LEGO DEATH: Lego doesn't like my art
Froggy
> The LEGO Group of companies is very concerned about the morbid context in
> which our LEGO mini figure is used. Please do not understand this as if we
> wish to restrict what you want to publish on the Internet. However, we do
> wish to protect the wholesome, child-oriented reputation of the LEGO
> trademark and product configurations and to prevent that they are associated
> with destruction and violence.
Yeah, right. That's why they produce all those crummy cyberslam kits.
HENDO
imply that they'd appreciate your taking time to consider the matter.
I suppose they have their legal reasons to be polite in their first
letter
to you, but I still find it rather nice.
Anyway, I looked at the pic. Art is a funny thing. Looks different to
every eye. It is possible that the red substance is just red paint and
that the "head" is actually a paint can colored to look similar to a
LEGO
head. ...well maybe. :)
I also find it interesting that TLG found your page in the first place.
This can mean one of two things:
Either TLG personnel periodically checks all the 148328 sites
with keyword LEGO on the Web (number on AltaVista 1/24/99),
Or TLG actually reads rtl and checks up on us!!!
Hmmm...wonder which it is...
--H.MAN
Alan wrote:
>
> 5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>
> http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>
> And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
>
> Dear Mr Allan Watts,
>
> Our attention has been drawn to the above sub-homepage, which, as you know,
> consists of a picture with the title "Legodeath". The picture incorporates
> the head of a LEGO* mini figure with a blood-like substance oozing from it,
> thus giving the impression that the LEGO mini figure has been beheaded. For
> this reason we hereby contact you.
>
> As you probably know, the registered LEGO trademark and the LEGO mini figure
> product configuration are two of the most important assets of the LEGO Group
> of companies. The LEGO mini figure is protected by copyrights, solely and
> exclusively owned by the LEGO Group.
>
> The LEGO Group of companies is very concerned about the morbid context in
> which our LEGO mini figure is used. Please do not understand this as if we
> wish to restrict what you want to publish on the Internet. However, we do
> wish to protect the wholesome, child-oriented reputation of the LEGO
> trademark and product configurations and to prevent that they are associated
> with destruction and violence.
>
> We hope that you understand our position and that you will consider removing
> the "Legodeath" picture from the homepage.
>
> Yours sincerely
> The LEGO Foundation
>
> Legal Department
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I can't imagine what sort of legal fire Andy Warhol would have gone
> through if he had posted a web site.
>
> Alan "associating destruction and violence" Watts
> al...@datax.com
April McDonald
the roll call form :)
Alan wrote in message ...
>5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>
>http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>
>And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
>
>Dear Mr Allan Watts,
>
>Our attention has been drawn to the above sub-homepage, which, as you know,
>consists of a picture with the title "Legodeath". The picture incorporates
>the head of a LEGO* mini figure with a blood-like substance oozing from it,
>thus giving the impression that the LEGO mini figure has been beheaded. For
>this reason we hereby contact you.
<snip>
Scott Symer
>First off, Warhol's cans of Cambpell's Soup weren't dripping gore.
Well, not 'til you opened 'em...
:)
Scott ("you call that Beef Barley?") from Oregon
James Aldrich
Alan wrote:
>
> 5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>
> http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>
> And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
TLG doesn't give a rat's rear one way or another about your art. It is
their trademark which concerns them, and rightly so.
JSA
Gary Louie
HENDO <valy...@concentric.net> wrote:
> I also find it interesting that TLG found your page in the first place.
> This can mean one of two things:
> Either TLG personnel periodically checks all the 148328 sites
> with keyword LEGO on the Web (number on AltaVista 1/24/99),
> Or TLG actually reads rtl and checks up on us!!!
... or someone else found it and complained to TLG, who then
investigated and took action.
Gary
Gary...@EarthLink.Net
Alan
http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
Dear Mr Allan Watts,
Our attention has been drawn to the above sub-homepage, which, as you know,
consists of a picture with the title "Legodeath". The picture incorporates
the head of a LEGO* mini figure with a blood-like substance oozing from it,
thus giving the impression that the LEGO mini figure has been beheaded. For
this reason we hereby contact you.
As you probably know, the registered LEGO trademark and the LEGO mini figure
slink
armed to the teeth with death-dealing weapons of all sorts including
fire-breathing dragons ought not to complain if you depict a
death-scene with their toys. You displayed a cleanly severed head,
not a torture victim. I'd say if the armies are going to kill each
other then that's a cleaner way to die than, say, impaled on spears or
transfixed with arrows. Heck, Lego even sells sets with traps which
ought to result in severed and crushed limbs. Do they think children
don't connect these things? If they (the children) don't, they
should.
I'm not sure, not being a legal type, whether Lego can claim that
their products themselves are the trademarks and forbid you to use and
display those products in whatever fashion you choose but I strongly
doubt it. For example, I can't misuse the trademark "Playtex" but if
I want to fly my Playtex Living Bra from my front yard flagpole I
doubt that's forbidden under trademark law. It might get me in
trouble with the neighbors, but that's another issue and I doubt
they'd blame Playtex for my behavior.
BTW, nice rendering. :)
--
Sandra -> http://www.netins.net/showcase/slink/
GEEK CODE Version 3.12: GS>AT !d(++)@ s:+ a+ C+++($) !U(C/H$) P(+)@
L E? W++ N++ o? K? w(++)@ O !M V(+) PS+() PE(++)@ Y+ PGP? t++@ 5? X?
R+ tv-- b++(++++)@ DI++++ D G e++++ h+(++)($) r+++ x+++
Daniel Miller
Alan <al...@datax.com> wrote:
>5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>
>http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>
>And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>
>through if he had posted a web site.
First off, Warhol's cans of Cambpell's Soup weren't dripping gore.
Second, recall that anything you do that involves Lego's intellectual
property is tolerated only as long as they want. They have ample right
to sue you for tradmeark infingement and maybe defamation if they so
desire.
--
Daniel "Dan'l" Miller Senior, School of Aeronautics and
dani...@ecn.purdue.edu Astronautics, Purdue, Indiana
"Stadtluft macht frei." - German proverb
Ken Rice
al...@datax.com says...
>5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
>Dear Mr Allan Watts,
>Our attention has been drawn to the above sub-homepage, which, as you know,
>consists of a picture with the title "Legodeath". The picture incorporates
>the head of a LEGO* mini figure with a blood-like substance oozing from it,
>thus giving the impression that the LEGO mini figure has been beheaded. For
>this reason we hereby contact you.
>As you probably know, the registered LEGO trademark and the LEGO mini figure
>product configuration are two of the most important assets of the LEGO Group
>of companies. The LEGO mini figure is protected by copyrights, solely and
>exclusively owned by the LEGO Group.
>The LEGO Group of companies is very concerned about the morbid context in
>which our LEGO mini figure is used. Please do not understand this as if we
>wish to restrict what you want to publish on the Internet. However, we do
>wish to protect the wholesome, child-oriented reputation of the LEGO
>trademark and product configurations and to prevent that they are associated
>with destruction and violence.
>We hope that you understand our position and that you will consider removing
>the "Legodeath" picture from the homepage.
>Yours sincerely
>The LEGO Foundation
>Legal Department
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>I can't imagine what sort of legal fire Andy Warhol would have gone
>through if he had posted a web site.
My impression of the above letter from Lego is that they do not like your
rendition, and have asked politely that you remove it. They also gave their
reasons for not liking it. Other than the use of the "Lego" in the title, I
doubt they could legally insist you remove it. As for the art itself, I
believe it would fall under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law, and be
considered a satirical work. I doubt they have a legal basis to force removal
of your picture. But, they did ask nicely.
And yet, how does it compare to the pictures on my web page below? They have
never commented on my web page.
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://www.erols.com/kennrice = Concentration Camp made of LEGO bricks
http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice = Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2,
= Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire &
= Crusaders of Dark Savant.
http://members.xoom.com/CWRTDC = Civil War Round Table of DC
Alan
(Daniel Miller) wrote:
> In article <alan-24019...@p44.amax1.dialup.aus1.flash.net>,
> Alan <al...@datax.com> wrote:
>>5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>>
>>http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>>
>>And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>>
>>I can't imagine what sort of legal fire Andy Warhol would have gone
>>through if he had posted a web site.
>
>First off, Warhol's cans of Cambpell's Soup weren't dripping gore.
>
>Second, recall that anything you do that involves Lego's intellectual
>property is tolerated only as long as they want. They have ample right
>to sue you for tradmeark infingement and maybe defamation if they so
>desire.
It doesn't matter the subject matter in a case like this. Art is art.
I'm sure Campbell's would have tried to sue Mr. Warhol if he had included
various bloody chicken parts sticking out of the can - but they would have
failed.
Alan
Larry Pieniazek
slink wrote:
>
> Seems to me that a company making set after set of opposing armies,
> armed to the teeth with death-dealing weapons of all sorts including
> fire-breathing dragons ought not to complain if you depict a
> death-scene with their toys. You displayed a cleanly severed head,
> not a torture victim. I'd say if the armies are going to kill each
> other then that's a cleaner way to die than, say, impaled on spears or
> transfixed with arrows. Heck, Lego even sells sets with traps which
> ought to result in severed and crushed limbs. Do they think children
> don't connect these things? If they (the children) don't, they
> should.
The minifig is trade dress, and therefore Lego can control useage. See
the fibblesnork site:
http://www.fibblesnork.com/lego/backgrounds/ which has a link to a
pretty thorough explanation of the term:
http://www.sughrue.com/articles/tdmk/tdbasics.html
However, I think that if they legally tried to mount a case based on
non-violence, it would not take much to knock all the pins right out
from under it. They no longer can make that claim plausibly.
Personally, it's not art I'd do, but it's art. Certainly a technically
nice rendering!
++Lar
Arculus
character has a weapon designed to kill other people (guns, swords, spears,
rayguns), but it is not ok to show what the effects of actually using those
weapons might be. Not to mention the glorification of the pursuit of wealth and
treasure as the be all and end all existence, as is the case with almost all
the systems, usually at the expense of indigenous peoples. Don't get me wrong,
I love Lego toys, but pirates and conquistadors are not good role models for
children. If they want to tell you to back off because of copyright
infringement, then that is all well and good. But to cloak it in moral
hypocrisy is really shameful.
slink
wrote:
>
>
>slink wrote:
>>
>> Seems to me that a company making set after set of opposing armies,
>> armed to the teeth with death-dealing weapons of all sorts including
>> fire-breathing dragons ought not to complain if you depict a
>> death-scene with their toys. You displayed a cleanly severed head,
>> not a torture victim. I'd say if the armies are going to kill each
>> other then that's a cleaner way to die than, say, impaled on spears or
>> transfixed with arrows. Heck, Lego even sells sets with traps which
>> ought to result in severed and crushed limbs. Do they think children
>> don't connect these things? If they (the children) don't, they
>> should.
>
>The minifig is trade dress, and therefore Lego can control useage. See
>the fibblesnork site:
>http://www.fibblesnork.com/lego/backgrounds/ which has a link to a
>pretty thorough explanation of the term:
>http://www.sughrue.com/articles/tdmk/tdbasics.html
>
If it's trade dress the it's legally protected as a trademark, but
then the most he should have to do is note that minifigs are
considered a trademark of TLG. Nevertheless it is also a real product
and they cannot control what is done with that once it is sold. Or
does Lego come with a license agreement for usage of minifigs? I
don't recall any such thing coming with mine.
>However, I think that if they legally tried to mount a case based on
>non-violence, it would not take much to knock all the pins right out
>from under it. They no longer can make that claim plausibly.
>
LOL, no, not with toys that commit violence as well as depict it.
>Personally, it's not art I'd do, but it's art. Certainly a technically
>nice rendering!
>
>++Lar
--
slink
<Gary...@EarthLink.Net> wrote:
>>
>
>... or someone else found it and complained to TLG, who then
>investigated and took action.
>
>Gary
>Gary...@EarthLink.Net
>
>
That could be, there are all kinds of nuts out there. I had a website
90% dedicated to Creatures and one nut case wrote me and said that the
one single use of the word "sex" (used in the phrase "opposite sex")
made the site unsuitable for her pre-teen. When I tried, politely, to
reply to her I found that she was using a fictitious E-Mail return
address. So much for the moral high ground. I did change it to
"gender" and ridiculed her in the Creatures newsgroup, just in case
she ever went in there.
Fortunately CyberLife, even as proprietary as they were about their
trademarks and technology, didn't try to police websites.
