Subject:
|
Re: Another questionable decision from lego...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:01:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
879 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Another questionable decision from lego...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
