Subject:
|
Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 07:09:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2412 times
|
| |
|
|
Well, the other side of the coin is that YOU, and ONLY you, knew the full details
of what they did/did not say was OK. All we have to go on is the Fair Use Policy
posted on lego.com. We (the unwashed <g>) won't know any better unless the
Policy is CHANGED from time to time. We have to ASSuME using the concrete
evidence we have.
You have more evidence than most of us ;-) But again (and again, and again, and
again...), until I see it IN WRITING FROM TLC, I'm sticking with MY assumption
that they don't give a rat sass.
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > [...]
> > I could care less about what TLC has said to you in private, Todd, because
> > you've kept it private (I'm actually assuming they HAVE talked to you in
> > private quite a few times) for good reason, I'd assume. You have posted
> > tidbits here and there, but not much.
>
> Inasmuch as I dislike "tooting the horn," I also try not to keep important
> things like that secret, assuming I am able to say one way or the other.
> In October of 1997, for example, I did mention that Suzanne and I had had a
> meeting with two TLG attorneys and talked about a number of issues, including
> trademarks and copyrights. At this point (1999), I'd have to consult my
> notes to recall exactly what was said, but I do specifically remember that
> there were compliments on the Fibblesnork LEGO Guide, which has always had
> clear and high-quality scans (not full instructions, but the front panel of
> the instructions). They even had it up running on a web browser there.
> Considering all of that, and the fact that there also once was an email from
> an TLG employee in Denmark who said that the president had seen the FLG and
> was impressed, and that we talked about how to word disclaimers for sites,
> there was no doubt in my mind at that point that TLG (now TLC) did approve
> of it -- not just passively, but actively (albeit quietly and with classic
> TLG subtlety). And I should mention, these were not joe-average attorneys
> I'm talking about -- these were some of the top guns.
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to say that, just because something hasn't been stated
> publicly, or was said so long ago as to have been forgotten, doesn't mean
> that that something is necessarily true or untrue. So with all due respect,
> when you say that TLC had never said yea or nay to xyz, you're actually
> making an assumption, or at best a educated guess.
>
> Peace brother, :-)
> --Todd
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
116 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
