|
xzzy posted:Actually it makes perfect sense. let me tell you about how this thing called Lego works...
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
I don't see how you could be so certain. I don't think the guy is even accusing them of ripping him off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
No matter how this falls, it's still a great argument as to why licensed works shouldn't be allowed on Ideas. Or at least in a separate section, with 'WARNING WE LICENSE poo poo ALL THE TIME SO WE CAN AND WILL DROP ANYTHING FOR ANY REASON IF WE EVER EVEN THINK WE MIGHT MAKE THE SAME THING EVER' flashing in big red type on every page.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:let me tell you about how this thing called Lego works... You're building a known quantity. It's not like they said "build a random building!" and two different teams came up with the same target and design. It's a known quantity with plenty of screen time in one of the most popular movies of all time. Everyone knows what it looks like, inside and out. It the guy had used some crazy SNOT techniques or something and the Lego team used all that as well then maybe that would be enough to say that it was fishy but that's not what is happening here. Not to mention no one even knows what the inside of the Lego set looks like at all. It's way too early to be putting on the tin foil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Not to mention that any similarities in design actually come from him lifting them from Lego in the first place. The base plate width and design? Take from modular buildings. The overlapping construction of the walls? Modulars. Also, this model opens in a totally different way to his.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
The official build looks more like the build seen in the original submission for the car:  https://ideas.lego.com/projects/36088 At least the color and the windows and the sign are the same. VS the one in question now:  https://ideas.lego.com/projects/60632 It actually seems like a hybrid of these two builds. There are also several other versions of it on the Ideas site which all look more or less the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
It all comes down to the details. People who think there is only one way to represent something in Lego surprise me. Like when the new modular was announced, there were a lot of comments about how clever they had been to use certain pieces in a certain way to get a certain look.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
I'm not saying Lego definitely stole this guy's idea. For all I know Lego had their design first just hadn't released it. However after reading the guys blog about how Lego interacted with him and handled it just seems very odd to me. Lego could easily take the position of "gently caress you, we're a major corporation" instead they apologized for not telling him about it and having him sign an NDA. I will agree though that this is why licensed ideas shouldn't be allowed to be submitted through ideas. Edit: I guess my overall point is, if it is a coincidence why is Lego offering him a free set to appease him? They're hoping he won't sue, and good on him for not suing. anotherblownsave fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
anotherblownsave posted:Edit: I guess my overall point is, if it is a coincidence why is Lego offering him a free set to appease him? They're hoping he won't sue, and good on him for not suing. Because $350 is nothing to LEGO and just a gesture of goodwill because he's upset, not even close to an admission of guilt or wrongdoing. Honestly the sets look pretty different to me for two builds based on the same real life object, the proportions of a lot of the details are totally different as is much of the piece useage
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Since this "scandal" got so big, giving him a set is really just good PR. And looking at the two sets, they really have a bunch of little differences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:I mean, cmon. At best they used some of his ideas and integrated them into their own build and at worst, they just lifted his model and changed it enough to claim ignorance. Almost every single detail is different between the two  Not seeing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
I don't think they have to look anything alike. It's a more if a debate of who had the idea first. Intellectual property, which is a big deal these days apparently
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
anotherblownsave posted:I don't think they have to look anything alike. It's a more if a debate of who had the idea first. Intellectual property, which is a big deal these days apparently
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Are both designs using the brick treatment from the Fire Brigade modular? That predated both, and tends to make them look very similar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
anotherblownsave posted:Edit: I guess my overall point is, if it is a coincidence why is Lego offering him a free set to appease him? They're hoping he won't sue, and good on him for not suing. What would he even sue for? Ideas ToS posted:If the LEGO Group introduces a product similar to an idea submitted on LEGO Ideas you understand and acknowledge that any coincidence is unintentional and release the LEGO Group against any claims of infringement. Ideas ToS posted:We do not offer compensation for follow-up products. For example, if we decide to produce additional products after yours, based on a license we secure to produce your project, or new models in the same genre as your non-licensed project, you will not be compensated as these products are initiated by the LEGO Group independently of LEGO Ideas. By submitting his idea he's acknowledging the possibility of this exact situation. It's laid out in the ToS twice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Plastik posted:What would he even sue for? People sue for anything despite terms and conditions. They win or they lose. It's that simple. I'm not saying the guy has any more grounds to sue than the guy who spilled hot coffee on himself at McDonald's and sued them. I don't understand why its so hard to accept the idea that maybe Lego took his basic design and used it as inspiration for theirs, even if they didn't produce his design, or anything remotely similar. However there are some basic similarities between the two, and I think that's what has some people upset. Ultimately what needs to happen is that Lego needs have some sort of filtering process or flat out reject any design having to do with a potential license. If they buy a license they could then set up an ideas section specifically for that license if they're open to accepting submissions. Edit: and just because a company writes "if we produce a set similar to your idea, it's purely coincidental" doesn't mean that it is. anotherblownsave fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
anotherblownsave posted:I'm not saying the guy has any more grounds to sue than the guy who spilled hot coffee on himself at McDonald's and sued them. https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts I hate the McDonald's coffee short hand. Disclaimers like that aren't iron clad but absent plaintiff being able to prove knowledge and direct copying (which is tough in discovery, usually only happens if someone fucks up and admits to it)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:My bet is that they didn't want to have to pay him a % of a set that expensive. Huh? anotherblownsave posted:Edit: I guess my overall point is, if it is a coincidence why is Lego offering him a free set to appease him? They're hoping he won't sue, and good on him for not suing. What? Gabriel Pope posted:Almost every single detail is different between the two I agree, they are both square and have a traffic light.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
