose behind
> having that there. I gotta tell you, I'm leaning towards the lone peon
> graphic artist throwing it in there for the heck of it theory, but even if
> that is or is not the case, I don't think your rosy interpretation holds any
> more water than some of the doom and gloom ones.
>
> In other words, I don't interpret the placing of that logo as being
> significant or indicative of some massive swing in how they're going to be
> treating us. It's a tiny image on a tiny page and I think interpreting it as
> some sort of "hey guys - we think you're cool and we want to treat you right"
> message is silly.
>
>
> How do you know WHY they did it? I don't think you do. You may think you
> have a theory about it, but you don't know why it happened any more than I
> do. You just seem to be a lot happier about your theory than I am about mine.
That is right I do not know. Neither do you. Lets wait and see what TLC's
response is.
>
> Well, I don't really care what the group's opinion is about this. WE
> shouldn't "go further" at all. Ultimately its not your (or my) business - it
> is Todd & Suz's trademark. Todd's done something already and not that he
> needs my approval or consent, I'm sure he did what he thought best, which is
> all that matters.
Well, I do care what the groups opinion is. It does not mean that Todd or Suz
must accept our opinions.
>
> But I'm still free to complain about it, just like you're still free to paint
> this as some sort of earth-shatteringly kind act on their part meant to
> indicate how much they love us or something.
Right!
-Rich
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Rich Manzo writes:
> Well, I do care what the groups opinion is.
Why? What does it matter what our opinion on this is? It's only tangentially
related to the day to day operation of LUGNET, so let it go.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Rich Manzo wrote in message ...
> This is making me sick. Lego went out of their way to give us a little
> smile when we opened up our mania magazine and we show our respect by doing
> nothing but criticizing them for the past 24 hours!
It is rather a fun thing that they did, however, would Lego be so
understanding?
They put that logo in the
> mag because they thought we would like it, not to disrespect Todd, or • LUGNET.
> They did not put in a URL etc. because they did not want to put a LUGNET
> advertisement, that is why they put it a small computer less than and inch
> big. They put it there as a private message for us.
Try using Lego logo without permission and see how far these feel good
arguments get you.
Rose
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Rich Manzo writes:
> [...]
> Lego went out of their way to give us a little smile when we opened up
> our mania magazine [...]
> They put that logo in the mag because they thought we would like it [...]
> They put it there as a private message for us.
Sorry for the heavy editing, but I just want to address these parts of your
post. You make these statements with such certainty that I would expect you to
have actually been in their art dept. when decisions were made.
I'd love to discover that you had proof of the above. However, if there is no
proof, then it is only a speculation. a guess. I've thought about this too. And
many other possible scenarios.
[sorry this is so long]
Now, I just want to remind or inform readers that I worked in magazine
publishing for a number of years. I was a freelance illustrator (my drawings
accompanying editorial content) for many magazines. I was also a page layout
designer and eventually head designer for two magazines at Sky Publishing Corp.
Part of my job was to order up custom artwork from outside illustrators. Having
a position in a magazine's art department means working with just about
everybody else involved in that publication -- from the editor-in-chief to the
people who run the presses. I am very familiar with the typical "life-process"
of an issue's development: start to finish (and even beyond the finish
sometimes).
A magazine's content, in this case artwork, would be seen at least a few times
by different people as it cycled through editorial approval, layout,
proofreading, editing, art placement, and proof checking. The pages may loop
through these people a number of times. At any point, if a red flag went up for
someone, they would note it or check it out.
At every magazine I worked for, computer screens were notoriously problematic.
If there was a great level of detail elsewhere in the image and the screen was
going to be readable, what should be on it? In photography, sometimes multiple
images were combined digitally to get a picture that looked "real." But if the
screen was not relevant to the story, it would preferably be as "unobvious" as
possible, so as not to distract. (People automatically seem to notice a screen
and want to read what's on it.) In some cases a computer would be asked not to
be there at all. (this happening at sketch stage)
In cases where a computer's presence was desired, but screen content was
unimportant, here's what's been my experience:
As an artist, I often drew the computer from the back or the side or above, or
I'd put a user or an office plant in the way of screen, or have the computer
turned off, or make a bunch of fuzzy overlapping boxes with only horizontal
lines where text would be.
