| |
Hello Kevin, hello everybody,
I certainly appreciate the enormous amount of work that you and others put
into brickshelf over the years, and the value this has created for the LEGO
community. This is why I found it very disturbing to see the LEGO(r)
instruction and catalog archive go offline a few weeks ago. I certainly
didn't understand the reason for it, because the press release didn't say
that the LEGO Group has intervened in any way. Also, it was no entirely
clear from it, what the reasons for transforming brickshelf into a company
were, and why this made it necessary to take the archive off the net. Maybe
that has been discussed here but then, I am just subscribing to this group
as I write this ...
Now, all of this did not seem important and disputable enough when it
happened to start a discussion back then. However, in the announcement I am
replying to, one sentence caught my attention:
> All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
the LEGO Group's copyright)?
Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
them)?
I think this point needs modification or at least clarification before I
will submit any more scans ...
In a nutshell, I would like to prevent ...
... that the availability of a resource like the LEGO(r) instruction and
catalog archive depends on a single individual and his decisions [1]
... that anybody can make commercial profit from the work of others.
[2] [3]
This is not intended to charge upon you, Kevin, but mostly the result of my
thoughts and conclusions from a couple of weeks without the brickshelf
archive. The announcement just gave me a hook to get started writing
something down. I hope you can see some constructive ideas shine through the
cover of frustration ...
Greetings
Horst
[1] Not because I mistrust that individual, or because I neglect his work
on the project, but because all the others, who have also put work
into it, should have their share in deciding its fate. This requires
that they at least have the right to put the scans they personally
created on other web sites of their choice, in addition to personal
use.
[2] Note that this does not rule out potential commercial services per se.
Linux Distributors, for example, are providing distribution and support
services around Linux, which I don't see as making money from the work
of others. I can imagine a similar model for the brickshelf archive,
but, again, that needs clarification, much in the way the GNU Public
License and its derivates provides for the industry built around free
software.
[3] I have always been very annoyed when I saw ebayers sell CDs of LEGO
instruction scans, which in most cases presumably have been copies of
the brickshelf archive. So, also from this direction, I see the need
to be a lot clearer on what people are allowed to do with data they
get from brickshelf and what not.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner wrote:
> I certainly appreciate the enormous amount of work that you and others
> put into brickshelf over the years, and the value this has created for
> the LEGO community. This is why I found it very disturbing to see the
> LEGO(r) instruction and catalog archive go offline a few weeks ago. I
> certainly didn't understand the reason for it, because the press
> release didn't say that the LEGO Group has intervened in any way.
> Also, it was no entirely clear from it, what the reasons for
> transforming brickshelf into a company were, and why this made it
> necessary to take the archive off the net. Maybe that has been
> discussed here but then, I am just subscribing to this group as I
> write this ...
Personally, I think Kevin did the right thing. And he gets extra points
from doing it on his own. Why do you think that he should have waited
for LEGO to complain? The fact that he probably _could_ get away with it
doesn't mean he _should_ try... As for the need for Brickshelf to go
commercial, I think we all knew the day would come where Kevin employer
would refuse to front the HUGE bill for all the traffic. It was only a
matter of time.
Dan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner wrote:
> > I certainly appreciate the enormous amount of work that you and others
> > put into brickshelf over the years, and the value this has created for
> > the LEGO community. This is why I found it very disturbing to see the
> > LEGO(r) instruction and catalog archive go offline a few weeks ago. I
> > certainly didn't understand the reason for it, because the press
> > release didn't say that the LEGO Group has intervened in any way.
> > Also, it was no entirely clear from it, what the reasons for
> > transforming brickshelf into a company were, and why this made it
> > necessary to take the archive off the net. Maybe that has been
> > discussed here but then, I am just subscribing to this group as I
> > write this ...
>
> Personally, I think Kevin did the right thing. And he gets extra points
> from doing it on his own.
I agree, and further, the people here jiggling his elbow (including,
regrettably, me) while he was engaged in what had to be delicate
negotiations probably weren't helping matters with their thoughts, analysis
and suggestions although surely they were TRYING to be helpful.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner writes:
> In a nutshell, I would like to prevent ...
> ... that the availability of a resource like the LEGO(r) instruction and
> catalog archive depends on a single individual and his decisions [1]
I think Kevin gets this privilege de facto because he is the one maintaining
the library. That some other person(s) should have a backed up copy of the
library would probably be prudent and has hopefully already been accomplished.
