Subject:
|
Re: Use of LEGO on album cover... legal or no?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:34:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
399 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
[snip]
> Needless to say I am very disappointed.
>
> The crux of their argument is that our album cover runs too great a risk of
> creating consumer confusion. That is a bit hard for me to believe.
> Wouldn't any official LEGO product prominently display the world-famous
> bright red LEGO logo in several places? Our proposed album art did not use
> that or any other LEGO logo, nor even the word LEGO at all.
>
> According to their view, it's hard to imagine any album cover which features
> LEGO in any prominence getting official permission, and that is kind of sad.
>
> I am interested in hearing what other LUGNETers think about this case. Does
> this denial of permission seem reasonable? Do you think the law is on their
> side here?
Well, I guess I'll share a bit of my opinion on the LEGO brand, trademarks, etc.
I firmly believe LEGO is overstepping their bounds here. The only thing
they really have going for them in this (and other) situations is that they
are a large company with a lot of money to pay lawyers. I don't believe the
law is on their side (but IANAL), still, they could win simply because of
their resources.
I've dealt a lot with the company on a personal level and can understand
their reasons for protecting their brand name. I still firmly believe LEGO
can (and will) be used as a medium of artistic expression, even into the
commercial realm, and can still be separated from the company which produces
the toys.
I believe LEGO is paranoid, to the point of quashing enthusiastic fans,
about their brand name. They have a legitimate right, and need, to protect
their identity, but in this case (and others) they have taken it too far. I
am curious, however, why they didn't quash Eric Harshbarger's desk that he
sold. They should have been more on the ball there.
I believe LEGO is, and should be, an artistic medium unto its own. I will
continue to use LEGO as an artistic medium in ways I deem fit - afterall, I
bought the bricks, and I own the bricks.
I happen to like the people I've dealt with in the company, but I don't
happen to like this policy. Its just a case of a large company intimidating
individuals who want to express themselves by celebrating their products.
How's that for embracing the fan community?
LEGO embraces the fan community in many ways now, and I believe it will
increase as time goes by. But this incident here is definitely _not_
embracing the fan community.
If LEGO can do this, what else are they capable of?
> In the end, I feel quite sure that in the future LEGO will rue the day that
> disaccociated themselves and their products from us. We firmly believe that
> The Human Heads will be the most widely recognized band name in the world by
> 2005. @8-D
LOL!! :-D And for that, I hope you are. :)
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Use of LEGO on album cover... legal or no?
|
| (...) What on Earth are you talking about? That's like saying, "I don't know why Big Lumber Company didn't sue when John Carpenter made a desk out of their wood and sold it on eBay." The album cover makes much more sense. It's pretty clear that they (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Use of LEGO on album cover... legal or no?
|
| Hi, everybody. Just wanted to fill you guys in on what has happened since I first posted. A fellow LUGNETer sent me the e-mail address of someone at LEGO who deals with these sorts of things, and with whom he had dealt successfully in the past. I (...) (23 years ago, 12-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
28 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
|
|
|
|
