 | | | | | |
I just read one of the news articles on the Newgrounds website (place
where people upload Flash and stop-motion animations) that said they had
to delete over 100 Lego stop-motion animations because it was demanded
by Lego's lawyers. The origional news post:
"There was some bad news this past week... Despite there being national
festivals for Lego movies, Lego didn't seem to appreciate the work by
fans here on Newgrounds. I had a nasty confrontation with their lawyers,
who wanted the Lego stuff removed.
A lot of times I fight this stuff, but in this case * it... If Lego
doesn't appreciate their fans, then I don't want to promote their toys
anyway. I was a Constructs kid myself. So I deleted over 100 Lego
submissions. I did regret it afterwards, but now it's done. We had some
really great submissions, and rarely were they crude in nature."
Does anybody at Lego have any explanation for this, or was this another
"nobody will notice" thing?
--
Markham Carroll
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Markham Carroll wrote:
> I just read one of the news articles on the Newgrounds website (place
> where people upload Flash and stop-motion animations) that said they had
> to delete over 100 Lego stop-motion animations because it was demanded
> by Lego's lawyers. The origional news post:
>
> "There was some bad news this past week... Despite there being national
> festivals for Lego movies, Lego didn't seem to appreciate the work by
> fans here on Newgrounds. I had a nasty confrontation with their lawyers,
> who wanted the Lego stuff removed.
>
> A lot of times I fight this stuff, but in this case * it... If Lego
> doesn't appreciate their fans, then I don't want to promote their toys
> anyway. I was a Constructs kid myself. So I deleted over 100 Lego
> submissions. I did regret it afterwards, but now it's done. We had some
> really great submissions, and rarely were they crude in nature."
>
> Does anybody at Lego have any explanation for this, or was this another
> "nobody will notice" thing?
Well not knowing any details, I'd suggest they probably asked for the word LEGO
to be removed from the animations, and because that was too difficult the Tom
guy probably decided to delete them instead. I've never heard of TLC asking
people to remove pictures of movies containing actual bricks, just their trade
name. But I'm just guessing.
And Tom is conspicuous by his absence in the thread on newgrounds.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Markham Carroll wrote:
> > I just read one of the news articles on the Newgrounds website (place
> > where people upload Flash and stop-motion animations) that said they had
> > to delete over 100 Lego stop-motion animations because it was demanded
> > by Lego's lawyers. The origional news post:
> >
> > "There was some bad news this past week... Despite there being national
> > festivals for Lego movies, Lego didn't seem to appreciate the work by
> > fans here on Newgrounds. I had a nasty confrontation with their lawyers,
> > who wanted the Lego stuff removed.
> >
> > A lot of times I fight this stuff, but in this case * it... If Lego
> > doesn't appreciate their fans, then I don't want to promote their toys
> > anyway. I was a Constructs kid myself. So I deleted over 100 Lego
> > submissions. I did regret it afterwards, but now it's done. We had some
> > really great submissions, and rarely were they crude in nature."
> >
> > Does anybody at Lego have any explanation for this, or was this another
> > "nobody will notice" thing?
>
> Well not knowing any details, I'd suggest they probably asked for the word LEGO
> to be removed from the animations, and because that was too difficult the Tom
> guy probably decided to delete them instead. I've never heard of TLC asking
> people to remove pictures of movies containing actual bricks, just their trade
> name. But I'm just guessing.
>
> And Tom is conspicuous by his absence in the thread on newgrounds.
>
> ROSCO
NOTE: This is not an official LEGO response (see the email addy I used), so all
that disclaimer type stuff applies.
Also, this is not based on anything but my own observations and not official
LEGO policy.
It took me about ten seconds to see a big reason to issue a removal order for
that website. Right on the main page under "NG Features" is a section for
mature content. That, in my own opinion, is enough for LEGO to not want their
product associated with the site, free advertising or not. Not to mention the
graphic (although cartoon) violence and political messages I saw in browsing
just a few of their flash features.
Remembering the LEGO values, I see this on the main page, as the "Featured iFilm
Video":
"CARMEN ELECTRA - Carmen Electra and her team of sexy Playmate cheerleaders
bump, grind and get nasty to a dirty song!"
Personally, I wouldn't want any association between this site and myself if I
made a children's toy.
-Brian
Once again, these statements and opinions are my own, not The LEGO Company's.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> I've never heard of TLC asking people to remove pictures of movies
> containing actual bricks, just their trade name. But I'm just guessing.
The two main justifications that I know of for the LEGO lawyers to get on your
case are:
1. Trademark infringement. Sounds simple, but many people mistakenly think
they're okay, only to find out later that they're not. Possible infringements
include, but are not limited to, using the word "LEGO" in the domain or name for
a website, or displaying the LEGO logo as a standalone image (you're allowed to
post photos of products or packaging that have the LEGO logo displayed on them,
though).
2. Unauthorized spoilers. Posting pics of upcoming products that have not been
cleared for public unveiling will likely get you pounced on faster than
trademark infringement, since you'll be much more likely to draw the attention
of the online community, which in turn means that they'll be much more likely to
discuss it where a LEGO rep will notice. Again, people often mistakenly think
they're perfectly within their rights to do this, primarily based on the 1st
Amendment, but TLC owns the copyright on all of their product, and they are
allowed to prohibit anyone and everyone from publishing images of anything where
the copyright is still valid.
To date, I have not heard of any single instance of the LEGO lawyers clashing
with a website owner that have not directly involved one of those two
categories. I've had a number of people point me to websites involving
LEGO-related material that I'm pretty sure TLC would not want to be associated
with, but none of them have ever been hassled about it that I can recall.
| | | | | | |
