| |
In lugnet.space, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.space, Patrick Justison writes:
> > What in the way of dislaimer should I post on the site? I was wodering
> > about this before I put it together, but wasn't sure what I should do.
> > Would something like this be appropriate:
> >
> > Set Number Disclaimer
> > The set numbers used on this website are fictional and are not sponsored by
> > the LEGO group of companies.
> > LEGO® Disclaimer
> > This is an unofficial LEGO® web site. LEGO® is a trademark of the LEGO Group
> > of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this site. You can
> > visit the official LEGO® site here.
> >
> > Thanks for all of the wisdom Todd,
> > Pat J
>
> IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) and this is not legal advice, but the safest thing
> to do (IMHO) would simply be not to use 4-digit LEGO set numbers -- not just
> from a legal standpoint but also from a viewer confusion standpoint. Some
> other hard questions: How do 4-digit LEGO set numbers help viewers anyway?
> Do you really want to take the chance of appearing as though you believe that
> your MOC's are so darn great that they should've been official sets? (I think
> what you've got up so far is really special and super-great, but is it your
> intention to project arrogance, mild or strong?)
Lol! Mild to none. I have always been humbled by the creations of others.
What if other people start
> making MOCs and giving them faux 4-digit LEGO set numbers? How would you feel
> about collisions? What if LEGO resurrects the Space system in 2006 and ends
> up using those numbers? What if one of those numbers had actually been used
> by LEGO once upon a time in a really rare set that we don't know about yet?
> (6855, for example, might very well have been an Exploriens set that never
> got released.) What if the numbers you picked aren't consistent with the
> numberings that LEGO would have used at the time the Blacktron theme was
> available? For example, LEGO never would have used 6918 at that point in • time;
> except for 6901 in 1980, the entire 6900-6919 & 6960-6969 sub-ranges were left
> mysteriously unused until 1997-98, while all other sub-ranges of the 6800-6999
> range were in use throughout the 1980's.
>
> Do what you want, but I get a funny feeling when I see fake set numbers.
>
> --Todd
Several interesting questions. But for the simple reason that there is no
reason to be there, I'll remove them.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Pat J
P.S. I just had a good idea, start my own numbering system. PJ30, PJ31, PJ33,
etc...... for the blacktron models.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Blacktron Website
|
| I fixed it by removing the numbers. I also uploaded most of other links. (URL) J (...) Group (...) can (...) think (...) feel (...) left (...) 6800-6999 (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Blacktron Website
|
| (...) IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) and this is not legal advice, but the safest thing to do (IMHO) would simply be not to use 4-digit LEGO set numbers -- not just from a legal standpoint but also from a viewer confusion standpoint. Some other hard (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish)
|
15 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
|
|
|
|