Tom Napolitano
comments, so here they are. Its the same advice I've given my kids:
1. Choose your battles.
2. Choose your battles very carefully.
3. Don't choose a battle you know you'll lose.
4. Don't choose a battle that isn't worth winning.
Also, take it from someone who's been on the 'net since 1984, you may
want to consider that legal advice you receive on the internet is worth about
what you pay for it.
[1] Say that fast 10 times.
Cheers, Tom Napolitano |
tom...@concentric.net |
Martha Brummett
>5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>
>And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Dear Mr Allan Watts,
>
>Our attention has been drawn to the above sub-homepage, which, as you know,
>consists of a picture with the title "Legodeath". The picture incorporates
>the head of a LEGO* mini figure with a blood-like substance oozing from it,
>thus giving the impression that the LEGO mini figure has been beheaded.
Hmm...perhaps it reminds them of their current financial difficulties.
Martha Brummett
Denver CO
Found it!:
LEGO: DU-- BV-- TO+3 BO TR PA++ SP-- CA+++1
PI++2 AQ TC+ #+ S++ LS Hs F6060 M+ YB52f
Daniel Miller
Alan <al...@datax.com> wrote:
>
>It doesn't matter the subject matter in a case like this. Art is art.
>I'm sure Campbell's would have tried to sue Mr. Warhol if he had included
>various bloody chicken parts sticking out of the can - but they would have
>failed.
That's not the point. If Warhol (pre-fame, that is) was sued, the ultimate
loser would be Warhol, whether or not he won the case. Legally defending
himself against the suit would ruin him. Better to back down in a case
like this.
--
Richard Mackin
>which our LEGO mini figure is used. Please do not understand this as if we
>wish to restrict what you want to publish on the Internet. However, we do
>wish to protect the wholesome, child-oriented reputation of the LEGO
>trademark and product configurations and to prevent that they are
associated
>with destruction and violence.
It's funny TLG should say that when their Star Wars range includes blasters,
laser cannons and lightsabers, all of which are quite voilent and
destructive, I'd have thought.
BTW, nice pic.
Richard (remove 'anti-spam.')
jeff findley
>
> 5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>
<snip>
Take LEGO out of the name (both the title and the file name) and I
doubt LEGO could do anything to you. I'd also add a disclaimer that
the image is in no way associated with any company or corporate entity
and is just an artistic creation you created as an individual.
I'd also note that they don't say they might take further legal
action, just that "We hope that you understand our position and that
you will consider removing the "Legodeath" picture from the homepage."
They seem to be hoping that you'll back down, but I'm not a lawyer...
Jeff
--
Naughty Noo-Noo!
Jesse Long
>
>I'd also note that they don't say they might take further legal
>action, just that "We hope that you understand our position and that
>you will consider removing the "Legodeath" picture from the homepage."
>They seem to be hoping that you'll back down, but I'm not a lawyer...
>
I have to think that if they had a good case they'd come right out and say
take it down. If TLG's normal staff doesn't care about normal people and
their Lego ideas and requests, why should their lawyers be any better? A
polite lawyer? Come on. They have no case, given their violent themes in
their toys. The best they could hope for is changing the name to take the
"Lego" out of it. They're counting on their clout to scare people.
Anyone seen the inside flap of the new Adventurer temple? There's an
alligator chomping on a skull.
Jesse
__________________________________________________________________
Jesse The Jolly Jingoist
Looking for answers?
Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! http://www.multicon.de/fun/legofaq.html
Power-search in Deja News! http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml
slink
Miller) wrote:
>In article <alan-24019...@p34.amax6.dialup.aus1.flash.net>,
>Alan <al...@datax.com> wrote:
>>
>>It doesn't matter the subject matter in a case like this. Art is art.
>>I'm sure Campbell's would have tried to sue Mr. Warhol if he had included
>>various bloody chicken parts sticking out of the can - but they would have
>>failed.
>
>That's not the point. If Warhol (pre-fame, that is) was sued, the ultimate
>loser would be Warhol, whether or not he won the case. Legally defending
>himself against the suit would ruin him. Better to back down in a case
>like this.
Not so. What's TLG going to gain from suing an individual customer on
such flimsy grounds? One letter from a defense lawyer doesn't cost
much, and to mount a genuine suit against a customer would not only be
exceedingly expensive for TLG in view of the returns, but fatal in
publicity.
Can't you see it now? Included in each set and in each bucket or tub
of bricks:
"You are licensed to build the arrangements in the enclosed
illustrations, and no other. Any other arrangements of Lego (TM)
brand highly-educational and imagination-stimulating building
materials is expressly forbidden without prior approval of our legal
department. Please submit requests for alternate arrangements of
Lego(TM) (garbage re-iterated) in triplicate. Your request will be
reviewed within 60 days. If you do not agree to this license please
return the unopened box . . oops, too late, ha-ha on you . . ."
Better TLG kept their nose out of people's business as long as the
sponsorship or approval of TLG is not being claimed and their product
and trademarks are not being pirated.
slink
wrote:
>al...@datax.com (Alan) writes:
>>
>> 5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>>
>> http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
><snip>
>
>Take LEGO out of the name (both the title and the file name) and I
>doubt LEGO could do anything to you. I'd also add a disclaimer that
>the image is in no way associated with any company or corporate entity
>and is just an artistic creation you created as an individual.
>
He might want to be careful about claiming that the minifig head is
his own creation, since that *would* be stealing their intellectual
property.
>I'd also note that they don't say they might take further legal
>action, just that "We hope that you understand our position and that
>you will consider removing the "Legodeath" picture from the homepage."
>They seem to be hoping that you'll back down, but I'm not a lawyer...
>
>Jeff
Heh, a polite request signed "Legal Department" is like a polite
request to remove your ships from coastal waters, signed by the
coastal military high commander.
Mark Koeberl
that one pirate minifig came to need an eyepatch, hook-hand, and peg-leg?
That couldn't have been a pretty scene. :)
Mark
Alan wrote:
>
> 5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>
> http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>
> And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
>
> Dear Mr Allan Watts,
>
> Our attention has been drawn to the above sub-homepage, which, as you know,
> consists of a picture with the title "Legodeath". The picture incorporates
> the head of a LEGO* mini figure with a blood-like substance oozing from it,
> thus giving the impression that the LEGO mini figure has been beheaded. For
> this reason we hereby contact you.
