| |
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/
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
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, 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
|
|
|