As an art director, I had to be sure that such a Hot spot was going to be "ok."
It was not a place for the publishing company to plug their own website or
software (considered cheezy) and I needed to be sure as possible that there
would be nothing potentially offensive there. The less the screen had to say,
the better.
After looking closely at the Mania Magazine illustration, I'm baffled. The
screen image looks oddly sloppy. Someone could have altered the artist's work
(tsk,tsk). It even looks like they signed the screen.
Assuming for a moment that this was a lower-level (artist's) decision (for
whatever reason), I think it's very possible that the editors, etc had no clue
that there was any special meaning to the logo. They may not have even seen it
as a logo, rather as some ambiguous LEGO blob with fakey stuff around it. This
would allow the page to pass through all hands unquestioned. I can imagine a
confused proofreader asking what that word was (LUGNET) but that's about it.
IF this were what happened, then what you percieve as a nod from LEGO would be a
winkie from an individual (possibly fan), not a company-wide bow or high five. I
personally suspect the company to be largely ignorant of the LUGNET logo -- even
if it were held up in front of them at poster-size. We'll have to work on that.
:-)
So, no matter how it happened, I believe any magazine deserves a slap for a slip
like this, not being more careful. What they did was wrong. It makes no
difference who was responsible or what their motive was.
As a side comment, slightly related, I noticed that the Mania Magazine depicts
an iMac as the choice of computer. Being a long time Apple fan and iMac owner, I
saw the computer itself as a strong choice. I say this because in my
illustrations, I loved to draw vaguely Mac-like computers. If it were
inappropriate, the staff would let me know and I'd finish the drawing with a PC.
LEGO Media International, LEGO TECHNIC, and LEGO Mindstorms having not released
any Mac-compatible software, I thought it was funny. Most artists seem to like
their Macs very much. Anyway, nice Apple plug (they're way more hip looking
anyhow)
;-)
-Suz.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Suzanne Rich <suz@baseplate.com> wrote:
> Assuming for a moment that this was a lower-level (artist's) decision (for
> whatever reason), I think it's very possible that the editors, etc had no
> clue that there was any special meaning to the logo. They may not have even
> seen it as a logo, rather as some ambiguous LEGO blob with fakey stuff
> around it. This would allow the page to pass through all hands
> unquestioned. I can imagine a confused proofreader asking what that word
> was (LUGNET) but that's about it.
Y'know, this sounds most reasonable to me. Funny that only a few months ago
it would have been cool that _anyone_ in Lego acknowledged the existence of
LUGnet; now, having actual official recognition in the form of Mr. Justus,
the exact same thing is disappointing.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Suzanne Rich wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Rich Manzo writes:
> > [...]
> > Lego went out of their way to give us a little smile when we opened up
> > our mania magazine [...]
> > They put that logo in the mag because they thought we would like it [...]
> > They put it there as a private message for us.
>
> Sorry for the heavy editing, but I just want to address these parts of your
> post. You make these statements with such certainty that I would expect you to
> have actually been in their art dept. when decisions were made.
>
> I'd love to discover that you had proof of the above. However, if there is no
> proof, then it is only a speculation. a guess. I've thought about this too. And
> many other possible scenarios.
>
> [sorry this is so long]
> Now, I just want to remind or inform readers that I worked in magazine
> publishing for a number of years. I was a freelance illustrator (my drawings
> accompanying editorial content) for many magazines. I was also a page layout
> designer and eventually head designer for two magazines at Sky Publishing Corp.