>
> As you probably know, the registered LEGO trademark and the LEGO mini figure
> product configuration are two of the most important assets of the LEGO Group
> of companies. The LEGO mini figure is protected by copyrights, solely and
> exclusively owned by the LEGO Group.
>
> The LEGO Group of companies is very concerned about the morbid context in
> which our LEGO mini figure is used. Please do not understand this as if we
> wish to restrict what you want to publish on the Internet. However, we do
> wish to protect the wholesome, child-oriented reputation of the LEGO
> trademark and product configurations and to prevent that they are associated
> with destruction and violence.
>
> We hope that you understand our position and that you will consider removing
> the "Legodeath" picture from the homepage.
>
> Yours sincerely
> The LEGO Foundation
>
> Legal Department
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I can't imagine what sort of legal fire Andy Warhol would have gone
> through if he had posted a web site.
>
Jesse Long
>Maybe it's time for some new digital art. How about showing, artisticly,
how
>that one pirate minifig came to need an eyepatch, hook-hand, and peg-leg?
>That couldn't have been a pretty scene. :)
>
doesn't ResQ have to do some pretty nasty work with those jaws of life and
buzz-saws?
Larry Pieniazek
slink wrote:
>
> If it's trade dress the it's legally protected as a trademark, but
> then the most he should have to do is note that minifigs are
> considered a trademark of TLG. Nevertheless it is also a real product
> and they cannot control what is done with that once it is sold. Or
> does Lego come with a license agreement for usage of minifigs? I
> don't recall any such thing coming with mine.
I'll let Todd put his oar in if he wants to, this topic has come up
before, and while it is clear that you cannot be constrained from doing
anything you want with your property privately, you can be constrained
from public display of trade dress in a way that can be construed as
damaging to the trademark or brand identity.
TLG can argue that they can control use of the minifig head and win
easily. I'm not sure they can claim control based on non-violence,
though.
Again, read and interpret the pointer I gave, it's pretty clear cut.
IMHO.
Richard Silvano
Now that LEGO has helped you to focus our attention on your very
competent art, what are you going to do next? I think that all of us
would hope that you would produce some additional works for us to enjoy.
You might even consider taking requests as I'm sure that all of us have
LEGO interests that we would like to see illustrated.
All the best,
----------
Richard
Alan
<cmi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Let's hear em! I made the full model of a lego figure so he's ready to
move! I'd love to do an animated short entirely of computer generated
legos. Heck, maybe even a feature film ! :) Anybody got a budget??
Alan
John Neal
out of the minifig's this time? What is the point of this piece of "art"
? Some things are just in bad taste, as in this case. It's something I
would envision Beavis and Butthead creating- sarcastic and crass.
Richard Silvano wrote:
> Hi, Alan!
>
> Now that LEGO has helped you to focus our attention on your very
> competent art, what are you going to do next? I think that all of us
> would hope that you would produce some additional works for us to enjoy.
> You might even consider taking requests as I'm sure that all of us have
> LEGO interests that we would like to see illustrated.
>
lan...@iei.net
now they're complaining about an obscure (more humorous than violent) picture
on someone's home page?
Cool picture by the way. :-)
brian
In article <alan-24019...@p44.amax1.dialup.aus1.flash.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
lan...@iei.net
brian
In article <36ACFB4D...@inwave.com>,
ices...@inwave.com wrote:
> Maybe it's time for some new digital art. How about showing, artisticly, how
> that one pirate minifig came to need an eyepatch, hook-hand, and peg-leg?
> That couldn't have been a pretty scene. :)
>
> Mark
Christopher L. Weeks
>
> Maybe it's time for some new digital art. How about showing, artisticly, how
> that one pirate minifig came to need an eyepatch, hook-hand, and peg-leg?
> That couldn't have been a pretty scene. :)
Hey mister! He could have been born that way. That poor disabled man
shouldn't be the subject of your mockery. In fact, the reason that he's
turned to a life of piracy is that 'normal' people - like you - aren't
accepting of his skills and he's angry at society. I think it's nice
that TLG has chosen to include a differently abled minifig.
Poor pirate.
--
Sincerely (well...),
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
Jasper Janssen
<c57...@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote:
>that TLG has chosen to include a differently abled minifig.
Differently abled? That's a new PC-speak word for me. Maybe revert to
newspeak, will ya?
Jasper
Mark Koeberl
>
> Mark Koeberl wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it's time for some new digital art. How about showing, artisticly, how
> > that one pirate minifig came to need an eyepatch, hook-hand, and peg-leg?
> > That couldn't have been a pretty scene. :)
>
> Hey mister! He could have been born that way. That poor disabled man
> shouldn't be the subject of your mockery. In fact, the reason that he's
> turned to a life of piracy is that 'normal' people - like you - aren't
> accepting of his skills and he's angry at society. I think it's nice
>
>
> --
> Sincerely (well...),
>
> Christopher L. Weeks
> central Missouri, USA
Good argument, except for that leap of faith suggesting I'm normal. :)
Given the era, "challenged" children rarely survived into adulthood. I can't
remember if I heard it on NPR or read it in Discover, but 300 years ago life
expectancies in London were just 27. I'll search through back issues to
qualify this, because I suspect some would like to know the source. Anyway,
it was tough for the healthy kids to survive to adulthood back then, much
less the challenged. While thinly possible that our pirate friend would have
been a poster child for the March of Dimes, my money would go on fast
living, but not moving fast enough on a couple three occasions. :)
Mark
Ron Perovich
While thinly possible that our pirate friend would have
> been a poster child for the March of Dimes, my money would go on fast
> living, but not moving fast enough on a couple three occasions. :)
>
> Mark
>
My guess is that he did a little dueling "to the pain."
Check out "The Princess Bride" if you don't get it.
Ron Perovich
<78j3ra$g...@journal.concentric.net>...
> how
> >that one pirate minifig came to need an eyepatch, hook-hand, and
peg-leg?
> >That couldn't have been a pretty scene. :)
> >
And
> doesn't ResQ have to do some pretty nasty work with those jaws of life
and
> buzz-saws?
Oh, wait for the Star Wars sets! Buy the X-Wing Luke used to destroy a
space station inhabited by hundreds of thousands of people and in turn
destroyed planets inhabited by billions of people! Buy the speeder bike
set and simulate the violent tree-smacking deaths of Biker Scouts! Buy the
snowspeeder and simulate Dak's gory end as an AT-AT sandle! Use Luke's
lightsaber to . . . .
