| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Richard Marchetti wrote:
Okay, point taken, but I was searching for “Batlord”, “Executioner”, and
“Batlord Executioner” and I got a whole lot of nothing. You’ll have to excuse
me if I assumed you would have posted something about it by name.
| |
It’s probably mentioned before that time, but those refs will suffice -- not
a year, but at least 3 years, Laswell!
|
I am not one for whom addressing me by my last name is acceptable. I kindly ask
you to refer to me as David, Dave, Purple Dave, PD, or even just Purple. Given
how common the names David and Dave are, one of the last three is preferable
(hence the reason why the nickname was necessary in the first place).
| |
I could be wrong, but I see lot’s of things within these newsgroups that
influence what TLC does product-wise. I have every reason to believe that
they not only know about what we do but watch fairly carefully for product
ideas. And why not? It’s free product research.
|
It’s true, but that doesn’t mean you can know for certain that your specific
custom was what inspired the minifig stud-cape. IIRC, it was first introduced
for the Spiderman sets (which should have been in development no later than 2nd
Quarter 2001 for an April 2002 release, and therefore should be at most 1.5
years later, not 3), and it’s the only sensible way of allowing him to be
attached to lots of ceiling/wall surfaces without having to built in handles for
him to hang from. As I said previously, I also customize Star Wars action
figures, which gives me a good example for this situation. I customized an
orange-pauldroned Sandtrooper who holds the Light Repeating Cannon into a
white-pauldroned Sandtrooper who holds the Heavy Assault Rifle. A few months
later the very first pics of the Pop-Up Cantina playset started surfacing on the
Internet, and the pack-in Sandtrooper looked so similar to mine that it could
easily be argued that they’d copied it. I know for a fact that they didn’t
because I’ve never even photographed it yet. But what that tells me is that you
shouldn’t claim that something that simple was copied unless you can find solid
proof, because it’s entirely plausible that someone else could have come up with
a similar idea without ever seeing yours.
| |
If they had done nearly exactly the same thing I had done with my
wing-attachment element it might have been legally interesting.
|
First of all, I don’t think they would have, since it wouldn’t be as useful for
making Spiderman stick to non-floor surfaces. Second, unless you had an
airtight case (i.e. documented proof that a LEGO part designer said, “Hey,
that’s a neat idea. I think I’ll borrow it.”), I doubt you’d be able get very
far with it in court.
| |
But whatever...it’s not really my big focus in life.
|
Not to nitpick, but you were the one who brought it up (and I’m not really sure
why).
| |
It’d more interesting to hear from those that think they have IP rights in
brick configurations or assemblages (I am not speaking for them but I am
thinking that people like Larry P. and Bram L. think something along those
lines -- I actually disagree with that viewpoint, at least as far as element
configurations go).
|
It really depends on what you’re talking about. By posting images of your MOCs
in the public domain (i.e. the Internet), you are inherently giving anyone
permission to view them, and by extension to attempt to copy them. If someone
does copy it, there’s nothing you can do about it. If that someone then turns
around and starts selling them, you would have a legitimate grievance
(especially if you’d produced instructions that they had access to), and you
could possibly win a lawsuit against them, either requiring them to C&D or
entitling you to some sort of royalties. It gets trickier than that if the MOC
is based on something from someone else’s IP. Noone can legally sell copies of
my BioniWars MOCs because they’d need to get licensing from Lucasfilm to produce
them because they’re Star Wars characters, they’d need to get licensing through
TLC because they hold the license for all Star Wars based construction toys, and
they’d need to get permission from me because I’m the artist who designed them.
Aside from all of that, it’s disrespectful to knowingly borrow someone else’s
design aspects without giving them credit for the idea, but not technically
illegal.
| |
Element design is a separate matter though -- it is precisely such design
infringement that made it possible for TLC to shut down Tyco Superblocks, or
didn’t you know that?
|
I don’t really remember ever hearing about Tyco Superblocks before this past
week, but I do know that TLC has been very protective of their corporate image,
and by extension, the design of their primary product. It would be no different
than if someone knocked off the Tinker Toys design and started selling them as a
“compatible” product. TLC doesn’t have any right to control a monopoly on the
“construction toy” market in general, but they do have certain rights as far as
“interlocking building bricks” are concerned, since they came up with and
patented that specific design, and a lot of companies chose to ignore the bit
about the patent (I remember hearing that it recently expired, but I’m certain I
remember seeing Mega-Bloks when I was a kid). Chevrolet would probably look
unkindly on someone who started producing “Corvette-compatible” cars as well
(no, it’s not a Porsche, it’s a Porschay!).
| |
The rest of what you had to say was just lot’s of empty brand-loyalist
reasoning as far as I can see. The rest is just you setting up pointless
arguments about brand purity.
|
You appear to have missed the point of my statement. Let me rephrase it so it’s
a bit more clear: You don’t get to decide whether clone-built MOCs (partially
or fully) are allowed in groups outside of OT.C because you don’t run this
website. I don’t get to decide whether they belong outside of OT.C because I
don’t run this website either. Todd and Suzanne get to decide where they belong
because they own, operate, and fund this website, and we’re all just playing in
their sandbox.
| |
You will doubtless claim some kind of newsgroup category geek supremacy over
me,
|
Not hardly. I’m fairly new here and I’m still figuring out parts of the
category tree myself (hence the reason why I asked a while back if there’s a
specific group where it’s appropriate to post about non-minifig MOCs relating to
comic books and cartoons). But I do know that if you step outside the charter
guidelines, you can expect to be corrected at some point. Sometimes nicely,
other times not so much. I also know that even if you do post strictly by the
charter guidelines, there might be people who abuse you for some perceived
offense. Dave asked a legitimate question. Terry gave a legitimate opinion
(and went well out of his way to make it crystal clear that he was simply
expressing his opinion when asked for it), but it could have just as easily
resulted in Dave getting flamed by someone for offending him by even asking the
question outside OT.C in the first place.
| |
but you lose in the area of inclusiveness. What the charter for the
newsgroup in question actually says is this:
lugnet.announce.moc? Personal announcements of personal creations (“MOC”s).
This is where you can tell everyone about your latest and greatest models,
creations, minifig characters, etc. NOTE: do not post announcements of
personal creations in the main lugnet.announce group.
Do you see anything that expressly forbids an announcment that then has
followups set to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands? I don’t.
|
No, but one could argue that it’s implied between the OT.C charter and the
primary focus of this website. I’m not going to be the one to argue that, since
I don’t really know where Todd and Suzanne stand on that specific issue. I
don’t build with clones, so I’ve never cared enough to find out.
| |
And FWIW, I am convinced your views are shortsighted so you will not be
convincing me in any case. You want to divide people into neat little
categories because of brand loyalty, while I want to join people together
because I don’t think brand loyalty or purity is an important issue at all.
But fine, do as pleases you and so will I.
I’ll stick with:
“Lego purists insisting on 100% lego purity from others are idiots.”
|
Hey, waitaminit, you’re one of the people who rants on how “evil” Bionicle is,
but you think it’s wrong to expect others to respect your decision to use
non-LEGO bricks? How interestingly hypocritical of you... (and before you
reply, note that not once while stating that I am brand-loyal did I argue that
everyone else should be)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A serious clone question
|
| (...) See: (URL) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 05:18:47 GM "I was also carving bricks from the first (see my wings attachment at the page noted above)." also: (URL) It's probably mentioned before that time, but those refs will suffice -- not a year, but at (...) (21 years ago, 18-Aug-03, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
|
66 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
