| |
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
|
|
|
