Subject:
|
Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:14:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2106 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
| (...) download) (...) to (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
85 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
