Subject:
|
Re: The Official "Issues List"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.ambassadors
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:00:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
11067 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.ambassadors, Benjamin Whytcross wrote:
> Further to this, how can a set be a 2007 release set if sold in 2006? (I'm
> refering to both LEGO's claims and references like the set guide here and on
> other sites) (And more to the point, would it not have been possible for
> someone to claim copyright to a design for one of these sets in 2006. After
> all, according to the box/instructions, LEGO only claimed copyright in 2007
> for these items...)
The release dates on LEGO sets are not strict dates like they are with DVD
releases. They're more like guidelines. Make sure your production runs
coincide with whichever sets are due up next, so you can release them more or
less in order. And as soon as they are ready to ship, get them on a boat and
let people start selling them. Mostly this means that sets scheduled for one
month will show up in the latter half of the previous month for many stores in
the eastern half of the US plus the North American S@H (and I suspect the same
might hold true for parts of Europe). Sometimes, as in the case with the
friggen Bat-Copter set, the end of the month is just around the corner and noone
has the set available _except_ S@H (*rassinfrassin*).
As for the copyright, you do raise an interesting point, except for the fact
that unlike patents and trademarks, copyright is an assumed status from the day
you make something. In other words, you do not need to ever tag your images
"Copyright Me, Ca. This Year" in order to go after someone for swiping a copy
and using it in a manner that you are not comfortable with. Likewise, The LEGO
Company does not have to have the correct year listed for them to go after
someone for blatantly ripping off their set design. Their copyright is assumed
for the sets, though they still have to patent the brick shapes in order to
defend them.
And this part is not in reply to anything specific that you wrote, but more a
general response to the large number of people who have asked this same question
in the last few hours, but as strange as this may sound, Mega-Bloks is probably
not TLC's primary concern on the whole secrecy of upcoming sets aspect. They
are a legitimate company and therefore probably do not have turnaround time that
is significantly faster than TLC's. China is the big issue here, where they
can, and have, shown up to the local equivalent of NY Toy Fair and found
fly-by-night companies showing off _exact_ copies of their own sets (usually
older sets, not the same ones they're showing off at their own booth). These
are the sort of companies that could conceivably scout out an image of upcoming
sets and manage to cobble together a rough approximation and release it _before_
the real thing hits the street.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Official "Issues List"
|
| (...) Then LEGO needs to take a number and get in line behind the large software companies, motion picture associations, and recording industry associations of the world. Many Asian countries are notorious for rampant piracy because it's not (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jul-07, to lugnet.ambassadors)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Official "Issues List"
|
| (...) I don't know if this is related to the types of leaks you're talking about, but a little bird told me that there were some very unhappy ambassadors when news and pictures of the "Dwarfs mining" set were published on the internet recently. The (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jul-07, to lugnet.ambassadors)
|
87 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
