Subject:
|
Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:56:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
469 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > 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?
>
> Call it "art", and you can do what you like! ;)
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)
>
> Is there a right to free speech in Legoland?
What about TLC's rights? You know, there are laws against publically speaking
lies about people-- speech really isn't "free". You have the right not to have
your name publically impuned by someone else. TLC has the right not to have
their trademarks (for which they paid handsomely) impuned by others. In the
case of the BT, BPS is using a specific trademark of TLC-- it is an open and
shut case.
In the case presented by Dave! the issue isn't so clear. A large sculpture of
purely bricks could possibly *not* be LEGO (rather a clone) and so their case
may be more tenuous.
In that case they'd probably resort to Plan B-- sue you anyway and lawyer you
to death;-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | 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?
|
| (...) 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?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
