"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:

> Don't you mean "Lego (TM)" ?

NO!! NO!! NO!!
It's a REGISTERED trademark!!

:-)

> This trademark frenzy America has gotten itself into is absurd.

Really!!

--
David Fontaine   <dav### [at] faricynet>   ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:

> I am not speaking for the POV-Team or David but I will add that
> the makers of LEGO have been known to actively pursue copyright
> infringment against others in the past and are not considered
> very tolerant of such activity (much like Disney). I would be
> very careful about how the scene is labled and that the word
> "LEGO" appears no where in the image.

As I am aware; that is why I would want to make fully sure. Now, as I understand, POV
is not-for-profit, and revenue generated by the CD would fund POV development and the
POV server upkeep, so the real question becomes, "Is it illegal to charge for
pictures of LEGO, or is it merely illegal to make profit on pictures of LEGO?"

--
David Fontaine   <dav### [at] faricynet>   ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

I'm sure it's illegal to make REVENUE....

David Fontaine wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
> > I am not speaking for the POV-Team or David but I will add that
> > the makers of LEGO have been known to actively pursue copyright
> > infringment against others in the past and are not considered
> > very tolerant of such activity (much like Disney). I would be
> > very careful about how the scene is labled and that the word
> > "LEGO" appears no where in the image.
>
> As I am aware; that is why I would want to make fully sure. Now, as I understand,
POV
> is not-for-profit, and revenue generated by the CD would fund POV development and
the
> POV server upkeep, so the real question becomes, "Is it illegal to charge for
> pictures of LEGO, or is it merely illegal to make profit on pictures of LEGO?"
>
> --
> David Fontaine   <dav### [at] faricynet>   ICQ 55354965
> Please visit my website:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:

>     a) 10 "Your Best" images;
>     b) 1 contest entry
>     c) several high quality tutorials.

I don't think you should accept IRTC entries, although there
is no legal reason for you not to.  The reason being that these
are already accounted for on a CD.

> Because this is going on a CD and sold the same way as an IRTC, the image
> should be a JPG with:
>    a) dimensions: width<= 800 ,  height <=600
>    b) file size <= 0.25 MB

BTW, there is no longer an image size restriction on IRTC images.

Have you considered including animations?  I would submit mine, which
i think is quite good. (1 minute 4 MBs)

dik

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
> 
> I'm sure others would enjoy your work if it made it to the CD.


> 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 ?

>  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."

(Heh Ken, two links in one message.  Shazam!)

dik

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:

>  so the real question becomes, "Is it illegal to charge for
> pictures of LEGO, or is it merely illegal to make profit on pictures of LEGO?"

Here's a better example.  The people who uploaded copyrighted music to Napster made no
profit; no revenue, either.

Post a reply to this message

Dick Balaska wrote:

> "Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> I don't think you should accept IRTC entries, although there
> is no legal reason for you not to.  The reason being that these
> are already accounted for on a CD.

The web page describing the project in more detail discourages submission of
IRTC entries.

> Have you considered including animations?  I would submit mine, which
> i think is quite good. (1 minute 4 MBs)

No doubt.  Let's see how many entries we get.  If there are 1000 participants,
we'll have our hands full just figuring out what to do with it all.   If there
are 10 participants, then yes we can add other dimensions to the project......

Post a reply to this message

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

"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:

> Here's a better example.  The people who uploaded copyrighted music to Napster made
no
> profit; no revenue, either.

Huh? That's completely different. Making pictures of LEGO does not give the people who
view those pictures duplicated LEGOs for free. Uploading copyrighted music does. So
theoretically one potentially helps business and the other hurts it*.
The only problems I could see are 1) If a non-affiliated party made money off of their
distinct likeness (even some individual LEGO pieces are copyrighted), or 2) if
pictures
depict LEGO models whose building instructions are copyright. However, AFAIK the
latter
does not apply once the set is out of production, because there are large net archives
of
instruction book scans of out-of-print instructions. The Ice Planet vehicle I'm not
sure
about (it's '93 I believe), but the Auto Chassis I am sure is out of production, and
the
castle is my own design...


(*Actually, with mp3 piracy the similarity to theft is largely exaggerated...)

--
David Fontaine   <dav### [at] faricynet>   ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Dick Balaska wrote:

> Then you missed the lawsuit against the fan-site http://www.dodgeviper.com ?

I'm not pretending to know anything about said case, but I would imagine it was over
the

it had Lego in the domain. Obviously a company with a trademark identity would want to
retain that identity for official purposes...

--
David Fontaine   <dav### [at] faricynet>   ICQ 55354965
Please visit my website:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message