For as much as I love Star Wars and Lego and any combination there of, for
TLG to claim they're totally "antiviolence" seems a little off. Need we
get into a debate again over the mere existence of the Skeleton minifigs?
The numerous flying-pointy-things-booby-traps found in many newer sets?
Of course, I might just be a little paranoid considering my own web page
could easily fall under the new dangerous "morbid situations involving
minifigs" label. They'll never take alive!
Ron
http://www.cyberramp.net/~robertp/mech/index.htm
Peteandeb
>out of the minifig's this time? What is the point of this piece of "art"
>? Some things are just in bad taste, as in this case.
Whether or not they can take legal action is irrelevant until they decide they
want to take that step. I think the point is, if it were your company and you
saw the pic you'd probably have a strong reaction. In their eyes it was in bad
taste and they chose a polite way to express that to you.
Jacklego
Sakura
Ron Perovich <rkp...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
>
>My guess is that he did a little dueling "to the pain."
>
>Check out "The Princess Bride" if you don't get it.
"We pirates have our special tricks with swords..."
Heh.
LEGO Princess Bride, perhaps? Maybe something to do after I finish the
LEGO MasterBricks Theatre production of Hamlet...
J
--
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - je...@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
John Neal
Jim West
wrote:
>That's inconssthevable! ;)
"You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you
think it means."
LAWPerry
>>you will consider removing the "Legodeath" picture from the homepage."
>>
>
>take it down. If TLG's normal staff doesn't care about normal people and
>their Lego ideas and requests, why should their lawyers be any better? A
>polite lawyer? Come on. They have no case, given their violent themes in
>their toys. The best they could hope for is changing the name to take the
>"Lego" out of it. They're counting on their clout to scare people.
Or, you could always rearrange the letters in the title, like, say, eLgo or
ogLe and match it with "death". There's any number of permutations of that one!
:^)
Richard Wright
...since I am not a lawyer, I hesitate to comment on the legal aspects of the
letter. It is a simple request...to drop the Lego connection. My sympathies are
with the artist.
What has surprized me is that the overwhelming opinion of htis group that Lego
elements no longer represent "wholesome, child-oriented reputation"
along with the connections to "destruction and violence." While we debate the
finer points of free speech and art, we have accepted the diluting of the best
toy ever created.
I have repeatedly noted that Lego has left the path of "constructive peaceful
and positive building" some time ago. I sincerely believe that the Lego Group
produces a great construct, but as a teacher I question their forays into an
increasingly violent toy. Note the constant references to castle and space
themes that have appeared in the responses to this original post.
I will not purchase any Lego toy that is "violent" in theme. I hope that someone
from Lego reviews these posts, and notices that they are becoming associated
with a long line of other violent toys. Is it a matter of time before LEGO
elements are interchangeable with the Transformers, WWF Wrestling action figures
and WWII green plastic soldiers? This is not Lego has been about in the past.
Richard
rwr...@pcsedu.com
*RELEVENT QUOTE FROM LETTER*
John Neal
Richard W. Schamus
I actually enjoyed the picture, morbid and horrifying as it is. Also, I
believe that the stance that the lawyer is making for his client, (TLG,) is
pure hypocrisy, given the last 15 years of history from sets produced for
Lego system, (castle, space, etc. et-al). If we all consider that last year
was TLG 25th year anniversary in the U.S., and a majority of them have been
spent in producing sets that have a prevailing underlying theme of not only
action and adventure, but conflict, and possible violence, then the TLG
really has no moral high ground to stand on. 10 years ago, maybe, but not
now. I'm no lawyer either, but if this is the stance that they would bring
suit to me, then, I would get my lawyer drafting counter suit papers for
harassment, based on the claims of TLG, (see quote at bottom, provided by
Mr. Wright). Personally, I wouldn't want money, I'd rather have a VERY
public apology, and an admission that this stance, (see quote again,) is not
what TLG is really thinking any longer. They are in policy, schizophrenic,
and only this will cure them, one way or another. I'm sure the lawyer is
only following the instructions given to them by the client. I would not
hesitate to be a witness at such a case.
(You could go to "ABSman Death". Since this art work obviously was intended
not only for your pleasure, but RTL in general, who would already know that
this would be a pseudonym for the classic mini-fig head, then it really
wouldn't matter. You could modify the face slightly, giving it a "new" look,
something along the lines of adding a new looking mustache or beard, which
would be consistent with the lamentations of many others, {not me of
course,} at the disappearance of the classic smilely face. Just some things
to consider...)
Richard Wright <Rwr...@pcsedu.com> wrote in message
news:36AF81AE...@pcsedu.com...
Bryan Costin
Richard Mackin wrote in message <78i9m1$v0p$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>It's funny TLG should say that when their Star Wars range includes
blasters,
>laser cannons and lightsabers, all of which are quite voilent and
>destructive, I'd have thought.
>
>BTW, nice pic.
>
>Richard (remove 'anti-spam.')
Good point!
If I used Star Wars Lego sets to re-stage the scene where Vader severs
Luke's hand, would that also be considered inappropriate? How about the
scene where Luke returns home to find the smoking remains of Uncle Owen and
Aunt Beru? That would be pretty gory, wouldn't it? But it would also be an
entirely accurate depiction.
I'm emphatically not lawyer, and I often tilt at windmills, but I very much
doubt that Lego would have any grounds to stand on in such a case. It's
their trademark, as no one can deny, but they have no rational claim to
regulate the use of the product after you buy it. No more than all those
companies making plastic Army Men could sue little kids for melting them
with magnifying glasses or blowing them up with firecrackers. As someone
else pointed out, there is no shrinkwrap license agreement inside your boxes
of Legos (nor would I expect such an agreement to be legally enforceable.)
It was nice of them to ask politely, though.
-Bryan
David Shapiro
because it has caused so much talk in this group i mean I would have never
seen the picture except I wanted to see what all the fuss was abaut.. leave
the title, leave the file name, and leave it the way it is never compromise
your art even if the disputer it polite, but because of this politness I
wouldn't suggest making any more logo relaited art pictures.
Just my opinion,
Dave
sq...@mediaone.net
(if anyone has direct response to this please email it as I don't check the
group often)
Jim Ziegler
Jim West wrote in message <36b264f5...@news.mcit.com>...
