| |
In lugnet.publish, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> TLC's actions would not stop me from adding this feature to our site. Seeing
> their "avitar maker" made me a bit upset (partly because they did such a poor
> job). But I don't feel threatened by it.
>
> The issues you bring up here (Todd) are ones I remember discussing, but I
> believed LUGNET was still developing along its original course.
>
> -Suz.
I knew there would be some interesting issues around the whole minifig thing.
To be clear I *did* get the idea from Suzanne's minifig generator,
not the Mindstorms site.
However.... I never planned to have an interactive generator, rather just
a selection of (say 50-100) scans. Since todd demonstrated how easy it is
to generate a large number of quality renderings, That would generate
better results than the scans (assuming he let me use them). Otherwise
I guess I'll have to see if I can get my scanner to work again. It went
kaput after I did the second fig! The first was Timmy....
I did consider the trade dress issue as well, but since it's being used
in good taste, appropriate disclaimers should be all that is necessary.
If they had to be removed for whatever reason, it would be easy enough
to allow users to select their own icon (from their online images) as their
avatar.
KL
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.publish, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > I see that my being unable to work has had some more consequences. I can't
> > say I'm unaffected by this conversation. Being discharged from hospital
> > only yesterday, and now leaving for ToyFair on Sunday, there won't be
> > much I can say here or do. [...]
> > TLC's actions would not stop me from adding this feature to our site.
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> I knew there would be some interesting issues around the whole minifig thing.
I would like to know exactly what you expected. Particularly, how I would feel
(as you are replying to my message here). I only posted to this thread because
"the whole minifig thing" is quite personal to me.
> To be clear I *did* get the idea from Suzanne's minifig generator,
> not the Mindstorms site.
To be clear, where you took the idea from was not the issue.
> However.... I never planned to have an interactive generator, rather just
> a selection of (say 50-100) scans. Since todd demonstrated how easy it is
> to generate a large number of quality renderings, That would generate
> better results than the scans (assuming he let me use them).
So, you plan to generate minifigs using the scans I did? (!)
I will not give permission to republish images taken from my site. See fine
print on the site:
"The Minifig Generator was created by Suzanne D. Rich © 1997. LEGO® is a
trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or
endorse this site. Images of LEGO® brand products found here, although recorded
by Suzanne D. Rich, still remain part of the LEGO Group's trademarked visual
identity. Suzanne D. Rich can not grant permission for any such images to be
downloaded or linked to. They may NOT be republished without permission from the
LEGO Group. Please help to keep their trademarks strong. Read and heed the LEGO
Group's Fair Play document."
Not to mention the weeks of work I put into those images. They are not straight
scans. They were carefully adjusted in Adobe Photoshop to be precisely matching
in size, color and proportions.
I have to catch a train now.
-Suz.
|
|
| |
Heavily snipped
Suzanne D. Rich wrote:
> Kevin Loch said:
> > In lugnet.publish, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > However.... I never planned to have an interactive generator, rather just
> > a selection of (say 50-100) scans. Since todd demonstrated how easy it is
> > to generate a large number of quality renderings, That would generate
> > better results than the scans
> > (assuming he let me use them).
broke out for emphasis
> So, you plan to generate minifigs using the scans I did? (!)
I suspect Kev might, IF you gave permission. I doubt he'd do it without
your permission. He doesn't operate that way.
> I will not give permission to republish images taken from my site. See fine
> print on the site:
>
> "The Minifig Generator was created by Suzanne D. Rich © 1997. LEGO® is a
> trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or
> endorse this site. Images of LEGO® brand products found here, although recorded
> by Suzanne D. Rich, still remain part of the LEGO Group's trademarked visual
> identity.
> Suzanne D. Rich can not grant permission
broke out for emphasis
> for any such images to be
> downloaded or linked to. They may NOT be republished without permission
> from the LEGO Group.
broke out for emphasis
> Please help to keep their trademarks strong. Read and heed the LEGO
> Group's Fair Play document."
I'm not sure I agree with 100% of this fine print. Where I think it
breaks down is that the permission to republish images (for
noncommercial, fannish use) typically rests with the image originator.
Specifically, Fair Play says that scans of Lego trade dress items (in
images that TLC produced such as instructions or catalogs) may indeed be
used by fans, although it does not specifically address photographs or
scans of physical items themselves. By inference, though, it is OK to
create such images. Else all of us who have personal creation websites
(whether the items on them are photoed or generated with LDraw or POVray
or whatever) are in a lot of trouble. Surely that's not what is
intended, so as is usual in IP law, we reason from intent and from
similarity. MOCs are similar to scans in that they involve TLC trade
dress elements, but they are different in that they aren't works of TLC,
they are works of others. Therefore they are more weakly protected.
Now, given that we have the right to create and display MOC images, who
has the right to decide whether they can be reproduced? They're TLC
trade dress, but to say that no one can link to images or web pages in
the general case is unenforcable. They're your copyrighted material. To
say that ANYONE cal link to them (if they're works that are not
copyrighted by TLC per se, that is, they are your original works and
therefore you hold the ocpyright) and you have no control or
responsibility, is also incorrect.
That is, YOU control who can or can't link or copy these images. You can
set things up technically so that no one can link. You can't technically
stop image capture, although you can legally stop it, (by lawsuit for
copyright infringment) you hold the copyright.
In fact, I would argue that you have some obligation to ensure that
images that you create are NOT used in ways that TLC doesn't sanction,
to the extent of assisting TLC in asserting rights to their trade dress,
but that's a different issue.
OK, so are the results of the minifig generator a MOC? I would argue
that they are. Putting minifigs together in random ways is essentially a
MOC. Now, it's a slightly different MOC than if you actually put them
together physically, but physicality is not required. No one would argue
that Bram's pentawhatzits isn't a MOC, whether he actually realised it
in physicality or not.
SO, this statement " Suzanne D. Rich can not grant permission for any
such images to be
downloaded or linked to." is, IMHO, incorrect. UNLESS you have reached
some special legal arrangement with TLC about these images different
than most of the rest of us have. (most of us have no special
arrangement with TLC, we are merely bound by Fair Play) That may well be
the case, but if so you probably ought to explicitly say so in the fine
print because as it stands, I feel it's misleading to those that might
want to model after it, it draws invalid inferences.
Now, all that said, you may well not want to give Kev the right to use
these things. You, after all, put a lot of work into them, and
brickshelf, after all, may be viewed as a (friendly) competitor to
Lugnet. It has implemented some (relatively minor) things of the Lugnet
Manifesto faster than Lugnet itself has. (Huw's site can also be viewed
as competition in that it also implemented some things in the manifesto)
Competition is good. It drives feature set improvement. The Pause DB
search and org features are better now than they were before Huw did his
reorg with new ways to get at the info.
But that doesn't mean you have to HELP your competition and so you are
under no obligation to allow Kevin to use these images to make his site
more fun. Kevin may well have to do the hard work of scanning, resizing,
cleaning up, etc... himself. If he did so, the resulting images (derived
from the the resulting MOC behind them) would be his, not TLC's
copyrighted work.
But the conclusion that someone else HAS to reproduce your work in order
to get the effect because you CAN'T grant the rights may not be a valid
one. It's YOUR choice. That's my opinion anyway.
> Not to mention the weeks of work I put into those images. They are not straight
> scans. They were carefully adjusted in Adobe Photoshop to be precisely matching
> in size, color and proportions.
And that's why you may well not want to grant permission. I have stuff I
did that took a lot of work that I assert copyright on and have no
intention of granting blanket permission to. But it's my decision, not
TLC's. I care a lot about this discussion for that very reason. If my
MOCs are not mine to decide what to do with, and my MOC images are not
mine to do what I want with, subject only to Fair Play (not defaming or
infringing on TLC branding or copyrights or trade dress, or leaving
false impressions with consumers), it takes a lot of fun out of the
game.
> I have to catch a train now.
Lucky you! best way to travel.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> No one would argue that Bram's pentawhatzits isn't a MOC, whether
> he actually realised it in physicality or not.
I'm getting mentioned quite a lot today :) For anyone interested, the
name is bastardized Latin (using a dictionary, I don't speak Latin)
Five- wing- nifty suffix
Penta- pteri- goid
I _have_ built the model and its cradle, which actually holds it quite
well. There is a bit of warpage in the horizontal axle-thingy, but I
have a ton of those from MindFest, so I don't mind.
However, there *are* a few models that I've never built...can you guess
which ones?[1] :)
--Bram
1) Shameless plug to build traffic. (See sig for URL)
Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com
-------------------oooo-----(_)-----oooo-------------------
WWW: http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:09:44 GMT, "Suzanne D. Rich"
<suz@baseplate.com> wrote:
> > However.... I never planned to have an interactive generator, rather just
> > a selection of (say 50-100) scans. Since todd demonstrated how easy it is
> > to generate a large number of quality renderings, That would generate
> > better results than the scans (assuming he let me use them).
>
> So, you plan to generate minifigs using the scans I did? (!)
I read that as "if Todd (assuming Todd has your permission to do so)
let me use them" I would use them. Or, more broadly, "since this is
something people are already asking for, and since I've already put a
ton of work into putting together the other parts of this Gallery
which is probably the coolest thing people have seen in a long time,
sure, I'd make use of those images and save myself a little time, and
at the same time provide people with high-quality images - IF it's ok
with the person (people) who made the images."
