| |
I fixed it by removing the numbers. I also uploaded most of other links.
http://lightning.prohosting.com/~pjbrick/pjblacktron.html
Pat J
In lugnet.space, Patrick Justison writes:
> 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
|
| (...) underneath view of the Enforcer -- it reminds me of an animal flipped on its back -- very cool...I don't know what to say -- I just wish I could buy these as real sets...! (more below...) (...) How about "The set numbers [insert list] shown on (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.space, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Blacktron Website
|
| (...) Lol! Mild to none. I have always been humbled by the creations of others. What if other people start (...) time; (...) Several interesting questions. But for the simple reason that there is no reason to be there, I'll remove them. Thanks for (...) (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
|
|
|
|