>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:36:08 -0600, John Neal <john...@uswest.net>
>wrote:
>
>>That's inconssthevable! ;)
>
> "You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you
>think it means."
The best line from that movie, IMHO is "Life is Pain, whoever says
diffrently is selling something."
John Neal
Bruce Schlickbernd
universal approval. Or the Timmy with the legs pulled off and the other half
sticking out of a shark's mouth. Or the Timmy hanging by the neck from the yardarm
of my Redbeard Runner.
But then, what do you expect from a guy who grew up playing with Green Army Men?
:-)
Bruce
Carbon 60
> If I used Star Wars Lego sets to re-stage the scene where Vader severs
> Luke's hand, would that also be considered inappropriate? How about the
> scene where Luke returns home to find the smoking remains of Uncle Owen and
> Aunt Beru? That would be pretty gory, wouldn't it? But it would also be an
> entirely accurate depiction.
I wonder - we'll have to do a test-case.
> I'm emphatically not lawyer, and I often tilt at windmills, but I very much
> doubt that Lego would have any grounds to stand on in such a case. It's
> their trademark, as no one can deny, but they have no rational claim to
> regulate the use of the product after you buy it.
Well that's what I thought - the Internet is unregulatable.
> As someone
> else pointed out, there is no shrinkwrap license agreement inside your boxes
> of Legos (nor would I expect such an agreement to be legally enforceable.)
Well those legal agreements on PC Software - "If you break this seal you
agree.." are illegal in the UK.
> It was nice of them to ask politely, though.
> -Bryan
I suppose it was.
--
Carbon 60 -=- Remove DIE to reply...
* UK Lego Mail Order: Busy-Bee Toy Service *
* Tel: +44 (0)161 881 3906 Fax: +44 (0)161 860 5627 *
Cybermaster - $230 incl. shipping to the US and VAT rebate
http://thunder.prohosting.com/~carbon60/BusyBee/busybee.html
Mindstorms from the UK - M...@jane-villa.demon.co.uk £160 + shipping
Peter Murray
"Ron Perovich" <rkp...@jove.acs.unt.edu> wrote:
>For as much as I love Star Wars and Lego and any combination there of, for
>TLG to claim they're totally "antiviolence" seems a little off. Need we
>get into a debate again over the mere existence of the Skeleton minifigs?
They died of natural causes? That's actually reasonable for the ones in
the Adventurers sets!
Mike Stanley
>The LEGO Group of companies is very concerned about the morbid context in
>which our LEGO mini figure is used. Please do not understand this as if we
>wish to protect the wholesome, child-oriented reputation of the LEGO
>trademark and product configurations and to prevent that they are associated
>with destruction and violence.
What an outrageously huge crock of dung.
(I'm just now reading this thread - I see it is popular).
I guess I'd have to tell TLG that if they TRULY were concerned about
maintaining a child-oriented product that is not associated with
destruction and violence then maybe, JUST MAYBE, they ought to
consider following their own suggestion and pull all of that out of
their own themes.
Course, if they did that a good half of their sets would have to be
pulled.
I wonder what TLG thinks happens when some of those "hidden axe
surprises" fall down and hit the unsuspecting robber/ninja etc in the
face.
--
Unofficial listing of weekly US Lego Shop at Home phone specials
http://www.lugnet.com/lsahs/
800-835-4386 (S@H USA) / 800-267-5346 (S@H Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - Focused discussion groups for LEGO fans worldwide
Richard W. Schamus
schizophrenic, (or at the very least, hypocritical,) and they need to be
cured, one way or the other. You can't condemn something with one hand, and
promote it with the other.
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (Nope, don't work for TLG, but want
to...)
lego...@usa.net
http://geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/1334
....(the wait is over...)
*****
Mike Stanley <c...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:slrn7b2r...@VADER.NS.UTK.EDU...
Sakura
Sure! Natural causes. It's completely natural to die when you've been
pierced by a spear trap...or hit by a falling axe...or...
Richard Silvano
When you look at all the responses to this "LEGO DEATH" post as well as
the responses to all the other posts of what minfigs WE want LEGO to
make, it all seems to overwhelmingly sum up to ONE thing. WE want
combative LEGO themes! Whether it's knights, or pirates, or Star Wars,
or toy soldiers - WE want our little minifigs to be able to seek out and
destroy! Of course LEGO doesn't have a monopoly on OUR destructive
perversities. I also collect Playmobil, and there is no question about
my interests - http://home.att.net/~cmi-lmi/ - as you can see if you
visit my website.
All the best,
--------------
Richard
=====================
Richard Wright wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I have repeatedly noted that Lego has left the path of "constructive peaceful
> and positive building" some time ago. I sincerely believe that the Lego Group
> produces a great construct, but as a teacher I question their forays into an
> increasingly violent toy. Note the constant references to castle and space
> themes that have appeared in the responses to this original post.
>
> I will not purchase any Lego toy that is "violent" in theme. I hope that someone
> from Lego reviews these posts, and notices that they are becoming associated
> with a long line of other violent toys. Is it a matter of time before LEGO
> elements are interchangeable with the Transformers, WWF Wrestling action figures
> and WWII green plastic soldiers? This is not Lego has been about in the past.
>
<snip>
Larry Pieniazek
> WE want
> combative LEGO themes! Whether it's knights, or pirates, or Star Wars,
> or toy soldiers - WE want our little minifigs to be able to seek out and
No, WE don't. SOME of us do, and some of us do NOT.
Please don't speak in a way that could be construed to be speaking for
all of us, thanks.
Other than LEGO, my house is completely free of any toy weapons. I have
real guns but no toys, as guns are very very serious things that cannot
be treated in less than a very serious way. When my children are old
enough, they will be taken to the range and introduced to my weapons but
for now they(1) remain locked away (and I practice undoing the
combination in a noiseless way in a pitch black room).
1 - the weapons, not the kids.
++Lar
Mike Stanley
>>That's not the point. If Warhol (pre-fame, that is) was sued, the ultimate
>>loser would be Warhol, whether or not he won the case. Legally defending
>>himself against the suit would ruin him. Better to back down in a case
>>like this.