> ... that anybody can make commercial profit from the work of others.
I don't have a problem if the profit is either for Kevin or to fund the
library. I suppose it depends on the amount of the profit in question, but
this remains speculative for now...
> [3] I have always been very annoyed when I saw ebayers sell CDs of LEGO
> instruction scans, which in most cases presumably have been copies of
> the brickshelf archive. So, also from this direction, I see the need
> to be a lot clearer on what people are allowed to do with data they
> get from brickshelf and what not.
As stated elsewhere, I think it might be cool if Brickshelf made disks like
this itself and preempted others from doing so...again in the hopes of
funding the online library or giving Kevin some payback for the time he has
invested.
I think it goes without saying that the true owners of the scanned material
remains TLC. If someone scans something, they can probably do with it as
they will unless TLC objects. Kevin probably doesn't have standing to
pursue the matter.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner writes:
>
> > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
>
> In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
> Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
> submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
> the LEGO Group's copyright)?
> Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
> commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
> them)?
> I think this point needs modification or at least clarification before I
> will submit any more scans ...
That is required to prevent claims from those who submit material to us.
It is standard business practice (think of contests where people submit
entries). To be clear, yes it does mean that you give up any and all rights
to scans you submit to Brickshelf. Keep in mind that the overriding factor
in this case is the original copyrighted material owned and controlled
by the LEGO Company.
KL
|
|
| |
Hello Dan,
> Why do you think that he should have waited for LEGO to complain?
Actually, I don't think that.
> The fact that he probably _could_ get away with it doesn't mean he
> _should_ try...
I agree.
> As for the need for Brickshelf to go
> commercial, I think we all knew the day would come where Kevin employer
> would refuse to front the HUGE bill for all the traffic. It was only a
> matter of time.
I understand that. I don't see, however, for now, how the bill is going to
be paid for from now on. But I guess Kevin has an idea ...
I think I have understood more of the transition, why it happened, and why
it had to happen the way it happened. I didn't get that understanding from
the press release, however, but from reading a few posts in this group
(which I haven't been subscribed to prior to my posting).
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
Hello Richard,
> > In a nutshell, I would like to prevent ...
> > ... that the availability of a resource like the LEGO(r) instruction and
> > catalog archive depends on a single individual and his decisions [1]
>
> I think Kevin gets this privilege de facto because he is the one maintaining
> the library. That some other person(s) should have a backed up copy of the
> library would probably be prudent and has hopefully already been accomplished.
I have no problem with Kevin deciding alone what to do with his copy of the
scans. However, trying to exclude people who contributed the scans, which is
what I understand from the sentence:
is not something I will accept for the scans I submit.
> > ... that anybody can make commercial profit from the work of others.
>
> I don't have a problem if the profit is either for Kevin or to fund the
> library. I suppose it depends on the amount of the profit in question, but
> this remains speculative for now...
Funding the library is not profit. Profit Kevin gets for his work is not
profit from the work of others. So, I think I can agree to what you say.
> > [3] I have always been very annoyed when I saw ebayers sell CDs of LEGO
> > instruction scans, which in most cases presumably have been copies of
> > the brickshelf archive. So, also from this direction, I see the need
> > to be a lot clearer on what people are allowed to do with data they
> > get from brickshelf and what not.
>
> As stated elsewhere, I think it might be cool if Brickshelf made disks like
> this itself and preempted others from doing so...again in the hopes of
> funding the online library or giving Kevin some payback for the time he has
> invested.
Agree 100%.
> I think it goes without saying that the true owners of the scanned material
> remains TLC.
I am well aware of that fact.
> If someone scans something, they can probably do with it as
> they will unless TLC objects. Kevin probably doesn't have standing to
> pursue the matter.
Right. But if someone get scans from Kevin's archive, Kevin probably HAS
standing to pursue that matter. Of course, he can still decide not to do so.
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
Hello Larry, hello everybody,
> > Personally, I think Kevin did the right thing. And he gets extra points
> > from doing it on his own.
>
> I agree, and further, the people here jiggling his elbow (including,
> regrettably, me) while he was engaged in what had to be delicate
> negotiations probably weren't helping matters with their thoughts, analysis
> and suggestions although surely they were TRYING to be helpful.
I do understand by now what was going on in the last few weeks, and why.
However, there hasn't been much response to my second point, which was about
Brickshelf L.L.C. claiming all rights with uploaded scans:
> > > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
> > > Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
> > > submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
> > > the LEGO Group's copyright)?
> > > Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
> > > commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
> > > them)?
Maybe I'm wrong there as well, but I haven't heard the arguments yet ...
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
Hello Kevin,
> > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
> >
> > In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
> > Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
> > submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
> > the LEGO Group's copyright)?
> > Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
> > commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
> > them)?
> > I think this point needs modification or at least clarification before I
> > will submit any more scans ...
>
>
> That is required to prevent claims from those who submit material to us.
Which types of claims are you talking here? I can see that submitting does
not GIVE them any rights above and beyond the ones they have, so they cannot
CLAIM anything. But how could they claim any rights, from submitting to
Brickshelf?
> It is standard business practice (think of contests where people submit
> entries).
That does make sense for contests where a non-digital work is being sent in,
because it is not even possible to keep an identical copy for personal use.
So, what use could I make from any retained rights?
It is not acceptable (and I never take part in such contests) when even my
personal use of a digital work is prohibited after I send it in.
> To be clear, yes it does mean that you give up any and all rights
> to scans you submit to Brickshelf.
And this exactly is what I think is unreasonable. Assume I need a printout,
or want to give one to a friend. Do I really need to download the scan again
from brickshelf before I am allowed to print? Or assume the brickshelf
archive disappears at some point, but I still have a copy of the scans I
submitted. Wouldn't it at least then be reasonable to let me put up the
scans on my website, or submit to another archive?
And what about scans submitted prior to this policy change?
> Keep in mind that the overriding factor in this case is the original
> copyrighted material owned and controlled by the LEGO Company.
I understand that. So, if the LEGO Company objects to any of the things I
could do with the scans I submitted, that's a different thing. But why would
you want to object?
Again, this discussion is not intended to neglect your work on the
brickshelf archive. In fact, I am as thankful as many others who have
expressed so in response to your announcement. I just don't see why this one
point needs to be regulated so narrowly. I may accept if a good explanation
is given, but, so far, I don't see one.
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
I'm not a lawyer, but I understand this to mean:
Anything uploaded to Brickshelf, bet it scans, digital pics, gif files, text
files, whatever, becomes property of Brickshelf in the regards that
Brickshelf can do whatever with those files (print them, delete them, give
them away for free, etc). Everything EXCEPT selling the material. The
original rights of the property still resides with the original owner. This
means that while you are the owner of the jpg file of that LEGO(r) model you
submitted to Brickshelf (and you can do whatever you want with that file,
including selling copies if you want), Brickshelf can do whatever they want
to the COPY you uploaded to them (including editing or using in some fashion
to promote Brickshelf). They can even make copies of the copies, but the
only thing I believe they can NOT due without your express permission is to
sell the copy.
This, by the way, is the crux of the Instruction Scans issue. The
Instructions are the property of TLC. Period. They do not belong to
Brickshelf, nor to whoever made the original scan, nor to whoever downloaded
them. Scanning (a form of copying, remember), is allowed, but SELLING the
scans (ie: copies, be it digital or paper) is NOT allowed without TLC's
permission. While Brickshelf was a "personal" page, it was ok to display the
instructions as that was "personal usage". (I'm sure a real Lawyer out there
might even point out that DOWNLOADING the scans was in fact a technical
violation of the "no copies without express permission" clause that you
always see with a tradmark statement).
Does anyone remember Napster? And what was the crux of their problem?
Afterall, Napster didn't charge a penny to any of it's users that was
downloading mp3's right and left. So why were they sued out of existance?
Did they somehow violate the Copyright laws? Of course they did! And that
is why Brickshelf L.L.C. (the business entity, not the "personal page") had
to remove the scans until they were able to obtain the express permission
from TLC to make them available again. And I would guess the permission
that Brickshelf received from TLC included specifications about weither or
not Brickshelf can make available for sale CD's containing the instruction
scans, and may even contained restrictions as to how the scans can be made
available (ie: full size images ok, but zipped files are not, etc).
Remember, everyone, that Brickshelf (prior to Brickshelf L.L.C.) was a
"PERSONAL PAGE". It was NOT part of The Lego Company. There is NO mandate or
requirement that it had to have the instruction scans available in the first
place - afterall, those scans were in Kevin Loch's personal collection which
he was GENEROUS in making freely available to everyone. The rights of
ownership between an individual (Kevin Loch) and a business entity
(Brickshelf L.L.C.) are different.