anotherblownsave posted:Edit: and just because a company writes "if we produce a set similar to your idea, it's purely coincidental" doesn't mean that it is. That's the thing, it's a building from real life/a movie. It will look similar to anything else produced of it, just by necessity. Even then, looking at the two, there are enough differences between the two that it's obviously a different build. Not just in the details like the lower light on the stop sign, the windows, or yellow bumper things, but also in the brick color used for the whole building.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
At the very least his model getting 10k votes showed Lego the market for such a set was there. If his model wasn't awesome and flamed out they might have thought twice. He deserves some credit, is what I am saying The fact that this was in the works probably didn't hurt either. deoju fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
deoju posted:He deserves some credit, is what I am saying A free $350 lego set is more credit than most ideas submissions gets, so I think he's doing okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
xzzy posted:A free $350 lego set is more credit than most ideas submissions gets, so I think he's doing okay. Agreed. I think this is the first? case of this happening so at the very least it sets an interesting precedent for Lego.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
anotherblownsave posted:People sue for anything despite terms and conditions. They win or they lose. It's that simple. I'm not saying the guy has any more grounds to sue than the guy who spilled hot coffee on himself at McDonald's and sued them. I don't understand why its so hard to accept the idea that maybe Lego took his basic design and used it as inspiration for theirs, even if they didn't produce his design, or anything remotely similar. However there are some basic similarities between the two, and I think that's what has some people upset. Ultimately what needs to happen is that Lego needs have some sort of filtering process or flat out reject any design having to do with a potential license. If they buy a license they could then set up an ideas section specifically for that license if they're open to accepting submissions. The guy who submitted Ecto-1 included pictures with a firehouse MOC that was a hell of a lot closer to the official build. The guy bitching was neither the first firehouse MOC nor the most similar. He's just fishing for a free lunch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
anotherblownsave posted:It's that simple. I'm not saying the guy has any more grounds to sue than the guy who spilled hot coffee on himself at McDonald's and sued them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Gabriel Pope posted:The guy who submitted Ecto-1 included pictures with a firehouse MOC that was a hell of a lot closer to the official build. The guy bitching was neither the first firehouse MOC nor the most similar. He's just fishing for a free lunch. I was under the impression that he built the fire house and his friend build the ecto 1. So, also his build. I could be mistaken about that though. If it's not I'd agree that he has nothing to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:I love when people bring up the McDonald's coffee case because you can usually just disregard anything further they say in the argument It's really handy in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:I love when people bring up the McDonald's coffee case because you can usually just disregard anything further they say in the argument I would say the same thing about people who use that as some kind of metric for intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
ChesterJT posted:I would say the same thing about people who use that as some kind of metric for intelligence. Well, legal analysis ability, at least
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Someones opinion must be invalid because they don't know the real facts about a 20 year old lawsuit that got blown out of proportion by the media and 99% of the population believes wrong info on. No one here would know what really happened if it didn't get posted all of the time, or they didn't catch that documentary on Netflix.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Yeah sorry if my reference was wrong, the case happened when I was 8. Long before I studied law of any kind. I was using it more as more of an argument for frivolous lawsuits that are frequently brought to court. Trust me there are 100,000s every year that get tossed out as a waste of time. In any case it's irrelevant for what we're talking about so again, apologies. Have some actual Lego content: Almost a year later and my son still loves his Lego train, and has changed all the cars to box cars. The pet bird also enjoys the train http://imgur.com/b6tsqkt anotherblownsave fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
A super quick Google search of the coffee case would make you realise she was in the right suing mcdonalds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
NESguerilla posted:I was under the impression that he built the fire house and his friend build the ecto 1. So, also his build.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Yeah, if he did build the first one I don't know why he didn't use that as his comparison. The official firehouse resembles that one much more closely, and also that one got out a lot earlier so there's basically no chance that Lego was already working on one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Why does he care anyway? It's a licensed model. If I build a new X-Wing and LEGO releases something similar it's because there are only so many ways to build a lego version of a real thing. It's not like they stole his personal IP or idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
At the very least he did free market research for Lego. We all love Lego but we don't have to defend some massive corporation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
The building exists in real life, it's a physical thing that can only be interpreted in so many ways, quit arguing like Lego stole from some poor starving artist designer, that building has been there since 1904.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Pirate Ken posted:At the very least he did free market research for Lego. We all love Lego but we don't have to defend some massive corporation. It's not like Ghostbusters is some obscure forgotten license. There's a brand new movie coming out next year, the set would have sold like crazy regardless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
I am pretty sure a 350$ set from a rather old IP won't sell like hotcakes, movie tie in or not unless it is a UCS Star Wars one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Hopper posted:I am pretty sure a 350$ set from a rather old IP won't sell like hotcakes, movie tie in or not unless it is a UCS Star Wars one. You'd be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Hopper posted:I am pretty sure a 350$ set from a rather old IP won't sell like hotcakes, movie tie in or not unless it is a UCS Star Wars one. Manchildren, manchildren never change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 17:12
|
|
