 | | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Lar, Less typing, more clicking. I want everyone to be able to see my pics soon. ;-) Jude FUT .o-t.debate cause it ain't worth it even though you are right (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Yes you are, and yes they were. The original image had the LEGO logo in it not a parody. But even the parody is a technical violation of the fairplay document... one that lots of people do (similar parodies or distortions that is) but a (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) <SNIP> (...) <SNIP> Sorry to nit-pick, and maybe I'm just badgering the point, and maybe the images were changed before they were uploaded. But the enhanced image that I saw (as I did not look at these images until after they were re-uploaded) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Well, you have to figure this is Kevin's site and it is up to him to run his free site as he wishes. I have had some things not ok'ed by the mods that be. But its ok, I can live with it. The pictures of mine that were deleted were in the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
