| |
In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> There's a new TLC press release at:
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/press.asp
>
> here's the good stuff:
>
> http://www.lego.com/press/
>
> -Suz
Oh. My. I just can't help but feel that everything is about to change
WAY to quickly for any of us to keep up. OK, I have to much to write, and
to little time to write it (or type-who cares). Don't you guys realize what
this means for all of us? OK, sure this means everyone can own a
Spiffcraft, or the Neverwhere. But what about the BAD effects? I hate to
say this, but do you know how many people are going to be selling cheap
copies of any old set without a specialty printed part? MILLIONS! I was
about to buy a $20 Solar Power Transporter on eBay, but now that I read the
press release, I might not. All of a sudden the distinguishing factor in a
Lego auction is the instructions, which can be ordered from Lego at $2 each
(in color for recent ones). So much for Lego eBay. And there goes
Sanburnsystems, and Brickbay, and any other loose part selling site. Also,
what will happen to LUGNET? I mean, if some parent comes onto Lugnet from
Lego, and sees the Spamcake messages, they might be scared (or at least
worried about the sanity of the people who wrote the messages) because they
don't understand. Lugnet is a (relatively) small community. How will it be
affected by being exposed to the rest of the Internet? I wish Henry or Todd
would have told everyone about this sooner.
And what about Lego themselves? Does this mean that new themes
development will cease in 2002 (or whenever) the new part availability
service becomes available? Will a few dozen theme designers be out of a
job? I have had high hopes for quite a while about working for Lego
designing new sets. Now it seems I need to look for different career
posibilities. Overall Lego will be making millions, because now I can
custom build anything I want, for a nice fee of course. Anyways, what will
happen to everyone having unique models? If Mark Sandlin builds a cool
little shuttle, and I like it, all I need do is order it from Lego, and
suddenly Mark's Lego design is mine. Will anything ever be the same? All
of a sudden those dreams about alternative Ice Planet models on store
shelves will come true... Only time will tell what will happen to Lego...
P.S. Does this mean all of these Lego sites will be able to remove those
"not affiliated with the Lego Group" signs?
|
|
| |
"Jonathan Mizner" <mizners@aol.com> writes:
> And what about Lego themselves? Does this mean that new themes
> development will cease in 2002 (or whenever) the new part
> availability service becomes available? Will a few dozen theme
> designers be out of a job?
I don't think you can expect any such effect. Keep in mind that there's
more to a LEGO set than the parts included and the main model. There's
also the box and instruction artwork, specialized minifigs, cartoons,
the theme itself, as well as other promotional items like video games
and posters.
While AFOLs can probably design models which are just as good or better
than the ones in official LEGO sets, they will have a hard time matching
TLC when it comes to the quality of the other aspects mentioned above.
There's also the cost factor. I suppose that costum LEGO sets designed
by AFOLs are going to be much more expensive than ordinary LEGO sets.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> Oh. My. I just can't help but feel that everything is about to change
> WAY to quickly for any of us to keep up. OK, I have to much to write, and
> to little time to write it (or type-who cares). Don't you guys realize what
> this means for all of us? OK, sure this means everyone can own a
> Spiffcraft, or the Neverwhere. But what about the BAD effects? I hate to
> say this, but do you know how many people are going to be selling cheap
> copies of any old set without a specialty printed part? MILLIONS! I was
> about to buy a $20 Solar Power Transporter on eBay, but now that I read the
> press release, I might not. All of a sudden the distinguishing factor in a
> Lego auction is the instructions, which can be ordered from Lego at $2 each
> (in color for recent ones). So much for Lego eBay. And there goes
> Sanburnsystems, and Brickbay, and any other loose part selling site.
Basically, this is all about the economic side of things. Who cares? This
is a free market. People will buy what they want. As much as I have used
and appreciate what AucZILLA, Brickbay, etc. have done for making available
specific pieces and sets, I would much prefer to be able to order these
things directly from TLC. This should, on average, lower how much it costs
me for lego. Your concern seems somewhat petty ("TLC is going to offer
people what they want and <gasp> people might buy it and put eBay Lego out
of business!!!").
> Also,
> what will happen to LUGNET? I mean, if some parent comes onto Lugnet from
> Lego, and sees the Spamcake messages, they might be scared (or at least
> worried about the sanity of the people who wrote the messages) because they
> don't understand. Lugnet is a (relatively) small community. How will it be
> affected by being exposed to the rest of the Internet?
This is virtually guaranteed to happen (if it hasn't happened a thousand
times already). People will always look at what you are doing and not
understand.
The only real concern I have about this is that TLC might mimic everything
done on LUGNET, but not as well. And because there was an officially
sanctioned website that does all the same functions, interest would drop off
in LUGNET. Personally, I would like to see TLC make some sort of fellowship
to fund something like LUGNET. And of course, I'd like to see that go to
Todd and Suz so they can continue there work with LUGNET. I think they have
a much better chance of keeping the ball rolling. I like the fellowship
idea since I don't think it would be good to make them direct employees.
Does anyone else have any ideas on this?
> I wish Henry or Todd
> would have told everyone about this sooner.
What they do is their business. After all these individuals have done for
the AFOLs and KABOBs, I would not presume to tell them what they should do.
> And what about Lego themselves? Does this mean that new themes
> development will cease in 2002 (or whenever) the new part availability
> service becomes available? Will a few dozen theme designers be out of a
> job? I have had high hopes for quite a while about working for Lego
> designing new sets. Now it seems I need to look for different career
> posibilities.
I find this unlikely. But even if it does happen, it is not an uncommon
thing. The application of technology to problems always makes some jobs
obsolete and creates other jobs.
> Overall Lego will be making millions, because now I can
> custom build anything I want, for a nice fee of course.
That is their prerogative.
