Subject:
|
Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 18:07:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2899 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> > 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 highly unlikely the Ice cream company will feel their brand
> > was in any way hurt.
>
> You cannot say that for sure.
Why would a company feel upset about free advertising? I mean, it is not as if
the picture was in any way an insult to the ice-cream...
I agree I cannot tell for sure that they *won't* feel hurt, but what I said is
*it is unlikely* they'll feel hurt - I admit they may find a reason to protest,
I (and "I" means just that, me) just can't remember any.
> > FTR, I just clicked on the thumb because I knew the Ice cream name, and got
> > puzzled as to what the LEGO logo was doing on the ad.
>
> 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 LEGO does not like it when people apply
> their logo to things that they did not approve the use of the logo in. Kevin
> has in the past adhered fairly closely on that point as well as the rest of
> the Fair Play policies (which are linked from the web front page of this
> newsgroup by the way)
I agree to that; in fact, in a different post in this thread I admit I had
forgotten about LEGO and was just considering the implications concerning the
Ice cream company.
> The Maxim ice cream company (or whoever they company is) may have similar
> (and valid) concerns but they aren't quite as tightly "associated" with the
> site.
True.
> I don't know who disapproved it. I don't care, really. It got resubmitted
> and now it's approved, after a few more changes were made to the pictures in
> the folder to elaborate. Kevin ought to make the final determination on this
> one though... it's a case deserving of some concern.
It is, IMO, a case which might benefit with clarification from LEGO (for future
reference). In any case, given that the "offending" part of the picture has now
been cleverly changed, it doesn't matter any more... :-)
> All the time spent posting about this by me is time I'm not approving
> folders, by the way.
Out of my curiosity alone, what is the rythm of analysis?
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
| In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes: <snip> That's all plowed ground, I am not going to debate it here. (...) If I understand your question the answer of late is: Orbital - 2 Chemical Brothers - Exit Planet Dust Paul Oakenfold - Tranceport or (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
85 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
|
|
|
|