>
> Part of my job was to order up custom artwork from outside illustrators. Having
> a position in a magazine's art department means working with just about
> everybody else involved in that publication -- from the editor-in-chief to the
> people who run the presses. I am very familiar with the typical "life-process"
> of an issue's development: start to finish (and even beyond the finish
> sometimes).
>
> A magazine's content, in this case artwork, would be seen at least a few times
> by different people as it cycled through editorial approval, layout,
> proofreading, editing, art placement, and proof checking. The pages may loop
> through these people a number of times. At any point, if a red flag went up for
> someone, they would note it or check it out.
>
> At every magazine I worked for, computer screens were notoriously problematic.
> If there was a great level of detail elsewhere in the image and the screen was
> going to be readable, what should be on it? In photography, sometimes multiple
> images were combined digitally to get a picture that looked "real." But if the
> screen was not relevant to the story, it would preferably be as "unobvious" as
> possible, so as not to distract. (People automatically seem to notice a screen
> and want to read what's on it.) In some cases a computer would be asked not to
> be there at all. (this happening at sketch stage)
>
> In cases where a computer's presence was desired, but screen content was
> unimportant, here's what's been my experience:
>
> As an artist, I often drew the computer from the back or the side or above, or
> I'd put a user or an office plant in the way of screen, or have the computer
> turned off, or make a bunch of fuzzy overlapping boxes with only horizontal
> lines where text would be.
>
> As an art director, I had to be sure that such a Hot spot was going to be "ok."
> It was not a place for the publishing company to plug their own website or
> software (considered cheezy) and I needed to be sure as possible that there
> would be nothing potentially offensive there. The less the screen had to say,
> the better.
>
> After looking closely at the Mania Magazine illustration, I'm baffled. The
> screen image looks oddly sloppy. Someone could have altered the artist's work
> (tsk,tsk). It even looks like they signed the screen.
>
> Assuming for a moment that this was a lower-level (artist's) decision (for
> whatever reason), I think it's very possible that the editors, etc had no clue
> that there was any special meaning to the logo. They may not have even seen it
> as a logo, rather as some ambiguous LEGO blob with fakey stuff around it. This
> would allow the page to pass through all hands unquestioned. I can imagine a
> confused proofreader asking what that word was (LUGNET) but that's about it.
>
> IF this were what happened, then what you percieve as a nod from LEGO would be a
> winkie from an individual (possibly fan), not a company-wide bow or high five. I
> personally suspect the company to be largely ignorant of the LUGNET logo -- even
> if it were held up in front of them at poster-size. We'll have to work on that.
> :-)
>
> So, no matter how it happened, I believe any magazine deserves a slap for a slip
> like this, not being more careful. What they did was wrong. It makes no
> difference who was responsible or what their motive was.
>
> As a side comment, slightly related, I noticed that the Mania Magazine depicts
> an iMac as the choice of computer. Being a long time Apple fan and iMac owner, I
> saw the computer itself as a strong choice. I say this because in my
> illustrations, I loved to draw vaguely Mac-like computers. If it were
> inappropriate, the staff would let me know and I'd finish the drawing with a PC.
>
> LEGO Media International, LEGO TECHNIC, and LEGO Mindstorms having not released
> any Mac-compatible software, I thought it was funny. Most artists seem to like
> their Macs very much. Anyway, nice Apple plug (they're way more hip looking
> anyhow)
> ;-)
>
> -Suz.
Thanks for the insight Suzanne!
Perhaps we should look at it this way. Lower level LEGO employees are more hip
about the LEGO community than mid-level management. Perhaps this is a wink to us
from the LEGO rank and file that got past the editors.
Then again, as you well know, the legal issues here are more serious, and it could
cause problems for the LUGNET trademark.
Gary Istok
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> [...]
> And how much happier would Todd & Suz be if their trademark weren't tossed
> around like it didn't mean anything in a mag where TLC gives the Lucas
> trademarks the respect they deserve (and the respect their continued good
> relationship demands)?
A lot.
--Todd
| | | | | | |