> Anyways, what will
> happen to everyone having unique models? If Mark Sandlin builds a cool
> little shuttle, and I like it, all I need do is order it from Lego, and
> suddenly Mark's Lego design is mine. Will anything ever be the same? All
> of a sudden those dreams about alternative Ice Planet models on store
> shelves will come true... Only time will tell what will happen to Lego...
If Mark lets TLC have his model design that is his right (after all, that is
what designers do!) Does the community at-large really care if it is a
saleried TLC designer that does the work or if it is an AFOL? Why should
we? Right now, no one can force me to build the box design. There are
people who never build the design that the set comes with and others that
build nothing but the stock designs (some people even <shudder> glue their
stock sets together). And when it comes down to it, that ability to choose
what you want to do is the beauty of Lego and I wouldn't want it any other way.
The only thing that is absolutely certain is that change is inevitable.
> P.S. Does this mean all of these Lego sites will be able to remove those
> "not affiliated with the Lego Group" signs?
One can hope.
I hope this didn't come off too harsh, but your original post was awfully
"the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!".
Regards,
Steve Martin
martins@mail.com
|
|
| |
> From: "Jonathan Mizner" <mizners@aol.com>
<snip>
> I mean, if some parent comes onto Lugnet from
> Lego, and sees the Spamcake messages, they might be scared (or at least
> worried about the sanity of the people who wrote the messages) because they
> don't understand.
<snip>
I'm thinking I could probably blame that on Tom.
;^D
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
My concern is this:
If I design a set and post it, and it's extremely popular, what do I gain
from it? Will LEGO give me a royalty on it? Will they instead reward me with
bricks? Publicity? A job?
If I submit my own design and stand to lose my rights to it, that prompts me
to order the parts and then sell my sets on my own. I stand to profit from
that at a much greater scale. Plus, I get to keep the rights to my own
designs.
I receive several instruction requests a week. I also receive offers to buy
my models. I would love to be able to do this, but as it stands, I often use
parts that are old and unavailable. With the advent of being able to buy
exactly what I would need, I could start making "Mark Sandlin Sets."
It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
> From: "Steve Martin" <martinsa@mail.com>
> > Anyways, what will
> > happen to everyone having unique models? If Mark Sandlin builds a cool
> > little shuttle, and I like it, all I need do is order it from Lego, and
> > suddenly Mark's Lego design is mine. Will anything ever be the same? All
> > of a sudden those dreams about alternative Ice Planet models on store
> > shelves will come true... Only time will tell what will happen to Lego...
> If Mark lets TLC have his model design that is his right (after all, that is
> what designers do!) Does the community at-large really care if it is a
> saleried TLC designer that does the work or if it is an AFOL? Why should
> we? Right now, no one can force me to build the box design. There are
> people who never build the design that the set comes with and others that
> build nothing but the stock designs (some people even <shudder> glue their
> stock sets together). And when it comes down to it, that ability to choose
> what you want to do is the beauty of Lego and I wouldn't want it any other
> way.
|
|
| |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Sandlin" <sandlin@nwlink.com>
<snip>
> If I submit my own design and stand to lose my rights to it, that prompts • me
> to order the parts and then sell my sets on my own. I stand to profit from
> that at a much greater scale. Plus, I get to keep the rights to my own
> designs.
<snip>
I would hope that Lego would use the same idea that they are using with the
Brickilizer, that is, we post the design ( or image in the case of the
Bricklizer ) and an order for the parts is placed, without Lego keeping a
copy of the actual design.
Of course, if they decide to attempt the other method, then I'm certain that
a program to scramble your design, but use exactly the same pieces in the
same colors and quantities will become available from someone who feels the
same way that you do. :-) Without a program to do that, it could still be
done manually, but would be tedious.
BTW, I'm one of the people that feels the same way as you about this. ( in
case I didn't make that clear above.)
-Andy Lynch
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
> losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
Rights? I don't disagree with your fundamental assertions here, Mark -- but
what exactly do you think happens when you post several detailed images of
your stuff to the internet? Sure, maybe some people write to you and want
either the original or a boxed with instructions copy -- but most of us look
the thing over for useful ideas -- or maybe even just knock it off outright!
This is what I never understood about the GOB thing, not at all...
Why would I pay someone a premium for what I can build on my own? In fact,
why do I want to build that which someone else has already built? I suppose
if one lacks one's own creativity, this may be the route to choose -- but
otherwise, I don't get it. And I actually think that everyone is creative to
some degree, it's just that some of us exercise those creative "muscles"
more so than do others.
I have said it before and I shall say it again (at least for myself) -- If I
can get the elements from TLC, I don't care if they ever design or a sell a
pre-packaged set again. When I thought that their agenda was preclusive of
selling me just the much prized elements -- let's say a pitchfork, for
example -- I wanted them to re-release older set designs that included these
elements. If this new plan of theirs includes such older elements -- then I
just don't care if they sell ANY sets at all. And I certainly don't care if
they sell these juniorized piles of junk they have been selling of late!
To be honest, I think they may be able to make more money this way -- often
I have looked at a set in a store aisle and just thought, "Gee, this is okay
and all -- but it just doesn't have enough of the elements I want." No sale
-- not at BOGO 50%, not at BOGO, not at any price! When TLC moves from a
position of not selling a thing at all, to one where they are at least
selling the elements someone actually wanted, I have to assume there is
money to be made.
When possession of some key element meant either the purchase of the whole
set or paying a huge price for the desired individual elements in a parts
sale or auction -- I bet many people (wisely) simply obstained from the
purchase of these elements. And I bet cost was a factor for more than a
few, and who can blame them? Heck, it's a factor for me and I am willing
and able to spend more than most (being single, childless, and living on the
cheap).
