| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Dave Schuler writes:
> It sounds like a freedom of expression issue to me, regardless of the
> actions of a tiny (and disturbed) minority of the audience. Brendan claims
> no endorsement by TLG, and presumably he acquired his bricks legally, so I
> don't see why the manufacturer should have any input whatsoever. Brendan
> may choose to act in a manner consistent with TLG's wishes, but that's
> entirely his choice to make and should be free of threats (implied or
> otherwise) of litigation.
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 their brand being portrayed in a way they don't like, I think they
have every right to act to stop it. And in this case, it appears that the BT
is the source (however in part) of the offensive images.
(moved to off-topic.debate)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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? (...) (21 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
| (...) That's not an unreasonable interpretation, though one needs to be careful to avoid baby-with-the-bathwater reasoning. Brendan can hardly be held accountable for the actions of his audience, just as Martin Scorsese can't be blamed for (...) (21 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
