| |
In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> > I wonder if it is against the LUGNET terms of use to discuss images the
> > one believes are "leaked" from the LEGO Company? When the LUGNET
> > maintainers have decided that they are not leaked? Isn't that an
> > interesting question? ;-)
>
> It is against the Terms of Use Agreement to infringe on the privacy or
> publicity rights of others.
>
> Interpret our (mine & Suz's) opinions at your own risk.
I'm not following you completely. Here's where my thinking currently is, and I
admit I should have thought this through before posting extensively as I now
think some of that posting may not be correct from a legal perspective. I am
prepared to suffer the consequences of that but am also willing to have
whatever posts need to be cancelled removed from LUGNET to reduce or mitigate
LUGNET exposure.
Here's what I see the possible provenance of the images as being (and I think
this is an exhaustive set based on my analysis but could be wrong);
- An officially released flyer or catalog page that we just have not seen by
any other means as of yet, which has already been officially released. In this
case there is no issue whatever about posting links or discussion. However, my
analysis indicates this is quite unlikely as it's not up to TLC quality levels,
even for promotions (such as this seems to be purported to be, a promotion with
DB at least initially). It also is unlikely that they would release in so
limited a fashion
- An offical flyer that hasn't yet been released (it was either stolen or
someone with insufficient authority leaked it). As unlikely as the first from
image analysis. But more likely than the first based on analysis of TLC
activity, they don't pre-release or deliberately leak. In this case we
shouldn't be discussing it. Differentiating between these two is easy, we need
better provenance.
- A preproduction flyer that has been officially released, perhaps in a
circuitious manner. While it is likely that this is a preproduction flyer (I
count it as more probable than that it is a hoax for reasons I have already
discussed) it's not likely that TLC would officially release preproduction.
They're not that open. If someone makes a definitive statement, OK to discuss.
- A preproduction flyer that has been deliberately leaked for whatever reason
and the provenance deliberately tangled.. perhaps to judge reaction, perhaps to
test internal security, who knows. Unlikely, too machivellian for TLC. If so,
we shouldn't be discussing it until someone from TLC makes an official
statement as to provenance and disposition
- A preproduction flyer that hasn't yet been released. (it was either stolen or
someone with insufficient authority leaked it). In this case we shouldn't be
discussing it. Differentiating between these two is (as with the first pair)
also easy, we need better provenance. Unfortunately I judge this to be the most
likely case.
- a design study or other advance work that may not ever be released. Same
likelyhood based on image analysis as above. Lower likelihood of truth as it's
rather far along in the process for someone to scratch. cf the early star wars
design studies that TLC publicly showed which were rather crude. Same
bifurcation as the first two pairs, was it leaked or officially released some
how? Same discussion restriction outcomes
- a hoax. Entirely fan generated with no offical TLC involvement. In that case
the fan or fans who did so may have some trouble with TLC legal. We ought to be
OK discussing it though.
Did I miss any?
Now, this puts me in a box. Unless this is a hoax, or unless TLC clarifies, I
can't talk about it and abide by the T&C. But I don't WANT it to be a hoax and
I don't want to do a legal fiction and call it a hoax just so I can discuss it.
My read on Todd and Suz is that either they really think it's a hoax or they
are taking the position that it is for other reasons. But I doubt that, they
don't usually get that devious either. So I think they really think it is.
Maybe I should too, it certainly would make things easier.
I guess I'm done for now.
But can I talk about talking about it? :-) Hence FUT admin.general
I'm not sure I see any clear guidance from Todd in his statements at the top of
this post, and if he'd like to clarify, that would be great.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
149 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