But anyway, back to the main point: I think it can be fairly asserted that
most of us want the elements directly from TLC so we can build and design
for ourselves -- isn't that the point of the parts buckets? I see an
interest in packaged sets going way down for most if not all adult buyers,
and maybe even some children. But the whole thing does raise an interesting
topic:
To what degree can one own the rights to a thing built entirely from the
patented and copyrighted elements of a particular toy company? When does a
particular assemblage of elements take on a meaning owned more by its
designer, and in opposition to the rights of the company that created the
elements of that same assemblage?
-- Richard (it's early and I'm rambling...)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
> > losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
>
> Rights? I don't disagree with your fundamental assertions here, Mark -- but
> what exactly do you think happens when you post several detailed images of
> your stuff to the internet? Sure, maybe some people write to you and want
> either the original or a boxed with instructions copy -- but most of us look
> the thing over for useful ideas -- or maybe even just knock it off outright!
If you did this to one of my GoB sets, and I find out about it, I _will_ take
you to small claims court. _I_ own the design, period. If you come up with
something similar, fine. But, if you take from my design, and it is not enough
different to prove that you came up with a signifigant difference, I will use
the recorses that are available to me.
That's the way it is. Most of the people who have sets up for sale within the
GoB have fairly clearly differenciated areas. On my page, you will find (if
you dig enough) a lamppost, which is free. Why? Because I don't think I could
make money selling it. Therefore, I feel that it is good to let the community
use it for free. My hoppers, I think I can make money off, so I have the
rights to them. Those rights are available, for a price.
> This is what I never understood about the GOB thing, not at all...
>
> Why would I pay someone a premium for what I can build on my own? In fact,
> why do I want to build that which someone else has already built? I suppose
> if one lacks one's own creativity, this may be the route to choose -- but
> otherwise, I don't get it. And I actually think that everyone is creative to
> some degree, it's just that some of us exercise those creative "muscles"
> more so than do others.
Fine. I am not going to cry over you coming up with your own designs. I wish
you _the absolute best_ in designing for yourself. But, I am sure you have
taken some ideas from elsewhere, from Lego designs, from the web, from meeting
people and seeing what they have done...but, if you want what I have thought
up, you have to _pay_ for it in one way or another, at least if I feel
reasonable in charging for it.
> To what degree can one own the rights to a thing built entirely from the
> patented and copyrighted elements of a particular toy company? When does a
> particular assemblage of elements take on a meaning owned more by its
> designer, and in opposition to the rights of the company that created the
> elements of that same assemblage?
At what point do the sounds from a musical instriment become the property of a
artist using the instrument, rather than the manufacturer? as soon as the
artist lays down the sounds :) Same rules here.
James Powell, Bricksmith
(Fletcher Jenning)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
> > losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
>
>
> I have said it before and I shall say it again (at least for myself) -- If I
> can get the elements from TLC, I don't care if they ever design or a sell a
> pre-packaged set again. When I thought that their agenda was preclusive of
> selling me just the much prized elements -- let's say a pitchfork, for
> example -- I wanted them to re-release older set designs that included these
> elements. If this new plan of theirs includes such older elements -- then I
> just don't care if they sell ANY sets at all. And I certainly don't care if
> they sell these juniorized piles of junk they have been selling of late!
>
> To be honest, I think they may be able to make more money this way -- often
> I have looked at a set in a store aisle and just thought, "Gee, this is okay
> and all -- but it just doesn't have enough of the elements I want." No sale
> -- not at BOGO 50%, not at BOGO, not at any price! When TLC moves from a
> position of not selling a thing at all, to one where they are at least
> selling the elements someone actually wanted, I have to assume there is
> money to be made.
And that is one thing that I want make sure is happening. I want TLC to be
able to make money. If they aren't making money, it will mean that they
will go under, to be bought out by someone else. I think that as much as
TLC policies sometimes don't jive with what we want, there are a lot worse
corporate managements out there. Especially with direction things seem to
be going with Lego Direct. I'd hate to loose this.
> To what degree can one own the rights to a thing built entirely from the
> patented and copyrighted elements of a particular toy company? When does a
> particular assemblage of elements take on a meaning owned more by its
> designer, and in opposition to the rights of the company that created the
> elements of that same assemblage?
I don't think that is an issue unless written into some type of end user
license agreement. And since they sell "building materials", I have a hard
time thinking they could make it stick in court even then.
Regards,
Steve Martin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
> If you did this to one of my GoB sets, and I find out about it, I _will_ take
> you to small claims court.
Really. So if I look at the Guild of Bricksmith page, and copy one of your
designs, and place it in my living room, you're going to take me to court?
Good luck not getting laughed at by the judge. You do realise that you have to
prove some kind of damages to win an award, even in an American court in the
90's and 2000's, right? I mean, I know it doesn't seem that way lately, but it
is still true.
How exactly is this damaging you? What makes you think you have a right to an
award? Do you think that TLC would do the same thing if I built a copy of the
Yellow Castle out of other bricks? What if I built one of the new Life on Mars
mechs out of parts from one or more of the other Life on Mars sets and played
with that?
Do you think you're going to sue LEGO if someone uses this vaporware kit
designer to build something that resembles one of your models?
> On my page, you will find (if
> you dig enough) a lamppost, which is free. Why? Because I don't think I
> could
> make money selling it. Therefore, I feel that it is good to let the community
> use it for free.
How magnanimous of you. This member of the community thanks you from the
bottom of his heart.
> Fine. I am not going to cry over you coming up with your own designs. I wish
> you _the absolute best_ in designing for yourself. But, I am sure you have
> taken some ideas from elsewhere, from Lego designs, from the web, from meeting
> people and seeing what they have done...but, if you want what I have thought
> up, you have to _pay_ for it in one way or another, at least if I feel
> reasonable in charging for it.
That's absolutely ludicrous. I wish *you* the best of luck in getting people
to pay for your designs, but frankly, if you're going to post pictures of your
creations to the web, you can expect that people are going to look at them, and
if people are going to look at them, they're going to encorporate them into
their own experience, and if they do *that*, consciously or unconsciously at
some point in the future they are likely to do something that is inspired by
that. Are you really suggesting that you're going to get letigious over it?
