Subject:
|
Re: Stud logos in fan apps
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:28:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
444 times
|
| |
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message
news:Gr12tJ.9A0@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
>
> > When I was having the website logo redone right before Kidvention, I had • a
> > discussion about this with one of LEGO's lawyers. I had the person
> > rendering the logo make a brick with 'LDRAW' on the studs in the same • style
> > text as 'LEGO' is printed on bricks. When she saw a sample of the logo, • she
> > requested I put 'LEGO' on the studs, or leave them blank.
>
> Now that I think of it, this kind of bugs me. If I could come up with a
> low-maintenance way to put "MegaBloks" on every clone.dat brick I would
> happily do so. How can LEGO imply ownership of a virtual brick that • could,
> frankly, be any of a dozen clone brands?
Good point.
I suppose I would explain it this way: LDraw.org sticks LEGO on the studs
because we are the ones loyal to the brand. This is the only plastic brick
company we've interacted with, and this is the one we're sticking to because
the creator of LDraw and the current maintainers of LDraw feel strongly that
way.
If you want to put MegaBloks on your virtual bricks (which use the LDraw
format), its fine by me, and should be fine by everyone else. I don't see
LEGO having a legitimate problem with it (not that they won't *try* to stop
it though).
> I know, of course, that LDraw.org
> has always been very (and appropriately) pro-LEGO, but if someone wants to
> put LDRAW on a brick stud, and if that same someone isn't passing the • brick
> off as a "real" virtual LEGO brick, what's the problem?
I think the problem in that situation was - we were presenting in LEGO's
theme park. They wanted the brick to represent a real LEGO brick if we
were. So they gave me the option, either put LEGO on the stud, or put
nothing at all.
I took the opportunity to throw LEGO on the stud and ran with it, naturally
;-)
> Is it simply a
> matter of respect for the brand? If so, that's cool--I just wanted to
> clarify that one brand isn't assuming ownership of the entire LCad • universe,
> both "canonical" and apocryphal.
I think it is a respect for the brand issue. LEGO isn't assuming ownership
of our unofficial LDraw universe (note - the word LCAD is obsolete - read my
brand building rant on the site) ;-). If they were, they'd probably fight
to shut down the K'nex and MegaBloks unofficial libraries.
The other thing is - LDraw by its current nature can't be owned by LEGO, its
nonprofit, and the format is privately owned (Jessimans).
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Stud logos in fan apps
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: **snip of good answers to all of my questions** (...) Tim, you stinker! How can I have my "LCad Apocrypha" website if there's no LCAD anymore!?! I certainly shouldn't use "LDraw Apocrypha" since that implies (...) (22 years ago, 5-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Stud logos in fan apps
|
| (...) Another reason why; The LDraw library of parts is specifically modelling the copyrighted/trademar...d/patented inventory of Lego brand building toys. We know it, they know it. And they have graciously allowed us to do so. Even supported our (...) (22 years ago, 7-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Stud logos in fan apps
|
| (...) Now that I think of it, this kind of bugs me. If I could come up with a low-maintenance way to put "MegaBloks" on every clone.dat brick I would happily do so. How can LEGO imply ownership of a virtual brick that could, frankly, be any of a (...) (22 years ago, 4-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
23 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
|
|
|
|
