Very interesting analysis and useful perspectives......

Dick Balaska wrote:

> "Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> > My guess is that a car manufacturer would love having fan pics of its autos out
> > there--the more people endear the car, the more car sales.
>
> Then you missed the lawsuit against the fan-site http://www.dodgeviper.com ?

You' re right I probably overstated car maker's easiness with fan sites.  Here,
however,
the suit was about ownership of the URL and his decision to try to sell it on eBay.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,37929-2,00.html

> >  My guess is that
> > Disney would sue in a heartbeat over sales of images of their characters.
> > Lego, on the other hand, is sort of right in the middle, closer to a product
> > than a copyrighted character.   So please YOU find out or please POVTEAM make a
> > call.......
>
> http://www.lego.com/info/fair.asp
> Do not use the Lego logo.  Do not use the word Lego as a noun; only an adjective.
> Do not bold the word Lego.  Disclaim that Lego likes you.

> of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this image."

I've only read about half this site and I'm no anti-IP anarchist, but everytime I read
the
word "patent," I kept thinking: did they patent the superellipsoid?
Lego says:
>>  A trademark is a word, symbol or design, including a logo or
>>  the shape of goods or of their packaging, that distinguishes the
>>  goods of one company from those of another company.

Post a reply to this message