Are you high?
This goes back to the same old debate sparked in the lugnet.build,mecha group
when someone threw a tantrum over people borrowing ideas from his design. If
you're going to share those pictures, you can expect people to learn from them
and even copy them. Most of us feel flattered when people do that.
FUT lugnet.general, because this no longer involves LEGO Direct, and I can't
think of anywhere else to put it.
eric
|
|
| |
> From: "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com>
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
> > losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
>
> Rights? I don't disagree with your fundamental assertions here, Mark -- but
> what exactly do you think happens when you post several detailed images of
> your stuff to the internet? Sure, maybe some people write to you and want
> either the original or a boxed with instructions copy -- but most of us look
> the thing over for useful ideas -- or maybe even just knock it off outright!
That is to be expected, and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I'm
not offended by people copying my designs for their own private enjoyment.
Suppose LEGO claims rights to any sets you create using their service.
Suppose they go on to post your creation online where other people can buy a
set of it as well. Suppose LEGO doesn't reward you in any way for creating
that item... then they are making money from your cool design, and you get
nothin'. (I suppose LEGO could turn this around on me, since I made those
T-Shirts with the Classic Space astronaut, the difference being that I
didn't profit from the shirts.)
Now, these are all just suppositions, as I am merely having a discussion of
"what's gonna happen and how do I fit into this?" It's probably too early in
the game to have answers to these questions, but I'm asking them for the
sake of discussion.
>
> This is what I never understood about the GOB thing, not at all...
It's not hard to understand if you consider how lazy people are. I watched a
woman in the Wal Mart parking lot leave her shopping cart in a parking stall
that was approximately 15 feet from the cart return.
>
> Why would I pay someone a premium for what I can build on my own?
Maybe someone sees a GoB set that they really really like, but they don't
have the parts in their own collection to achieve the result they want?
> In fact, why do I want to build that which someone else has already built?
Maybe you don't. Some people just like building sets. That might be boring
to you and me, but it floats their boat, I guess.
> I suppose if one lacks one's own creativity, this may be the route to choose --
> but otherwise, I don't get it.
If someone can profit from doing something they love, then why not? You are
an accomplished enough builder that buying the product probably doesn't
appeal to you, but I can certainly understand the attraction of creating
something you like and then selling it.
> And I actually think that everyone is creative to
> some degree, it's just that some of us exercise those creative "muscles"
> more so than do others.
I think that is another point. I get several emails every week from people
wanting instructions to my larger creations, or even offers to buy some of
them. However, a reasonably-skilled AFOL with a decent collection will
probably be capable of replicating one of my creations themselves, just by
looking at the picture.
<snip>
> But anyway, back to the main point: I think it can be fairly asserted that
> most of us want the elements directly from TLC so we can build and design
> for ourselves -- isn't that the point of the parts buckets?
Sure, I can agree with that.
> I see an
> interest in packaged sets going way down for most if not all adult buyers,
> and maybe even some children. But the whole thing does raise an interesting
> topic:
>
> To what degree can one own the rights to a thing built entirely from the
> patented and copyrighted elements of a particular toy company? When does a
> particular assemblage of elements take on a meaning owned more by its
> designer, and in opposition to the rights of the company that created the
> elements of that same assemblage?
That's a good question. My questions center around the rights to sell the
intellectual property present in the model itself. Model being greater than
the sum of its parts, so to speak.
~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin
--
Mark's Lego Creations
http://www.nwlink.com/~sandlin/lego
|
|
| |
I buy lego sets for the designs, and for the experience of
building someone else's design. I really feel that building
a set is a form of performance art, and the lego instruction
developers are true artists, and it is fun to see things come
together.
I've done a lot of my own creative stuff, and I appreciate
the GoB members and all the people who post to brickshelf and
lugnet.cad.dat who share their "art". Like most art, I believe
some is worth more than others, and worth paying for. I've met few
artists who do not enjoy the chance to view (sometimes critique)
others works. IMO, it would be a rather UNcreative person who
did not appreciate other's designs.
-gyug
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Why would I pay someone a premium for what I can build on my own? In fact,
> why do I want to build that which someone else has already built? I suppose
> if one lacks one's own creativity, this may be the route to choose -- but
> otherwise, I don't get it. And I actually think that everyone is creative to
> some degree, it's just that some of us exercise those creative "muscles"
> more so than do others.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Powell writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Sandlin writes:
> > > It's all very interesting and exciting, but I'm not very interested in
> > > losing rights to my designs. We shall see.
> >
> > Rights? I don't disagree with your fundamental assertions here, Mark -- but
> > what exactly do you think happens when you post several detailed images of
> > your stuff to the internet? Sure, maybe some people write to you and want
> > either the original or a boxed with instructions copy -- but most of us look
> > the thing over for useful ideas -- or maybe even just knock it off outright!
>
>
> If you did this to one of my GoB sets, and I find out about it, I _will_ take
> you to small claims court. _I_ own the design, period. If you come up with
> something similar, fine. But, if you take from my design, and it is not
> enough different to prove that you came up with a signifigant difference, I
> will use the recorses that are available to me.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you've got much of an argument here.
As long as I credit the creator, and am not republishing or selling their
work, then you're out of luck trying to sue me. If I build a model based on
pictures of your model (which, unless I buy the instructions, or otherwise
obtain them, is all I have to go on), then that is a derivative work, by
definition. So long as a credit my inspirition, well, tough noogies,
there's not much you can do about it.
If I see a painting in a gallery, take a picture of it, and paint my own at
home, that doesn't violate copyright.
If I see a (model on the internet), (download) a picture of it, and make my
own at home, that doesn't violate copyright.
you display something in public, you take that risk.