>
>Not so. What's TLG going to gain from suing an individual customer on
>such flimsy grounds? One letter from a defense lawyer doesn't cost
>much, and to mount a genuine suit against a customer would not only be
>exceedingly expensive for TLG in view of the returns, but fatal in
>publicity.
Well, nowadays a company would probably have a harder time getting
away with this (scaring the little guy into submitting). If this
actually went to court (or came close) the little guy could go to any
number of Web news organizations and free-speech groups and have it
plastered all over the web, at which point it would start being run on
CNN and other, more traditional media.
40 years ago the little guy would either give in or be stomped into
financial ruin.
Just look at how Archie Comics just backed down on pursuing their
actions against a family who had registered veronica.org to host a
website to celebrate the birth of their daughter.
Not really concerned with the "merits" of this type of thing at all -
for too long big business has had its way in situations like this,
mainly because they could keep it quiet. Keeping it quiet isn't
really possible anymore.
--
Unofficial listing of weekly US Lego Shop at Home phone specials
http://www.lugnet.com/lsahs/
800-835-4386 (S@H USA) / 800-267-5346 (S@H Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - A great new resource for LEGO fans worldwide
Steve Bliss
>5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>
>http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
I've always loved that scene. I can't really put on my monitor
(multi-user workstation, ya know), but I've always kept it on file.
>And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
Looks like it's time to update your RTL Roll Call. You have a new
LEGO Claim to fame.
(my nine-year-old son says, "You have your art, and I have my art." I
don't think he appreciated 'Lego Death'.)
>The LEGO Group of companies is very concerned about the morbid context in
>which our LEGO mini figure is used. Please do not understand this as if we
>wish to restrict what you want to publish on the Internet. However, we do
>wish to protect the wholesome, child-oriented reputation of the LEGO
>trademark and product configurations and to prevent that they are associated
>with destruction and violence.
That's just funny. Does this mean they're going to remove the
mini-figs from all sets which promote violence and destruction?
So remove the word "Lego" and go on with your life...
Steve
--
www.lugnet.com/news/ <-- great LEGO discussions
Steve Bliss
>In article <alan-24019...@p44.amax1.dialup.aus1.flash.net>,
>al...@datax.com says...
>
>>5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>>http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>>And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
[snippity snip]
>And yet, how does it compare to the pictures on my web page below? They have
>never commented on my web page.
>http://www.erols.com/kennrice = Concentration Camp made of LEGO bricks
Your pictures are photos of a piece of somewhat-famous art; they are
not art themselves. They are ... documentation? Journalism?
Ken Rice
bli...@worldnet.att.net says...
>On 25 Jan 1999 03:50:07 GMT, n...@email.ads (Ken Rice) wrote:
>>In article <alan-24019...@p44.amax1.dialup.aus1.flash.net>,
>>al...@datax.com says...
>>>5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>>>http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>>>And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>[snippity snip]
>>And yet, how does it compare to the pictures on my web page below? They
>>have never commented on my web page.
>>http://www.erols.com/kennrice = Concentration Camp made of LEGO bricks
>Your pictures are photos of a piece of somewhat-famous art; they are
>not art themselves. They are ... documentation? Journalism?
I suppose you could call it journalism. My intent was to collect all the
information I could find about the original work into a single site to
satisfy r.t.l readers' curiosity about this work. When we first heard about
it, not much information was available.
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://www.erols.com/kennrice = Concentration Camp made of LEGO bricks
http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice = Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2,
= Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire &
= Crusaders of Dark Savant.
http://members.xoom.com/CWRTDC = Civil War Round Table of DC
slink
wrote:
>for now they(1) remain locked away (and I practice undoing the
>combination in a noiseless way in a pitch black room).
>
>1 - the weapons, not the kids.
>
>++Lar
1- The alternative sounds more rational to me. <g>
Speaking from personal experience (myself and my friends as children),
I'd guess that the kids will learn to pick the lock before you learn
to do it faultlessly by feel in a pitch black room. It would be more
likely if you had booze or sex manuals behind the lock, of course. :)
PS: he did say "maybe" in his title. Do you really dispose of all the
Lego weapons from your sets?
--
Sandra -> http://www.netins.net/showcase/slink/
GEEK CODE Version 3.12: GS>AT !d(++)@ s:+ a+ C+++($) !U(C/H$) P(+)@
L E? W++ N++ o? K? w(++)@ O !M V(+) PS+() PE(++)@ Y+ PGP? t++@ 5? X?
R+ tv-- b++(++++)@ DI++++ D G e++++ h+(++)($) r+++ x+++
Peter Murray
je...@dillinger.io.com (Sakura) wrote:
>>They died of natural causes? That's actually reasonable for the ones in
>>the Adventurers sets!
>
>Sure! Natural causes. It's completely natural to die when you've been
>pierced by a spear trap...or hit by a falling axe...or...
I meant the ones in the sarcophagi or arranged in alcoves, that've been
dead for a couple of thousand years or more :-) .
Carbon 60
> Well, nowadays a company would probably have a harder time getting
> away with this (scaring the little guy into submitting). If this
> actually went to court (or came close) the little guy could go to any
> number of Web news organizations and free-speech groups and have it
> plastered all over the web, at which point it would start being run on
> CNN and other, more traditional media.
LEGO's next e-mail could be:
Resistance is futile,
We are LEGO,
You will take down your website or prepared to be fined!
Daniel Miller
>>>the Adventurers sets!
Tutenkhamun had his head bashed in. That's a natural cause?
--
Daniel "Dan'l" Miller Senior, School of Aeronautics and
dani...@ecn.purdue.edu Astronautics, Purdue, Indiana
"Stadtluft macht frei." - German proverb
Matthew
Resistance is futile.
We are LEGO.
You will buy expensive Town Jr. sets ('cause that's all we are going to make
in 2000).
Barry Vaughan
<al...@datax.com> writes
>5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>
>http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>
>And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>
I'm not surprised.
>
>I can't imagine what sort of legal fire Andy Warhol would have gone
>through if he had posted a web site.
>
There's a slight difference, Andy Warhol was a capable
artist.
Barry.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I lie awake at night, thinking that we're dead.
That all this is just Death's last joke. That we're living
one last dream before the lights go out.
And then I think, so what's new?
-Death, The Time of your life - Neil Gaiman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ba...@samael.demon.co.uk
Nola
Barry Vaughan wrote:
> In article <alan-24019...@p44.amax1.dialup.aus1.flash.net>, Alan
> <al...@datax.com> writes
> >5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
> >
> >http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
> >
> >And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
> >
> I'm not surprised.
