| |
In lugnet.admin.database, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson <wilsonj@xoommail.com> writes:
> > > [...]
> > > I assume that we wont be seeing a reference to 5987 dino research
> > > station or 4166 mickeys car garage on the pause database any time soon,
> > > then?
> >
> > That's a tough one...I don't know yet. Certainly not the pictures until
> > the real consumer catalog comes out (or the sets), but the set numbers
> > and names are a different issue. It's probably OK to list those now,
> > but I'll have to check.
>
> Excuse me?
>
> So it's alright to release a textual description of something that is
> supposed to be 'confidential', but not OK to post a graphic of it????
Like I said, I don't know for sure yet. The reason they're very different
issues is because one's a copyright infringement on top of a potential
publicity rights violation and other is simply a potential publicity rights
violation, which it may not even actually be since so many set numbers have
already shown up through legitimate channels. Whether 5987 & 4166 have shown
up legitimately is not an area of my expertise, so I can't answer that.
Once they do, of course, then I don't see any problem with them being in
the Pause/Lugnet DB.
> If you are trying to protect TLC's rights by keeping this information from
> the public,
Partially, but that's more Suzanne's angle than my angle. TLC can certainly
look out for themselves, IMHO. They could post here, for example, and let
us all know definitively, if they really wanted to make their policy 100%
clear. My angle is mostly that I worry that we look bad as a group of fans
when we go into a feeding frenzy over leaked info. (Nothing to worry about
with officially released info, though, IMHO.)
> then I cant see how they differ.
>
> So the words "Star Wars Bucket" are ok, but a picture of a bucket is not?
> How and why is it a different issue.
It depends. In the case of 1886, the information (albeit slim) about that
Star Wars bucket was obtained through legitimate channels. But we don't
have any picture of it, and if we did, we couldn't put it in unless it was
obtained legitimately. That's just our own policy for the DB -- erring on
the side of conservative since we have to play so many angles.
> The debates about whether the sets will actually ship or not, that the
> information is confidential to the dealers etc, is exactly the same whether
> it is text or graphics.
True.
Of course, much of that sort of thing that goes on is pure speculation, and
there's nothing wrong with speculating, IMHO.
> I think you guys have got yourselves into a right mess over this issue......
Indeed.
> Good luck sorting it out!
Thanks.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: About this 2000 dealers catalog
|
| (...) Excuse me? So it's alright to release a textual description of something that is supposed to be 'confidential', but not OK to post a graphic of it???? If you are trying to protect TLC's rights by keeping this information from the public, then (...) (25 years ago, 6-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.general)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