> Fine. I am not going to cry over you coming up with your own designs. I wish
> you _the absolute best_ in designing for yourself. But, I am sure you have
> taken some ideas from elsewhere, from Lego designs, from the web, from meeting
> people and seeing what they have done...but, if you want what I have thought
> up, you have to _pay_ for it in one way or another, at least if I feel
> reasonable in charging for it.
This argument holds water, right up until you display something publicly.
As soon as you display a picture, gratis and free of obligation, then (IIRC)
under copyright law, I can create as many derivative works as I like, so
long as I credit my inspiration. I can say "This is a copy I made of a
Fletcher Jennings model I saw" 'till the cows come home, and you can't do
anything about it. You can legitimately complain, and sue my pants off, the
instant I claim it *is* a Fletcher Jennings model, though.
James
|
|
| |
> As long as I credit the creator, and am not republishing or selling their
> work, then you're out of luck trying to sue me. If I build a model based on
> pictures of your model (which, unless I buy the instructions, or otherwise
> obtain them, is all I have to go on), then that is a derivative work, by
> definition. So long as a credit my inspirition, well, tough noogies,
> there's not much you can do about it.
That's like saying, as long as I credit the band who wrote the song, and don't
sell the CD, I am not breaking copywrite when I copy a CD.
It ain't so, and I think it is fairly plain to see that that is not so.
As for the comment above, perhaps I should have said, as I did in a later post,
that after all other recourses have been used, I would consider further
action... (that is probably a better wording...)
James Powell, Bricksmith
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
>
> > As long as I credit the creator, and am not republishing or selling their
> > work, then you're out of luck trying to sue me. If I build a model based on
> > pictures of your model (which, unless I buy the instructions, or otherwise
> > obtain them, is all I have to go on), then that is a derivative work, by
> > definition. So long as a credit my inspirition, well, tough noogies,
> > there's not much you can do about it.
>
> That's like saying, as long as I credit the band who wrote the song, and don't
> sell the CD, I am not breaking copywrite when I copy a CD.
(oops, missed a bit here, someone _else's_ CD that you are copying, not your
own copy...here, at least, it is perfectly legal to make multi copies of a CD
you own, but not any copies of one a friend of yours owns...)
James Powell
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
>
> > As long as I credit the creator, and am not republishing or selling their
> > work, then you're out of luck trying to sue me. If I build a model based on
> > pictures of your model (which, unless I buy the instructions, or otherwise
> > obtain them, is all I have to go on), then that is a derivative work, by
> > definition. So long as a credit my inspirition, well, tough noogies,
> > there's not much you can do about it.
>
> That's like saying, as long as I credit the band who wrote the song, and don't
> sell the CD, I am not breaking copywrite when I copy a CD.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm probably not being clear
enough. To mirror your analogy, I'm saying that as long as I credit the
band who wrote the song, and don't try to sell or republish the song, I can
sing the song myself, as much as I want.
A distinct difference.
> It ain't so, and I think it is fairly plain to see that that is not so.
I agree that what you're talking about ain't so. But I strongly think
you're mis-interpreting your grounds.
If I see a jacket in a store window, go home and make a jacket just like it,
how have I violated copyright?
If I see a garden from the street, go home and grow a garden just like it,
how have I violated copyright?
If I see a toy on the internet, go home and build a toy just like it, how
have I violated copyright?
Do you see what I am driving at here? Your design is yours, I'll not
contest that, and if you tell me I can't build one unless I buy the
instructions, that's your call.
But as soon as you put any aspect(s) of your design on public display, I can
do my best to duplicate it, and you have no recourse.
> As for the comment above, perhaps I should have said, as I did in a later
> post, that after all other recourses have been used, I would consider further
> action... (that is probably a better wording...)
Understood. You don't strike me as a sue-happy kind of guy. :)
James
(thanks for the redirected newsgroup - I missed that the first time around)
|
|
| |
James Brown wrote:
> If I see a jacket in a store window, go home and make a jacket just like it,
> how have I violated copyright?
>
> If I see a garden from the street, go home and grow a garden just like it,
> how have I violated copyright?
>
> If I see a toy on the internet, go home and build a toy just like it, how
> have I violated copyright?
>
> Do you see what I am driving at here? Your design is yours, I'll not
> contest that, and if you tell me I can't build one unless I buy the
> instructions, that's your call.
>
> But as soon as you put any aspect(s) of your design on public display, I can
> do my best to duplicate it, and you have no recourse.
At some level, you are correct, but there are definitely areas where you
can run afoul of he law:
- patents. There isn't any "fair use" type of clause for them
- if you take a picture of your copy of someone else's MOC, and publish
it, you may be violating copyright even though you don't charge folks to
see your web site (copyright violation doesn't require the violator to
be making money).
- reverse engineering a set of instructions and then publishing those
instructions may be a violation
- looking at someone elses instructions and then creating your own is
definitely a copyright violation
Now one thing which might be debated is whether the expression of an
idea in the form of an arrangement of building bricks is a protectable
expression. If it is not, then copyright law doesn't apply. Trademark or
patent law could apply. Also, I'm not sure how design patents work but
they might apply.
TLC gives a great deal of freedom of license. They have effectively
granted Brickshelf license to publish instructions and catalogs. Thay
have effectively given Lugnet license to publish a catalog of box
covers/instruction covers/catalog pictures to produce a database of
sets. I'm not sure if anywhere they give explicit license for fans to
publish photos which include TLC sets, but most pictures of peoples
models, play rooms, displays, etc. probably actually fall under the fair
use clause (you are using a limited extract). Of course what is
interesting is that you should be required to recognize Shell's
trademark if you publish a picture prominently showing a model which has
Shell logos on it (I think that trademark law does recognize that
incidental exposure of a trademark in the background of a picture for
example, can not in any way be construed as misuse of trademark, but
IANAL, I'd love to see some actual cites on this).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > There's a new TLC press release at:
> >
> >
This is incredible. I have created a self-sustaining argument over Lego
rights. This is actually, in a strange, twisted way, funny. I never
thought that debates like this would carry over into Lugnet. And never
intended to start a debate in the first place.
