Subject:
|
Re: Santa Fe B-Unit: OK or not?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:30:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7212 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Patterson wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > > Offering them to the public on Bricklink just might cause a copyright
> > > not to exsist.
> > > You offer them to inspire and if someone is inspired to build it
> > > they might have the right to sell it.
> >
> > It doesn't make any difference. You can do what you like with your own
> > copyrighted IP but unless you sell or donate the copyright you still own it. By
> > posting on Brickshelf you are making it available for viewing, not copying and
> > not selling.
> >
> > Furthermore, as far as I know copyright doesn't even need to be enforced (unlike
> > a trademark). You could let twenty people copy and sell your thing and stop the
> > 21st and you would be purely within your legal rights.
> not exactly. The printing of the design can be copyright, however what you do
> with building it is not. I am more familiar with the needlework part of this
> for an example. You cannot copy the instructions, however you can stitch as
> many designs from those instructions you want. Then you are free to sell the
> stitched pieces. You are not selling the directions, you are selling the
> completed piece. It is duplication of printed material that is legally
> protected, not the product. So when I sold a copy of a design that could not be
> duplicated, however you could stitch from those directions as many pieces as you
> wanted to, then could sell the finished piece. That is how our copyright lawyer
> explained it to us.
On closer inspection it would appear that copyright law is a bit more complex in
what it covers than I realised (second paragraph of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright)
I suspect that Lego may differ from needlepoint because of this in that it is
(most probably) counted as a form of sculpture which is covered under regular
copyright where the creation itself is what is covered. By the looks of things
needlepoint may not be covered as a creation which may be why you were only able
to stop duplication of the instructions (which definitely are covered).
> > --snip--
> >
> > > (If you build a Lego set, say Hogwarts castle and sell it, Lego has no rights to
> > > that set even though it is their design.)
> >
> > That is simply not true. LEGO own the copyright to their designs. You can resell
> > the set because you purchased the right to use their design and are selling that
> > right to the other person but they still retain full copyright.
> Yes they hold the right to the printed instructions, not the built set. It is
> like copyrighting a building. You can't do that, but you can copyright the
> plans.
I think that were this true MB and other clone companies would be duplicating
LEGO sets left right and center with impunity. Given that they don't (and have
been busted for it in the past) I assume that they can't.
--snip--
Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Santa Fe B-Unit: OK or not?
|
| (...) not exactly. The printing of the design can be copyright, however what you do with building it is not. I am more familiar with the needlework part of this for an example. You cannot copy the instructions, however you can stitch as many designs (...) (17 years ago, 25-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
