 | | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 25-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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, (...) (21 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 (21 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 (...) (21 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, (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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, (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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, (...) (21 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 (21 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! (21 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (21 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Well, John, maybe you just don't understand art ? Don't forget that not so long ago, many great artists were considered doing filth and obcenity too... These artists are now the great ones that we study in art school. Artists, in my opinion, (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) That's a tricky accusation, and it's circular reasoning besides! There are many examples of "art" that I "understand," but I still find them to be garbage. (...) Although in the broad sense your statement can be true, but it is at least as (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Perhaps, but then again, I *was* an Art Major in kollege... (...) Gotcha. Go ahead and try and list one, and you will instantly realize what I am talking about. (...) Right, and the same applies to the question "what is art?" The bottom line (...) (21 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Good luck in court;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
|
(...) Yeah, it's not like TLC have printed "LEGO" on every stud or something... :) Best regards, /Tobbe (URL) SPAM when e-mailing) (21 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
