 | | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?) —Richard Franks
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?) —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | 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. (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?) —Tamyra Teed
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?) —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Bang Bang (was Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Dave(bang) said: (...) And I'll see your ! and raise you one. Amen!! (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Bang Bang (was Re: Plagiarism again (Was: Can we say, "Plagiarism"?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) D'oh! Too rich for my blood. I'm out! Dave. (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
