Subject:
|
Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:42:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
615 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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, everything would be fine. I don't know if they can actually
> trademark a MOC--so as long as BPS hasn't used the name "LEGO" or any other
> TLC trademarked name on his site, I don't think it is an open and shut case.
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 they should be able to dictate how it is publically portrayed.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
