To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 19105
19104  |  19106
Subject: 
Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:28:56 GMT
Viewed: 
507 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
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
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.

  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?  Would this hold true even if I were a minor?  Or how about if I
used Best-Lock or Coko or Oxford figures, which at a glance are
indistinguishable (to the uninformed viewer) from true LEGO minifigs?
Here's another hypothetical;  Suppose I use MegaBloks to make a huge mosaic
based on a graphic pornographic photo, and suppose that my mosaic is
popularized via Internet word of mouth as "that dirty picture made with
LEGOs," can LEGO take any action against me?  How about if I include a
disclaimer at the top of the page?
I'm not trying to be absurd, but to what extent is TLG reasonably allowed to
go in protecting their propriety?

   Dave!

(moved to off-topic.debate)

  Doh!  I thought I did that.  Sorry, all!



Message has 3 Replies:
  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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR