Subject:
|
Re: Scans are back!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:06:07 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2709 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm not a lawyer, but I understand this to mean:
Anything uploaded to Brickshelf, bet it scans, digital pics, gif files, text
files, whatever, becomes property of Brickshelf in the regards that
Brickshelf can do whatever with those files (print them, delete them, give
them away for free, etc). Everything EXCEPT selling the material. The
original rights of the property still resides with the original owner. This
means that while you are the owner of the jpg file of that LEGO(r) model you
submitted to Brickshelf (and you can do whatever you want with that file,
including selling copies if you want), Brickshelf can do whatever they want
to the COPY you uploaded to them (including editing or using in some fashion
to promote Brickshelf). They can even make copies of the copies, but the
only thing I believe they can NOT due without your express permission is to
sell the copy.
This, by the way, is the crux of the Instruction Scans issue. The
Instructions are the property of TLC. Period. They do not belong to
Brickshelf, nor to whoever made the original scan, nor to whoever downloaded
them. Scanning (a form of copying, remember), is allowed, but SELLING the
scans (ie: copies, be it digital or paper) is NOT allowed without TLC's
permission. While Brickshelf was a "personal" page, it was ok to display the
instructions as that was "personal usage". (I'm sure a real Lawyer out there
might even point out that DOWNLOADING the scans was in fact a technical
violation of the "no copies without express permission" clause that you
always see with a tradmark statement).
Does anyone remember Napster? And what was the crux of their problem?
Afterall, Napster didn't charge a penny to any of it's users that was
downloading mp3's right and left. So why were they sued out of existance?
Did they somehow violate the Copyright laws? Of course they did! And that
is why Brickshelf L.L.C. (the business entity, not the "personal page") had
to remove the scans until they were able to obtain the express permission
from TLC to make them available again. And I would guess the permission
that Brickshelf received from TLC included specifications about weither or
not Brickshelf can make available for sale CD's containing the instruction
scans, and may even contained restrictions as to how the scans can be made
available (ie: full size images ok, but zipped files are not, etc).
Remember, everyone, that Brickshelf (prior to Brickshelf L.L.C.) was a
"PERSONAL PAGE". It was NOT part of The Lego Company. There is NO mandate or
requirement that it had to have the instruction scans available in the first
place - afterall, those scans were in Kevin Loch's personal collection which
he was GENEROUS in making freely available to everyone. The rights of
ownership between an individual (Kevin Loch) and a business entity
(Brickshelf L.L.C.) are different.
Too many people today, living the life of Internet luxury, feel that
"information should be free", with no regard for Intellectual Property and
Copyright laws (can anyone guess why Copyright laws have been around in some
form or fashion since even before the existance of Xerox and computers???).
I will admit that I would like to get free copies of things, and prolly (if
I really thought about it) would think that "oh, copying an instruction is
not the same as getting the bricks for free from TLC), but in fact that is
the same thing.
Ok, I'll get off the soapbox now. I'm really really happy that the scans are
back, and am glad that TLC has allowed Brickshelf to host the scans. You
the reader can agree with me or not, get angry at me or not, or just ignore
this all together.
In lugnet.publish, Horst Lehner writes:
> However, there hasn't been much response to my second point, which was about
> Brickshelf L.L.C. claiming all rights with uploaded scans:
>
> > > > > All submissions become property of Brickshelf L.L.C.
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, this is by far too simplistic and extensive.
> > > > Does it mean I will not have the right to use the scans I created and
> > > > submitted to brickshelf in other ways, as I see fit (of course limited by
> > > > the LEGO Group's copyright)?
> > > > Does that mean Brickshelf L.L.C. will have the right to use my scans
> > > > commercially (of course, again, limited by what the LEGO Group permits
> > > > them)?
>
> Maybe I'm wrong there as well, but I haven't heard the arguments yet ...
>
> Greetings
>
> Horst
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Scans are back!
|
| Hello Mark, (...) Well, if that is what it means, this certainly differs from what I understood when I read: (...) because with property I am usually free to even sell it. Also, since we are talking intellectual property here, I thought it would (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Scans are back!
|
| (...) Only materials submitted to the Brickshelf _Library_ become property of Brickshelf. Materials uploaded to the _Gallery_ remain with the original owner. This really isn't complicated, you just can't control what Brickshelf does with scans you (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Scans are back!
|
| Hello Larry, hello everybody, (...) I do understand by now what was going on in the last few weeks, and why. However, there hasn't been much response to my second point, which was about Brickshelf L.L.C. claiming all rights with uploaded scans: (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
38 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
|
|
|
|
