 | | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
I think you done good. If TLC wants us to respect their IP, they have to respect ours too. Now, it's true that posting a model to their site grants certain IP rights but they need to consider how to effectively prevent copied models. (24 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) I said as much in my letter to them. :-) (...) However, if the model and images weren't mojo_z's to begin with, then he doesn't own any IP rights that he can grant to others. In my letter to TLC (which is called TLG on the Theme Gallery rules (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
You will let us know what they said about the letter I'm sure :) Hope everything works out for the better! Think about this, I do believe we need someone to keep an eye on this site on a regular basis to make sure this doesn't happen again. I (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Mookie (<388E6181.28DD3F5B@....att.net>) wrote at 02:52:49 (...) I haven't looked, so I can't comment on the rules, but rather than getting all formal, they could just say that the submission must include a picture of the (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) I thought about suggesting that, but I dismissed it as a bad idea, as it might attract kidnappers or child pornographers or something. (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) Here is the letter that I received in full: "Hello, Thank you for the e-mail! Someone else has written in about this so called Winner in November. We will have to see what happens. Best regards" The letter that I sent was much longer. (...) I (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
Susan Hoover wrote in message <8EC773C68rumplestx@...63.236>... (...) That's a pretty limp letter from a corporation which is currently violating a copy right. They also should have been able to investigate the claim and have already removed the (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Susan Hoover (<8EC76843Erumplestx...8.63.236>) wrote at 15:49:58 (...) Well, they wouldn't have to display the 'proof' picture, just have it as evidence. One would hope that they've got internal procedures for stuff like (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:FoyLt9.9y8@lugnet.com... (...) violating (...) The reply I received (which I passed on to Susan) was very similar and equally compact but a bit more positive. At least someone has acknowedged (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) But how would they know that the kid pictured was the kid who sent in the application? The safest way to determine that no cheating has taken place might be to cache every LEGO image on the internet and compare using image recognition. A (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Richard Franks (<FozIrM.FA1@lugnet.com>) wrote at 08:11:46 (...) They don't know that *now*. Anyone can say they're a 14yo. Like I said, it can be faked, but you can't just steal a picture of a model and submit it. (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) Maybe applicants could contact Lego in advance of model submission, and Lego could then send a visually distinctive (by color, perhaps, or image pattern?) voucher that must appear in the picture with the prospective model. This probably isn't (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) Agreed--especially considering the zeal with which they protect their own "intellectual properties." Dave! (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) I would say more cost effective than having lawyers sic'd on em.. The way they get about someone invading their rights, they should expect the same from someone who's rights they violate with this. Granted it's not their fault in some (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
Mookie <Mookie1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:38905CA0.1E3284...att.net... (...) I would say not. Is a single AFOL going to sue TLC? No way! They already have lawyers on salary, so it isn't going to run up their bills as fast as the (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) I don't want to start a range war or anything but I DO want to say that, whatever TLC's other faults, I don't see their lawyers as NEARLY as bad as a lot of other firms. I really feel their fair play policy is a model of reasonableness and we (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) That's true--I wasn't very precise in wording my earlier post, either. TLC lawyers are indeed remarkably cool about web-posting images and scans. I was referring more to materials that they decide are "off limits" and the vigor with which they (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
Mike Poindexter wrote in message ... (...) route (...) The (...) just (...) Just (...) to (...) Actually, I think if you had a good solid case (which I think this particular instance is), I think you'd find you would do quite well. I don't know (...) (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Bang Bang (was Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
Dave(bang) said: (...) And I'll see your ! and raise you one. Amen!! (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Bang Bang (was Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) D'oh! Too rich for my blood. I'm out! Dave. (24 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) I aggree with this. It also means that parents have the final say on whether kids submit their models to the contest, especailly if they have to submit some personal details as well. -- Jonathan Wilson wilsonj@xoommail.com (URL) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) Of course, this assumes that the parents are honest themselves, or at least care whether or not their kid does something unethical like submitting someone else's creation to a LEGO Web Page. I mean, the kid has to have learned that such (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) Not just unethical, illegal. (...) Actually I think school is a more likely source. I don't recall many discussions about copyright violations happening at home in my childhood. Regards, Steve Hodge (24 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) I think he was referring to taking credit for someone else's work in general, not violating copyrights. --Colin __ __ __ __ __ __ | |_| |_| |_| | | |_| | | | Brick Engineer | | | Colin R Gutierrez | __ __ __ __ | 2000 | |___...___|| |_| |_| (...) (24 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?)
|
|
(...) *somewhere*. (...) I don't think it is so much that the parents teach the kids that this type of behavior is OK as it is that they DON'T bother to teach them that it is NOT OK. Just an observation from a non-parent, but quite a few parents (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