> I will not give permission to republish images taken from my site. See fine
> print on the site:
>
> "The Minifig Generator was created by Suzanne D. Rich © 1997. LEGO® is a
> trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or
> endorse this site. Images of LEGO® brand products found here, although recorded
> by Suzanne D. Rich, still remain part of the LEGO Group's trademarked visual
> identity. Suzanne D. Rich can not grant permission for any such images to be
> downloaded or linked to. They may NOT be republished without permission from the
> LEGO Group. Please help to keep their trademarks strong. Read and heed the LEGO
> Group's Fair Play document."
I read what Larry wrote. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I don't really
have much of an opinion. What he says seems well-thought-out, but who
knows.
> Not to mention the weeks of work I put into those images. They are not straight
> scans. They were carefully adjusted in Adobe Photoshop to be precisely matching
> in size, color and proportions.
And I'm sure we all can appreciate the work you've put into it, just
like we can appreciate all the work lots of people have put into
sites, programs, etc that we've all come to know and love.
**If** the Lego Group issues aren't really an issue, this seems to
mainly boil down to a sharing/respect issue. We've seen Kevin (and
Todd and others) be respectful and sharing before, especially in the
interest of doing cool things for the community. Not sure why this
would be very different, but then again, it's not my stuff or my work
that went into it, so I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do with
it.
I'll like the Gallery whether it continues to have one minifig image
for everyone or many images from which to choose, including those we
might provide for ourselves. The functionality is what really
matters, although the decoration would make it more
interesting/pleasing to look at and work with.
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
|
|
| |
Bram said:
> I _have_ built the model and its cradle, which actually holds it quite
> well. There is a bit of warpage in the horizontal axle-thingy, but I
> have a ton of those from MindFest, so I don't mind.
> However, there *are* a few models that I've never built...can you guess
> which ones?[1] :)
The Zero.
Alan
This message's random set is: 6505,
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=6505
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
>
> I would like to know exactly what you expected. Particularly, how I would feel
> (as you are replying to my message here). I only posted to this thread because
> "the whole minifig thing" is quite personal to me.
Since I had no intentions of using a "minifig generator", I diddn't think
you would be affected at all. I did expect some discussion about the IP issues
with TLC.
>
> To be clear, where you took the idea from was not the issue.
ok.
>
> So, you plan to generate minifigs using the scans I did? (!)
> I will not give permission to republish images taken from my site. See fine
> print on the site:
Absolutely not! I never said that! In fact what I said is that I planned
to use my scans. I think you are confusing my plan of allowing users to select
from specific minifigs and your minifig generator (clearly two different
functions). And when I asked Todd to generate the 500 figs for me I had
assumed that they were renderings, generated on the fly, not your scans (that's
the way they looked to me). The fact that (I thought) they were rendered
was why I figured they would be better quality than scans. Please read what
I say carefully before you accuse me of trying to steal something.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> > So, you plan to generate minifigs using the scans I did? (!)
> > I will not give permission to republish images taken from my site. See fine
> > print on the site:
>
> Absolutely not! I never said that! In fact what I said is that I planned
> to use my scans. I think you are confusing my plan of allowing users to
> select from specific minifigs and your minifig generator (clearly two
> different functions). And when I asked Todd to generate the 500 figs for
> me I had assumed that they were renderings, generated on the fly, not your
> scans (that's the way they looked to me). The fact that (I thought) they
> were rendered was why I figured they would be better quality than scans.
> Please read what I say carefully before you accuse me of trying to steal
> something.
I think she misunderstood what you meant. She'd been up most of the night
packing for a 6:45 a.m. train and had logged in quick just to check mail,
etc. and probably wasn't expecting to encounter anything out of the ordinary.
Probably read the message with a bit of haste and/or panic...
Apologies.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Heavily snipped
ditto.
> brickshelf, after all, may be viewed as a (friendly) competitor to
I don't see it that way, although I can understand why some would.
I am not a big fan of duplicating other peoples efforts.
That's why I never made a set database, because a great one already
existed.
I was unaware that image hosting was in the Lugnet long-term plan.
It does seem to be a logical extension of the Brickshelf site,
which is essentially an image warehouse. The gallery function grew out
of the need for people to host their personal images. This was also
a great project for me to further develop my C skills with.
I guess you could consider the "Member Index" as a community which might
compete with the Lugnet community. I expect the member index to become
irrelevant as soon as the "recent stuff" page is working. I really had no
choice. If people are going to upload images, they need verified accounts,
and you need some logical way to access/present that information. The
member index is just a side-effect of the image warehouse, not the focus.
The focus is and always will be on the content.
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> I was unaware that image hosting was in the Lugnet long-term plan.
I'd say if anything it's in the really really long-term plan -- someday when
bandwidth grows on trees. Image hosting was the very first thing Suzanne and
I talked about doing back in the summer of '96 but as soon as it became clear
that places like Geocities could do that sort of thing already, there didn't
seem to be much point in ever worrying about that.
What you've created is incredible, BTW, and far cooler than Geocities could
ever be for images and stuff!
--Todd
|
|
|
