Subject:
|
Re: Farlie A
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:52:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1399 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Mike Stanley writes:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:35:32 GMT, Mark Tarrabain <markt@lynx.bc.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > > This will most likely get you nowhere, unless, of course, you're
> > > trying to get a job. You'll find many discussions concerning the fact
> > > that Lego seems to completely refuse to even look at or consider
> > > outside designs.
> >
> > Be that as it may, Mr Justus did make his presence known here a few
> > weeks back, and let us know that he was reading this group. You can't
> > fault a guy just because he wants to be a little more formal than most.
>
> Didn't want what I wrote to be taken as "faulting" him - especially
> for the formality. Pointing out the _futility_ perhaps, but I got no
> problem with formality. I thought it was kinda nice.
A note from the authour of the post..
The formality was essentialy a header note to anyone from lego who reades
this post.
FYI- Leters that are formal usally take longer to write and are somtimes
clearer than 'falme' postings written in a hurry.) The particular posting up
thier took a lot longer than my usual news psotings becuase I wanted to try
and be clear on what I meant.)
> > Well, by posting his ideas here where who knows how many people can read
> > them, there's actually very little chance that he, personally, could get
> > any credit for the concepts, even if they *DID* originate from him. Any
> > information that is publically distributed before being protected by
> > copyright or trademark law becomes public domain by default, afaik. If
>
> I believe you're incorrect. IANAL (and I don't care to spend any time
> looking it up) but, at least in the US (and I noticed the person who
> posted this isn't) anything you create is automatically copyrighted
> when you set it into its final form. Like this post, sorda. Or a
> poem I posted a few years back in RTL. I seem to remember some change
> a few/several years ago in the law ... just decided to change my mind
> and look this up quickly. Took me about 10 seconds using AskJeeves.
<SNIPPED LEGAL>
The note about plagrisim was not intended to be harmful to any discusiions
in the group or to genuine AFOL's. I am willing to shae ideas. It was there
because I didn't wan't to be ripped off!
What I was afraid off was a clone-brand ripping off the idea. I did'nt wan't
to upset the genuine AFOL's reading LUGNET.
I apologise if I have.
Given the above, I thefore make the following statment:
Ideas and postings on LUGNET ny me may be freely used for non-commerical
purposes by readers of LUGNET (in the development of design concepts and new
ways of building with LEGO(R)) & for accademic purposes with appropriate
citation.
They may also be used by The LEGO Group.
If a member of thier design tema wishs to contatct me I can be reached by
email at ba124@city.ac.uk or through the Dept of Computing, City University,
London, UK.
They may not be used for the development of clone brands in rival to
Lego(R) bricks.
(What this is essentially a protection against rivals ripping off LEGO(R).
This unfortunatly happened in one computer software market and the
copnsequences were not pleasent. It does not prevent genuine AFOL's from
using the ideas suggested for thier own purposes. I would however like to be
acknowlged as a source, as is common pracrtice amongst academics.
This is also WHY I Asked if anoyone else was working on them. This was so
that I could incoprate their thinking (with credit ) into my own. I don't
wan't to ripoff other peoples good ideas,)
If anyone speaks legal perhaps they could clarify the situation.
(I am in the UK)
> > (You know, I've actually been wondering what's happened to Mr Justus...
> > He hasn't posted anything here for quite a while now...)
>
> Me too, but I know I've been abnormally busy lately. No reason to
> assume Mr. Justus has been twiddling his thumbs. I'm sure he has many
> important things to deal with. I won't care if he ever posts here
> again if Lego Direct ends up offering bulk piece ordering. Not
> anything against him, but I need TLG to fulfill my needs as a
> consumer, not be my pal. I have great guys like Todd and Larry to be
> my pals. (I'm sure Brad is a great guy too.)
"The company thats your friend , make the most out of you!"
-Marketing rule.
That said- Where is Brad? I needed clarification about the use of minfigs
and LEGO(R) bricks in non TLG artwork. (I'd drawn some in relation to the
concept and was inteding to put them out for review, but won't until the
situation is clearer.) Also I'll have to hold back on relasing the page I
had planned to outline the ideas in the original posting on.
I found the Fair Play policy unclear on this point.
I DO NOT want to unwittingly infringe on TLG's IPR.
Alex
(Given the earlier thing ..)
The Information in this posting is (C) 2000 Alex Farlie
It may be used for academic & Non commerical purposes with appropriate
citation if used in a published work.
It may not be used for commerical purposes without prior approval
I can be reached at ba124@city.ac.uk or
through the Dept of Computing ,City University,London,UK.
PS. Sorry If this sound too hard on you.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Farlie A
|
| (...) Well... this is ideal, of course... but is it actually enforceable? Even if the information has already been copyrighted, copyright does not protect against independant discovery. Since the information presented on lugnet is practically (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | A Clarification on My earlier posting.
|
| Regarding my earlier messages. Sorry! I was wrong in a number of respects :- ( <SNIP> (...) In Additon LUGNET Terms of use (quoted in context here) clearly state: ' 7. By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, or engaging in any other (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Farlie A
|
| (...) Didn't want what I wrote to be taken as "faulting" him - especially for the formality. Pointing out the _futility_ perhaps, but I got no problem with formality. I thought it was kinda nice. (...) I believe you're incorrect. IANAL (and I don't (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
20 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
|
|
|
|