To add my 2 cents worth, I personally feel that it's OK to copy, in part
or whole, a set. HOWEVER! If that set is sold to people (public
distribution of someone elses model) it DOES become illegal, or at least
just-plain-wrong. I believe it is perfectly fine to display other people's
models on a site with your own (like the Blacktron Empire), AS LONG AS THE
ORIGINAL DESIGNER AND THE INSPIRATION FOR THE MODEL ARE LISTED ALSO. I
would be over-joyed if everyone started building my models on their own. I
would get mad if one of those people started turning a profit from it.
Please add your comments to the issue in one of the following replies I will
make as soon as I finish with this message. One reply will be for people
opposed to the free trade of designs, another for. It is just too confusing
to keep doing replies on replies, so please, ONLY respond to one of the two
replies to this message, and not to this itself. I look forward to hearing
the different sides of the issue.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> > In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > > There's a new TLC press release at:
> > >
> > >
> This is incredible.
> To add my 2 cents worth, I personally feel that it's OK to copy, in part
> or whole, a set. HOWEVER! If that set is sold to people (public
> distribution of someone elses model) it DOES become illegal, or at least
> just-plain-wrong. I believe it is perfectly fine to display other people's
> models on a site with your own (like the Blacktron Empire), AS LONG AS THE
> ORIGINAL DESIGNER AND THE INSPIRATION FOR THE MODEL ARE LISTED ALSO. I
> would be over-joyed if everyone started building my models on their own. I
> would get mad if one of those people started turning a profit from it.
> Please add your comments to the issue in one of the following replies. One reply will be for people
> opposed to the free trade of designs, another for. It is just too confusing
> to keep doing replies on replies, so please, ONLY respond to one of the two
> replies to this message, and not to this itself. I look forward to hearing
> the different sides of the issue.
This message is for any messages SUPPORTING Lego designs being traded
freely, without any costs. Reply with your arguments here.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> > In lugnet.announce, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > > There's a new TLC press release at:
> > >
> > >
> This is incredible.
> To add my 2 cents worth, I personally feel that it's OK to copy, in part
> or whole, a set. HOWEVER! If that set is sold to people (public
> distribution of someone elses model) it DOES become illegal, or at least
> just-plain-wrong. I believe it is perfectly fine to display other people's
> models on a site with your own (like the Blacktron Empire), AS LONG AS THE
> ORIGINAL DESIGNER AND THE INSPIRATION FOR THE MODEL ARE LISTED ALSO. I
> would be over-joyed if everyone started building my models on their own. I
> would get mad if one of those people started turning a profit from it.
> Please add your comments to the issue in one of the following replies. One reply will be for people
> opposed to the free trade of designs, another for. It is just too confusing
> to keep doing replies on replies, so please, ONLY respond to one of the two
> replies to this message, and not to this itself. I look forward to hearing
> the different sides of the issue.
This reply/thread is for the posting of messages from people who believe
that everyone's creations are theirs only, and must be paid for. Please
post your replies HERE.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> Please add your comments to the issue in one of the following replies I will
> make as soon as I finish with this message. One reply will be for people
> opposed to the free trade of designs, another for. It is just too confusing
> to keep doing replies on replies, so please, ONLY respond to one of the two
> replies to this message, and not to this itself. I look forward to hearing
> the different sides of the issue.
Why not take this over to .debate??
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> Why not take this over to ".debate"?
What he said. :-/
Thanks,
Franklin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jonathan Mizner writes:
> But what about the BAD effects? I hate to
> say this, but do you know how many people are going to be selling cheap
> copies of any old set without a specialty printed part? MILLIONS!
Ok, I'm not sure how it's bad yet...
> I was
> about to buy a $20 Solar Power Transporter on eBay, but now that I read the
> press release, I might not.
That's because you might be able to get one cheaper, I assume? Is that bad?
I'd call it good...
> All of a sudden the distinguishing factor in a
> Lego auction is the instructions, which can be ordered from Lego at $2 each
> (in color for recent ones).
That's actually pretty good, too, since now I can buy the instructions (or
get 'em off brickshelf) pretty cheaply and get the sets I might want.
> So much for Lego eBay. And there goes
> Sanburnsystems, and Brickbay, and any other loose part selling site.
Um... that's bad? Sure, maybe it's bad for them, but really, I tend to think
of those businesses starting up for lack of Lego's response to the demand.
And if Lego would theoretically be soaking up the profit that those groups
were making, isn't that good too, since we all want Lego to do well?
Personally, if Lego offers me something more reliable with more availability
(that's quantity mainly) and at cheaper prices (with easier payment methods
often), I think that's a good thing all around...
> Also, what will happen to LUGNET?
I didn't get the jist at all from that message that LUGNET would be under
any obligation to change itself, or that LUGNET's groups should be moved to
something official... Did I miss something?
> I mean, if some parent comes onto Lugnet from
> Lego, and sees the Spamcake messages, they might be scared (or at least
> worried about the sanity of the people who wrote the messages) because they
> don't understand. Lugnet is a (relatively) small community. How will it be
> affected by being exposed to the rest of the Internet?
Well, that's hard to avoid. But really, if someone's going to get offended
at something some particular person says or does on LUGNET, holds LUGNET
responsible, and then in turn holds TLC responsible, chances are that
person's gonna get offended by something TLC's gonna do ANYWAY. Most people
would probably think "gosh, what a jerk/wierdo" and leave it at that. Some
might never look at LUGNET again. And far fewer will actually go to Lego and
raise a stink. And even if they do, TLC can just tell them that LUGNET is a
seperate entity. And if they still press the issue, perhaps TLC might not
link to LUGNET any more. But hey, that's a small loss for us comparitively.