Too many people today, living the life of Internet luxury, feel that
"information should be free", with no regard for Intellectual Property and
Copyright laws (can anyone guess why Copyright laws have been around in some
form or fashion since even before the existance of Xerox and computers???).
I will admit that I would like to get free copies of things, and prolly (if
I really thought about it) would think that "oh, copying an instruction is
not the same as getting the bricks for free from TLC), but in fact that is
the same thing.
Ok, I'll get off the soapbox now. I'm really really happy that the scans are
back, and am glad that TLC has allowed Brickshelf to host the scans. You
the reader can agree with me or not, get angry at me or not, or just ignore
this all together.
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner writes:
> However, there hasn't been much response to my second point, which was about
> Brickshelf L.L.C. claiming all rights with uploaded scans:
>
> > > > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
> > > > Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
> > > > submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
> > > > the LEGO Group's copyright)?
> > > > Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
> > > > commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
> > > > them)?
>
> Maybe I'm wrong there as well, but I haven't heard the arguments yet ...
>
> Greetings
>
> Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner writes:
>
> Which types of claims are you talking here? I can see that submitting does
> not GIVE them any rights above and beyond the ones they have, so they cannot
> CLAIM anything. But how could they claim any rights, from submitting to
> Brickshelf?
Read what I wrote carefully. It adresses material *submitted*
to the Library. That means you have no control over what Brickshelf
does with it's copies of what you submit. In other words, you can't
revoke your submission, or suddenly decide you want a royalty for it's use.
Imagine what might happen if TLC authorized us to sell Instruction CD's?
None of this concerns what you do with your scanner or your copies of
what you submit, it only concerns Brickshef's rights to the material
submitted to it. If we meant to control what you do with your copies,
there would be other language to that effect. (think of contests
where all submissions become their property, but if you win you have
to agree to sign over all rights to receive the prize).
Also, this only applies to Library submissions, not gallery content uploaded
by users (which is covered by the gallery TOS).
KL
|
|
| |
Hello Kevin,
> None of this concerns what you do with your scanner or your copies of
> what you submit, it only concerns Brickshef's rights to the material
> submitted to it. If we meant to control what you do with your copies,
> there would be other language to that effect. (think of contests
> where all submissions become their property, but if you win you have
> to agree to sign over all rights to receive the prize).
I am glad to hear this from you directly. Maybe the whole issue here is that
English is not my mother tongue, so I didn't get the proper meaning of the
jurisdictional terms.
How will you handle scans that have been uploaded before this policy change?
For my part, you can handle them as you do with new submissions ... but
that's just me.
> Imagine what might happen if TLC authorized us to sell Instruction CD's?
They hopefully will also be usable on non-Wintel computers ;-)
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
Oops, there was something missing in my posting here:
> I have no problem with Kevin deciding alone what to do with his copy of the
> scans. However, trying to exclude people who contributed the scans, which is
> what I understand from the sentence:
>
> > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
>
> is not something I will accept for the scans I submit.
|
|
| |
Hello Mark,
> Anything uploaded to Brickshelf, bet it scans, digital pics, gif files, text
> files, whatever, becomes property of Brickshelf in the regards that
> Brickshelf can do whatever with those files (print them, delete them, give
> them away for free, etc). Everything EXCEPT selling the material.
Well, if that is what it means, this certainly differs from what I
understood when I read:
> > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
because with property I am usually free to even sell it. Also, since we are
talking intellectual property here, I thought it would exclude others,
including the submitter, from using it in any way.
Now, Kevin has made clear that this is not what he means, and, since I trust
him, that's enough for me.
> This means that while you are the owner of the jpg file of that LEGO(r)
> model you submitted to Brickshelf (and you can do whatever you want with
> that file, including selling copies if you want)
I didn't see it that way if I handed over property to Brickshelf. But,
again, that is now clarified by Kevin's statement.
Other than that, I agree to your posting.
Greetings
Horst
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish, Mark Chittenden writes:
> I'm not a lawyer, but I understand this to mean:
>
> Anything uploaded to Brickshelf, bet it scans, digital pics, gif files, text
> files, whatever, becomes property of Brickshelf in the regards that
Only materials submitted to the Brickshelf _Library_ become property of
Brickshelf. Materials uploaded to the _Gallery_ remain with the original
owner.
This really isn't complicated, you just can't control what Brickshelf does
with scans you submit to the Library. It has nothing to do with
your own (copies of) scans, or anything you upload to the gallery.
KL
|
|
|
