 | | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) That assumes a particular definition of MOC. One could argue that "Take hairpiece A, put it on top of head B, on torso C, with legs D" is as much a MOC (albeit a very simple one) as "Take brick A, stick it on plate B, etc". Bruce (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Maybe a few decades ago, but not anymore. At least, not unless the patent can legally be ignored by 10+ other brands! Dave! (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
I thought that the patented part of the basic brick was the tubes Lester (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
|
(...) With due respect, John, what book would you call "worthy" of the award? Have you read either of Moore's books, or have you only read what other conservatives have said about them? I've previously noted Moore's really unfortunate tendencies to (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Wow, John--this is one of those rare moments when you and I are in complete agreement (at least with the NEA part). I can think of absolutely no reason whatsoever that the government should provide public funding for artists. Having said that, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
