 | | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) There is a tricky situation here with respect to trademarks I think. If I say "I have built a pornographic mosaic using LEGO bricks." I am simply making a statement of fact. I should even be able to advertise this fact (since it is an accurate (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Most of BPS's scenes in the BT *aren't* MOCs, but rather pics of minifigs with talk bubbles, and some cases they are in rather offensive poses (to which, no doubt, drew the pedaphiles). The *minifig* is most definitely a trademark of TLC, and (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) When I had a run-in with the legal dep't many years ago, it was because I used the name LEGO, and their logo in my movie, as well as some other names that they had trademarked. They said that if I removed the names and logos from the movie, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) It's funny how differently we see things. I see these artists not as "hiding behind the First Amendment," but insted standing on the shoulders of the giants who made the First Amendment so and proudly declaring their work in the Land Of The (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) If by "personal agenda", you mean to encompass the nation... " Moore's triumph was boosted by a strong telephone vote from the public, who were invited to participate in the awards for the first time this year. Until now only those in the (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) I agree. How sad. Instead of choosing a book *worthy* of the award, let's choose a book that pushes our personal agenda. Merit really never entered into it. JOHN (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) I'm glad you put a winky there-- that is one of my hot buttons-- "artists" hiding behind the First Amendment while they purvey filth and obscenity-- and then *I* have to support it! (NEA in the US) (...) What about TLC's rights? You know, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Call it "art", and you can do what you like! ;) Is there a right to free speech in Legoland? Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) ...and now it's UK "book of the year": Moore wins Book Of The Year (URL) bit of a worry really. Scott A (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Darn! You're doing this too? I thought I had an original... Back to the drawingboard, Chris (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) At what point do I agree to their "fair use" policy? When I purchase a product, as long as I am not violating any copyright, or patent issues where does TLC have any sway over how I use these products. I sign no agreement at time of purchase, (...) (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Grumble. Well, your assessment is correct (based on precedent), but I still don't like it! Here's a more abstract question--if I buy a LEGO product, am I automatically entering into a "fair use" contract respecting TLG's ideas of propriety? (...) (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) I think the issue is one of *propriety ownership*. The "minifig" image is intellectual property of TLC and a direct reflection of their brand, and we all know how protective TLC is about their brand (rightly and justifiably so). If they see (...) (22 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
I'm addressing three of Frank's notes here, not just the one upline from where I'm posting. As a result of my use of "good and just" coupled with the assertion that rights are merely a legal construct, Frank pointed out that we need to know the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) First, your stance seems to assume that notions like 'competent,' 'fraudulent,' and 'fully informed' are binary in nature and that a person is on one side or another of a clearly demarked line. I don't think that's so. Second, It's still my (...) (22 years ago, 23-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Regarding the US, I have no insight. Regarding France, two things take place: a) the vast majority of the muslim citizens has a feeling of distance towards politics (to which a number of explanations concurr); b) the extremists who do exist (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Buying allegiance is not restricted to the "Muslim world". Right now I expect Bush is horse-trading all over. His case is that strong. (...) Part of the problem is that the USA did not pay what it said it would last time around. Bush should (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Have you even looked? From Aug '98 [ie before the USA woke up to terrorism]: Fight terrorism, but not through Draconian laws (URL) Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the British Muslim community has no sympathy whatsoever for any act of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Paper Tigers [Re: What about the first?]
|
|
(...) I feared that quote may have been erroneous. I did some checking. It turns up only in one place on the web: (URL) someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Agreed. <snip> (...) Okay, but what about the vast Muslim population in free societies such as the US, or even, say, France? (...) Okay, I see your point. But realize that even within Christianity itself there are *vast* differences, to the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