Anyway, I don't think it's much of a concern. (But I do agree that this is
something that's potentially bad)
> I wish Henry or Todd
> would have told everyone about this sooner.
Nah. Just look at what happened with Bulk Ordering. Brad announced it, and
for months people were whining and complaining that it wasn't here yet, etc,
and building up their hopes, only to be let down (many of them). Should they
have even told us? I dunno. Certainly I admit I DO like KNOWING, but there's
a fine line to walk between causing commotion and building something with
the help of input, etc. And besides, if Lego wanted them to wait, or they
wanted to wait themselves, that's fine. I don't blame them for that choice.
> And what about Lego themselves? Does this mean that new themes
> development will cease in 2002 (or whenever) the new part availability
> service becomes available?
Uh, don't think so. Personally, I think that'd be rather risky and
potentially very dumb. I think that it's just kind of the next test phase
beyond bulk ordering, which has (I'd guess by what's going on) been a hit. I
mean, to date, the retail business has been their primary source of income.
I doubt they'll give that up in the hopes that suddenly their web system
will suddenly account for what they'd be loosing in the retail market.
> Will a few dozen theme designers be out of a
> job? I have had high hopes for quite a while about working for Lego
> designing new sets. Now it seems I need to look for different career
> posibilities.
Set designers? Nah, they'll still be around, see above. Model layout and
promotional designers, etc? Yeah. But that's got little to do with this
change. I'd say they're more due to be lost thanks to the losses being made
in 1998 and 2000. If anything, if the company's doing well in 2002, maybe
you'll have a better shot at being hired :) (yet another reason we want Lego
to get as much profit as possible)
> Overall Lego will be making millions, because now I can
> custom build anything I want, for a nice fee of course. Anyways, what will
> happen to everyone having unique models? If Mark Sandlin builds a cool
> little shuttle, and I like it, all I need do is order it from Lego, and
> suddenly Mark's Lego design is mine.
Well, that's provided that Mark gives you the instructions to the
Spiffcraft, in which case, it could be yours anyway. Now you just have
another place to get it. Doesn't seem to make any difference as far as I can
tell, except that it's just easier for you to get what you want, with the
profit going to Lego. And isn't that good?
> Will anything ever be the same? All
> of a sudden those dreams about alternative Ice Planet models on store
> shelves will come true... Only time will tell what will happen to Lego...
>
> P.S. Does this mean all of these Lego sites will be able to remove those
> "not affiliated with the Lego Group" signs?
I'd doubt it. Actually, I'd expect the reverse; that they'd become stricter.
After all, if they're acknowledging other fan-related stuff, they'll want
even more for people to realize that it's not a Lego-endorsed product/site.
Anyway, maybe that was just a knee-jerk reaction from you... really, I only
see two possible bad outcomes from this movement:
1. the plan may fail. Maybe there just aren't enough AFOLs and original Lego
hobbyists to support the costs of providing custom models online. Might
happen. And that's really potentially major. If Lego prepares itself, it'll
be OK, and we'll just be back to where we are now (no loss), but perhaps
there'll be a lot of money lost, in which case, with the major losses in
2000 and 1998, maybe it'd be a big blow. Hopefully not. Certainly your above
concerns would point to the opposite though. And personally, I'd agree. I
think it'll only help them. I hope that like bulk ordering, it'll be a
collosal hit and they'll get backlogged from rampant orders, make tons of
money, and offer us MORE of what we really want.
2. some people may be offended at fan-related stuff now that Lego seems to
be endorsing it. And as far as I'm concerned, small beans. If we as a
community and Lego as a company try to make it clear to MOST people that the
two entities are not the same, there really shouldn't be that much loss as
far as I'm concerned.
DaveE
|
|
| |
I've been reading this thread with interest.
The PC industry was created when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS chip on
the IBM PC back in the early 80's. All other components of the computer
were bought from other sources. The only chip IBM created was the BIOS
chip. Compaq couldn't buy this from IBM, so they went about figuring out
how that chip worked and made their own version that performed the exact
same function.
If I can reverse engineer someone else's creation for my own enjoyment, I
have every right to. There is no damage to anyone.
Now if I sell that design, that's a different story...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lars Brandt writes:
> I've been reading this thread with interest.
>
> The PC industry was created when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS chip on
> the IBM PC back in the early 80's. All other components of the computer
> were bought from other sources. The only chip IBM created was the BIOS
> chip. Compaq couldn't buy this from IBM, so they went about figuring out
> how that chip worked and made their own version that performed the exact
> same function.
>
> If I can reverse engineer someone else's creation for my own enjoyment, I
> have every right to. There is no damage to anyone.
>
> Now if I sell that design, that's a different story...
Well said, Lars!
That's it exactly! I think this is the stance most in the GoB take. If
you'll recall, there have been people in the past who copied my first
publicly sold model. That's fine by me, and I said so at the time, as they
were doing it for their own use.
But if someone copys one of my models exactly, and sets up in competition
with me, I won't be very happy and while I think talk of lawsuits is a bit
extreme, I do think I'd try to marshall public opinion against them.
Some people find it fun to have models that they themselves don't want to
develop, or are not capable of independently developing, and we try to
enhance the experience for them by producing the absolute best quality
instructions we can, working on neat presentation, including a certificate, etc.
Even if one COULD do something as good... that's not an argument that one
should... I bought Dan's pirate tavern because he's spent a lot of time on
its design, and designed a better tavern than I am interested in spending
the time to do myself. Dan's buying my doodlebug for the same reasons. Plus,
they're a bit collectable, we think.
Hopefully that will help tamp down this issue for folks. It's a big tent and
there is nothing wrong with either wanting to buy GoB work or not wanting
to. To each his own.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
<snip>
Hopefully this will blow over as I think we're mostly all saying about the
same thing now. I missed the call to move to .debate just now but here is a
response I put in to Lars Brandt (whose Compaq IBM analogy was well spoken I
think)
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1371
which says the same thing you, and James P (and everyone else?), are saying,
essentially.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lars Brandt writes:
> I've been reading this thread with interest.
