Subject:
|
Re: Brick Testament in Trouble?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:15:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
550 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > 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)
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, I would suggest that the right to free speech is more
important than any individual's (or group's) objection to allegedly filthy
or obscene speech. But that doesn't apply to slander or deliberately false
speech, IMO.
> > 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.
I've been mulling this over, and I should say outright that I haven't
reached any conclusions. But here are a few alternative concerns along
similar lines:
Suppose I legally purchase a Mercedes Benz and I later use that vehicle
during the commission of a crime. If I film myself in the process of
committing the crime, and the Merecedes logo is clearly visible in the film,
can Mercedes sue me for representing their brand in a way undesirable to them?
What if I use a Microsoft product to hack into a government network, and
during my trial I praise the MS software for its usefulness. Can Microsoft
legally require me to stop speaking of their product, if in fact it was
indeed the product I used?
What if I were a woman, and I wore a t-shirt with the LEGO logo across the
chest; could TLG object on the grounds that the placement of the logo
implies some unintented connotation of sexuality?
What if I make a collage using a range of media, and I include a minifig
in the construction? Does TLG get to approve or reject my artwork because
of their rejection of a single component of a larger work?
I can come up with other examples, if I think about it further. I guess
my feeling is that, as long as the consumer isn't creating a libellous
representation of the product, then the manufacturer has to accept that the
product may be visible in ways other than those intended at time of sale.
In addition, it seems to me that the manufacturer would have to demonstrate
real harm to their trademark or property before they could claim by fiat
that the artist must desist. It's unfortunate that pedophiles view a
particular website, but it's 100% possible (though admittedly unlikely) that
they had links to Brendan's site because they enjoy plastic construction toys.
I'm not sure that Brendan's work can truly be said to "impugn" TLG's name
or trademark, since his work does not challenge the trademark status of the
LEGO brand. It may be present images that are uncomfortable to the TLG
powers that be, but nowhere does Brendan imply official endorsement of his
creations. For that matter, parody and satire are very well protected under
the First Amendment, so even Zbigniew Libera's work (the Concentration Camp)
would likely triumph if TLG tried to litigate him into silence.
Come to think of it, I had to look up Zbigniew's name to get the spelling
right, and I came upon a link to Ken Rice's site:
http://users.erols.com/kennrice/lego-kz.htm
Here's a quote from a press release from TLG:
"If the had described his ultimate project to us in advance, he naturally
would not have received a single LEGO element from us!"
The issue in that case was that Libera received a donation of bricks from
TLG, and TLG thereby became the direct sponsor of Libera's work, so they
could likely take action on those grounds, even if only to cancel any future
direct sponsorship of Libera.
Since TLG has made clear its objection to military sets, could they act to
censor Linday Braun's teeny tiny battleships? Or if I build a model with
true LEGO elements and clone brands intermixed, could TLG object to my
posting pictures of the model on the grounds that it highlights the
compatibility of LEGO with a competitor brand?
Like I said--I'm not sure of my conclusions, but I wanted to air my
thoughts...
> 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.
It would seem especially tough for TLG if the particular bricks at issue
were those that have already been adjudicated non-patent-protected, such as
the 2x4 brick. TLG might be uncomfortable with it, but I don't know if
they'd have any basis to do anything about it, except Plan B, of course:
> In that case they'd probably resort to Plan B-- sue you anyway and lawyer you
> to death;-)
Ah, the Scientology method!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
