Subject:
|
Re: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer™ User Agreement (was: Re: New stuff at shop.lego.com)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:25:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
19 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> UA> By submission of a picture for the creation of a LEGO® Mosaic, YOU (the
> UA> customer) represent and warrant that the picture, and the use by the
> UA> LEGO Group (LEGO) hereof: (a) does not infringe on any third party's
> UA> intellectual property or proprietary rights, including rights under
> UA> copyright, or rights of publicity or privacy; (b) does not violate any
> UA> law, statute, ordinance or regulation; (c) is not defamatory, trade
> UA> libellous, pornographic or obscene; (d) does not contain any harmful
> UA> or deleterious material; (e) is not grossly offensive and does not
> UA> include blatant expressions of bigotry, prejudice, racism, hatred, or
> UA> profanity; (f) is not promoting or providing instructional information
> UA> about illegal activities; (g) is not promoting or depicting physical
> UA> harm or injury against any group or individual, or promoting any act
> UA> of cruelty to animals; (h) does not display material that exploits
> UA> children under 18 years of age.
>
> This seems rather standard, although I wonder: Would nudes in the manner of
> Man Ray be considered pornography? If I upload a nude photo image whose
> copyright is not owned by me, clearly I would be violating (a). But if I
> own the copyright to a photograph I took, and I feel it is art rather than
> pornography, does it pass under (c)?
>
>
The legal language they use would seem to permit any artistic or educational
(i.e. not "obscene" in the Supreme Court sense) nude material. I'm
surprised they diddn't add a "family/child friendly" catchall.
> UA> By submission of YOUR picture, YOU further represent and warrant that
> UA> at no time will the LEGO Mosaic product be used for anything other than
> UA> private, home, non-commercial purposes,
I guess they don't want you selling them in stores or baseball stadiums.
Doesn't this violate fair use and right of first sale limitations? After
all, we're talking about one physical purchased object, not copies or
derivative work. Can Sony keep me from selling my PS2? I don't think so.
> Concerns:
>
> 1. Does this mean that I can't send in a solid 75% graytone to get a whole
> bunch of 1x1 bricks in the warm light gray color and resell them online?
That would not be the same as the "LEGO mosaic product" so I guess you'd be ok.
>
>
> UA> and that neither YOU nor
> UA> anyone authorized by YOU will at any time make further copies or
> UA> adaptations or engage in any public display or dissemination thereof
> UA> without obtaining the permission of all owners, including LEGO, of rights
> UA> therein.
>
> I find this part puzzling and somewhat disturbing. Concerns:
>
> 4. Does this mean that I am not allowed to display -- on my own personal
> website -- a close-up photograph or depiction of an image created with the
> Brick-o-Lizer™ product without the permission of the LEGO Company? Clearly
> this is something I may want to do if I am a LEGO fan and want to share my
> creation with others. Whom at LEGO would I write to obtain such permision?
I doubt they meant this, but maybe this is a substitute for the missing
"Family/Child friendly" requirement above. They would probably selectively
enforce this to get material that is offensive to TLC off the net.
> 5. Does the above also mean that I am not allowed to sell or even distribute
> copies of building instructions to other people, so they may create additional
> copies of a mosaic image I created using LEGO's Brick-o-Lizer™ product?
I think this is exactly what they want to prevent.
> 6. If I happen to have extra bricks of my own in sufficient quantities, am I
> allowed to create additional copies of my mosaic using those extra bricks I
> already own, or must I create physical copies of my mosaic using only bricks
> that I purchase directly from LEGO for a one-time use in a mosaic?
Once again, in the US, Fair use would allow you to make one backup copy of the
actual building instructions, and more importantly to *USE* those instructions
as many times as you want for your own personal use. You should be able to
make as many mosaics as you want for your own personal use.
>
> UA> All rights under copyright in any new material added by LEGO in
> UA> connection with preparing the final LEGO Mosaic product are owned and
> UA> retained by the LEGO Group.
>
> This clearly doesn't prevent me from making additional mosaic images with
> other mosaic tools, such as Eric Harshbarger's excellent "Pixelego" Java
> application or LUGNET's "Mosaic Maker" web application -- that's good.
>
> However, doesn't the above give LEGO the exclusive and unlimited right to use
> any final product I create with the Brick-o-Lizer™ in any way it sees fit,
> while completely preventing me from doing the same?
>
> Wouldn't LEGO customers be better served by a license agreement which puts the
> copyright in the user's hands (not in LEGO's hands), and instead grants LEGO
> a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use the final product?
>
> I will not use a mosaic generator which prevents me from doing whatever I
> please with the final product. I would expect to be able to own it just like
> any other LEGO product, free of any restrictions.
I believe fair use law already gives you that right.
KL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