>
> The PC industry was created when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS chip on
> the IBM PC back in the early 80's. All other components of the computer
> were bought from other sources. The only chip IBM created was the BIOS
> chip. Compaq couldn't buy this from IBM, so they went about figuring out
> how that chip worked and made their own version that performed the exact
> same function.
>
> If I can reverse engineer someone else's creation for my own enjoyment, I
> have every right to. There is no damage to anyone.
>
> Now if I sell that design, that's a different story...
Intresting comments.
I heard rumours that one clones manafacturers 'reverse enginered' a brick by
scanning into a computer with a laser type scanner. Of course TLG/TLC got em
fair and square in the courts..
Perhaps TLC/TLG might want to have some say in how you distribute sets you
create if your 'producing' commerically?
IANAL but Something along the lines of a disclaimer such as '
This set/kit uses Lego(R) elements.
Some or all of the elements supplied may be registered designs of The Lego
Group which does not suppourt or endorse this unoffical set/kit in any way.
You should contact the sets designer for information regarding suppourt and
other issues.
The Sets Designer is <Name> who may be reached at <name@hostname> '
might be a Very GOOD Idea.
And of course in regards to instruction production, they can't look too like
TLC/TLG's offical ones. ISTR a packge called Bricad being supressed for
that reason?..
That said however I would love to see fan-designed sets in the range on
offer from TLG/TLC... Perhaps this is something LSAH could look into? After
all they have the resources of a large organizartion (hence lower prices)
that small individual AFOLS simply do not have access to.
My thoughts were that the majority of AFOLS shop online(?) and that selling
the 'fan-created' sets via the web might be the best idea. Additonaly a
pre-ordering system could be used so that TLG/TLC would know how many bricks
to mould or instruction booklets to print!!. Thankfully Lego instruction
boooklets are language free(!) and so do not need specific international
versions(?)
Comments welcomed.
Alex
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Paul Gyugyi writes:
> I've met few artists who do not enjoy the chance to view (sometimes critique)
> others works. IMO, it would be a rather UNcreative person who
> did not appreciate other's designs.
You mistake the idea of appreciation with patronage -- and those are NOT the
same thing at all. Did Michaelangelo serve as patron to Leonardo?
An overblown example, but you get the point...
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> Why not take this over to .debate??
Because, as a LEGO issue, it's not "off-topic"?
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, David Eaton writes:
> 1. the plan may fail. Maybe there just aren't enough AFOLs and original Lego
> hobbyists to support the costs of providing custom models online. Might
> happen. And that's really potentially major.
You know, I was curious about this. So I emailed my friend Neil--
(as an aside here, Dave knows Neil, but to bring the rest of you up to date: I
went to college with Neil, and we still play RPGs and wargames together on a
regular basis. Neil has been to the NELUG BrikWars events, but his interest in
LEGO begins and ends with building things for BrikWars)
--and asked him, theoretically, if he was able to go online and design "sets",
and buy the pieces directly from LEGO, if he would be likely to spend more on
LEGO.
His first answer, after thinking it over, was that he would end up buying more
from LEGO, but not much more. But, as he thought about it, he conceded that he
might end up buying even more than that if he increased in proficiency with the
design software.
Point is, this move has the potential to increase sales across the board, not
*just* to current hardcore AFOLs. There are probably lots of people out there
who would love to create their own models, but whose desire simply isn't strong
enough to go out and buy set after set to chase down the pieces they would
need.
eric
|
|
| |
> Hopefully this will blow over as I think we're mostly all saying about the
> same thing now. I missed the call to move to .debate just now but here is a
> response I put in to Lars Brandt (whose Compaq IBM analogy was well spoken I
> think)
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1371
> which says the same thing you, and James P (and everyone else?), are saying,
> essentially.
> ++Lar
For 99.99% of it, I do think we are on the same page. For that little .01%, I
believe occasionally one might be forced to take a stand in the same way that
the music industry does.
James Powell, Bricksmith.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
>
> To what degree can one own the rights to a thing built entirely from the
> patented and copyrighted elements of a particular toy company? When does a
> particular assemblage of elements take on a meaning owned more by its
> designer, and in opposition to the rights of the company that created the
> elements of that same assemblage?
That's the real legal question. One where there may be lots of
precedent (in some countries) but may still be taken on a
case-by-case basis.
The pieces are patented (I'm not clear on LEGO's current patent
status, I seem to recall its scope changing significantly about
10 years ago). The printed materials and the product design sold
are copyrighted. If you copy any of those without persmission
you are in violation. This includes making your own pieces,
instructions, images, etc.
However, you would be allowed (in Canada, and IANAL!) to use
the pieces for whatever purpose you wish. You could build your
own designs and claim copyright over the design. TLC would
have no more right to your design than a paint company to
an artist's painting or a lumber mill to an architect's house.
Can you sell the pieces for your own personal profit? I believe
yes, *maybe* :] It depends on whether or not your sales
could hurt TLC. If you are somehow in direct competition with
them and they could demonstrate a financial loss, you could
be liable. The artist actually makes money for the paint
company, not competes with them. But someone selling MOCs
could be argued to be in competition with TLC, and using
TLCs own product against them would be a big-time bad.
Pretty much every single product in the world is made up
from patented/copyrighted elements. The manufacturers
rights are for the finished product, and do not extend
to the components. I believe you are free (again in
Canada, and again IANAL!!) to "reverse-engineer" products,
using parts of them in other products. Even bits of
software code. Or at least to determine how they are
made, to develop ideas for your own product.
TLC can no more claim rights to your set design than
you can to having made their pieces. On the other
hand if you *provide* them with the design information
directly, without a decent written agreement, you may
be out of luck...
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
