|
|
 | | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
| (...) You cannot say that for sure. (...) My main concern and why I kept voting "unsure" was that this parody has the LEGO(r) logo on it. I really don't want to see a huge debate break out about this. It's been discussed in some depth before that (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
| (...) That I do understand, and agree. As an addition, it would definately make sense. (...) Yes, I realized that when I hit post - I keep forgetting LEGO is very brand-aware... :-) It might have been advisable to include a disclaimer, in tiny (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
| (...) download) (...) to (...) Let's try that again: Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the _(_MOC by itself_)_, [instead of] _in addition to its placement_ inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)... On the other (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
| (...) I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see (and download) the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so concerned... It is (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
| (...) That is not true, and is the point of my posting at all. I did see this image in the recent folder at Brickshelf yesterday. It was public. This has more to do with Brickshelf than with you... (...) Or if you had uploaded at least one image of (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
|
