Subject:
|
Re: Confused ....?? (Policy on LEGO Logo use)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 24 May 2003 15:57:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3273 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Allan Bedford writes:
> I'm not a lawyer but my _guess_ is that this reference is directed toward
> persons or companies who may wish to create actual printed copies of the
> LEGO logo for purposes such as (but not limited to) advertising LEGO
> products.
That's my guess too. I've seen a number of ad flyers where the logo is
added in as a seperate graphic next to photos of the various items that
they're trying to sell.
> Most companies are extremely specific about how you reproduce their logo in >print materials. They insist on exacting color matches, specific font >families/sizes etc. And with good reason. The logo looks a certain way for >a certain reason and they wish to protect its appearance as much as the name >itself.
You mean so it doesn't get display in Times New Roman with a pink
background? ;P
> It's my personal opinion that a statement such as this is not directly aimed >at the average LEGO fan with some sort of personal website.
Probably not, but I felt it would be better to post the entire entry
rather than just one line.
> See above. The obvious logic here is that if you are photographing an
> authorized product, then the logo has already been reproduced/printed
> exactly as the company desires.
Just as important is the fact that they have branded all of their
product, and when you see one of their product boxes, they would want you to
immediately associate it with their company. Forcing people to debrand
their boxes in all photographs displayed on unofficial websites could either
lead to confusion as to who actually produced that set, or it could lead to
the perception that the person posting that photo is of the "I like their
product but I hate the company" group. Either result is a PR disaster.
> Do you mean posting a copy of the logo on your website? If so, I would
> agree. They do not want anyone presenting the logo in such a way as to
> suggest that the site may be affiliated with the company, when in fact it
> may not be.
Yes. You are not allowed to scan in _just_ the logo and place it as a
stand-along graphic on your website, unless you are an online retail store
that has obtained permission, or you are a business partner that has also
obtained permission.
> Again, a reminder that I'm not a lawyer. However, I would personally have a
> hard time believing that the company would seek to suppress this sort of image:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/j1a3l5/Mosaics/dscn1634.jpg
I think that falls into the grey area where technically it might be in
violation of the FUP, but telling someone they can't post photos of their
logo built with their product is PR badness. As long as you didn't use that
photo in a website header graphic or somesuch, that is. If you did that,
I'm sure you'd get to chat with their lawyers about it.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Confused ....?? (Policy on LEGO Logo use)
|
| (...) I'm not a lawyer but my _guess_ is that this reference is directed toward persons or companies who may wish to create actual printed copies of the LEGO logo for purposes such as (but not limited to) advertising LEGO products. Most companies (...) (22 years ago, 24-May-03, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
