| | | | |
| |
| In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> > > "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
> > > news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> > > > I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image other
> > > > than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent that
> > > > I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream manufacturer
> > > > and LEGO.
> > >
> > > Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
> > > give each picture a comment I would have written that..
> > >
> > >
> > > ..oli
> >
> > Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the MOC by itself, instead of
> > inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)...
>
> I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
> interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see (and download)
> the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
> concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> was in any way hurt.
> FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad. It was a nice surprise to
> see the manipulation, very nice indeed. And I must confess it took me a while
> to figure out the "brickalization" of the Ice cream... :-)
> Would you give the proper value to this creation if you didn't know what was
> behind it? Would you have clicked on a thumb depicting a quasi-rectangular
> brown shape?
>
>
> Pedro
Let's try that again:
Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the _(_MOC by itself_)_, [instead
of] _in addition to its placement_ inside a derivative work (term of art in the
copyright field)...
On the other hand, in view of the tangled multinational web of laws on
copyright and trademark infringement and potential rights of parody and satire
and exposure of the host to contributory infringement, there are two companies'
reputations at risk in this manipulation, not just one. Would I have clicked on
a thumb depicting a girlfriend fondling an ice cream bar MOC? Probably. So it
is not fair to say that trademark and copyright infringement is needed to draw
interest to a rendition in LEGO of a real-world object now made possible
through the wider variety of brown pieces.
Constantine
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.publish, Constantine Hannaher writes:
> > > In lugnet.publish, Oliver Kutsche writes:
> > > > "Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in
> > > > news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com...
> > > > > I completely did not grasp that there was anything LEGO about the image other
> > > > > than the blatant use of the red box trademark in the corner, to the extent that
> > > > > I went searching for a cooperative venture between the ice cream manufacturer
> > > > > and LEGO.
> > > >
> > > > Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If we were only allowed to
> > > > give each picture a comment I would have written that..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ..oli
> > >
> > > Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the MOC by itself, instead of
> > > inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)...
> >
> > I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its
> > interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see (and download)
> > the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so
> > concerned... It is highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> > was in any way hurt.
> > FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> > puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad. It was a nice surprise to
> > see the manipulation, very nice indeed. And I must confess it took me a while
> > to figure out the "brickalization" of the Ice cream... :-)
> > Would you give the proper value to this creation if you didn't know what was
> > behind it? Would you have clicked on a thumb depicting a quasi-rectangular
> > brown shape?
> >
> >
> > Pedro
>
> Let's try that again:
>
> Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the _(_MOC by itself_)_, [instead
> of] _in addition to its placement_ inside a derivative work (term of art in the
> copyright field)...
That I do understand, and agree. As an addition, it would definately make sense.
> On the other hand, in view of the tangled multinational web of laws on
> copyright and trademark infringement and potential rights of parody and satire
> and exposure of the host to contributory infringement, there are two companies'
> reputations at risk in this manipulation, not just one.
Yes, I realized that when I hit post - I keep forgetting LEGO is very
brand-aware... :-)
It might have been advisable to include a disclaimer, in tiny letters on the
bottom of the image (in such a way they would not be visible in the thumb,
perhaps?)
> Would I have clicked on
> a thumb depicting a girlfriend fondling an ice cream bar MOC? Probably.
But my point is, what if you *didn't* know it was an Ice-cream MOC? Would the
picture have called your attention? I would have bypassed it, as if it were the
original ad. After all, it was hard to tell that the Ice cream was LEGO...
> So it
> is not fair to say that trademark and copyright infringement is needed to draw
> interest to a rendition in LEGO of a real-world object now made possible
> through the wider variety of brown pieces.
Generically, I agree it is not *needed*. In this particular case, I'd say it
was *helpful* to call attention. In other words, it would be ill-advised to use
the logo in every single work, but given the specificities of this picture (1)
it might be excusable - I dunno, and quite frankly I'd LOVE to.
Pedro
(1) - the small relative size of the LEGO Ice-cream when it appears on the
thumb, that does not allow easy recognition of its true nature.
| | | | | | |