> >
> >I can't imagine what sort of legal fire Andy Warhol would have gone
> >through if he had posted a web site.
> >
> There's a slight difference, Andy Warhol was a capable artist.
-------------------------------I hope this won't be construstrued as
entering into a "flaming,..." but I think (having been staff artist for a
local newspaper some years ago,) that this is quite a piece of work. I
suppose, as with Mapplethorpe, it depends on whether you can handle the
content/context and judge the piece on technical merit alone.
As for Andy Warhol; he was primarilily a concept guy who had neat ideas and
then had other people execute the actual work, like a film director. I don't
think Warhol is a good comparison here. Salvadore Dali; Bosch... yes.- Nola
Larry Pieniazek
slink wrote:
> PS: he did say "maybe" in his title. Do you really dispose of all the
> Lego weapons from your sets?
No, but I don't allow their use in aggressive roleplay by my kids. Note
that not all weapons are weapons only.
Jesse Long
Alan wrote in message ...
>
>We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern, however, for
>the time being we shall not pursue the matter.
>
In other words, "you're not falling for our bluff and we hate you."
Jesse
__________________________________________________________________
Jesse The Jolly Jingoist
Looking for answers?
Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! http://www.multicon.de/fun/legofaq.html
Power-search in Deja News! http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml
Alan
Come on Barry, Lego has grown to love it, why can't you :) ?
>>>>>>>>
Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
Dear Alan,
We thank you for your swift reply of 22 January 1999 regarding your
homepage. We appreciate that you take the time to answer us. We note your
remark about your "legodeath" as a piece of art. I hope you forgive us for
saying that bearing the context in mind, to us it is not obvious that it is
meant as a piece of art.
We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern, however, for
the time being we shall not pursue the matter.
Yours sincerely
The LEGO Foundation
Henrik Faurbye Jensen
Legal Department
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ALan
al...@datax.com
Terry Keller
<DxUxwCAb...@samael.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <alan-24019...@p44.amax1.dialup.aus1.flash.net>, Alan
> <al...@datax.com> writes
> >5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
> >
> >http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
> >
> >And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
> >
>
> I'm not surprised.
>
> >
> >I can't imagine what sort of legal fire Andy Warhol would have gone
> >through if he had posted a web site.
> >
>
> There's a slight difference, Andy Warhol was a capable
> artist.
That art looks pretty capable to me. Suppose a hidden stash of Warhol
originals was found, and one of those was a minifig head dripping blood (or
paint). Would that then be an instantly recognized "work of art"? Just
because it's a 'Warhol'?
This piece should be judged by its own merits, by each individual. Not by
comparison to other art or artists.
And as for the question of TLG forcing it off the web - no way. The artist
could easily claim free speech protections under a variety of forms.
Perhaps he was making a statement through his art. Like "The prevalence of
violence in today's culture" or "The bleeding of our wallets by corporate
greed" or " (make up your own rant here) ".
So any attempt by TLG to force removal of the picture by legal means would
be an attempt to inhibit free speech and artistic expression. Which is
laughable. And doomed to failure.
It all comes down to TLG just not liking the picture and asking if he would
consider removing it. They know full well they have no real legal basis
for forcing him to comply. If they did they would have used different
verbiage in the letter. I am sure it would still be polite, but much more
demanding.
-- Terry K --
Richard W. Schamus
"Not only that Jesse, but Alan seems to have hundreds of AFOL's who would
plonk money down to the ACLU just for his defense, and it still wouldn't go
anywhere, even though "we", ( not this law firm in particular, but "TLG",)
hate it. "
CONGRAT's Alan!!!
I'm glad to hear that they backed up a bit. Though, as I've said I like the
picture I personally wouldn't feature it myself, unless of course they
didn't back down. Then I'd feel compelled to help out and display it myself,
(with an appropriate disclaimer for the kids, of course,) probably along
with lot's of others around here. Freedom of speech is something not to be
trifled with.
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (Nope, don't work for TLG, but want
to...)
lego...@usa.net
http://geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/1334
....(the wait is over...)
*****
Jesse Long <Long...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:793mgm$o...@journal.concentric.net...
>
>Alan wrote in message ...
>>
>>We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern, however, for
>>the time being we shall not pursue the matter.
>>
>
Mike Stanley
>
>Alan wrote in message ...
>>
>>We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern, however, for
>>the time being we shall not pursue the matter.
>>
>
>In other words, "you're not falling for our bluff and we hate you."
Or, "we know we shoveled a tremendously huge load of horseshit at you
with that non-violence crap and boy are we glad we woke up before we
took this any further and showed ourselves to be a bunch of
hypocrites."
--
Unofficial listing of weekly US Lego Shop at Home phone specials
http://www.lugnet.com/lsahs/
800-835-4386 (S@H USA) / 800-267-5346 (S@H Canada)
Mike Stanley
>>>>>>>>>
>
>Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
>Dear Alan,
>
>We thank you for your swift reply of 22 January 1999 regarding your
>homepage. We appreciate that you take the time to answer us. We note your
>remark about your "legodeath" as a piece of art. I hope you forgive us for
>saying that bearing the context in mind, to us it is not obvious that it is
>meant as a piece of art.
>
>the time being we shall not pursue the matter.
>
>The LEGO Foundation
>
>Henrik Faurbye Jensen
>Legal Department
"We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern" ...
So in lawyer-speak "understand our concern" means something like
"accept our wishes and do what we say regardless of your own wishes" ?
Mike Stanley
Lances come to mind as a Lego weapon with many other uses.
slink
>In article <36B50732...@uswest.net>, Nola <nb...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>> Barry Vaughan wrote:
>>
>> > In article <alan-24019...@p44.amax1.dialup.aus1.flash.net>, Alan
>> > <al...@datax.com> writes
>> > >5 years ago, I created some digital art with one of my beloved toys:
>> > >
>> > >http://www.datax.com/brainchild/legodeath.html
>> > >
>> > >And now, it seems Lego doesn't like it:
>> > >
>> > I'm not surprised.
>> > >
>> > >I can't imagine what sort of legal fire Andy Warhol would have gone
>> > >through if he had posted a web site.
>> > >
>> > There's a slight difference, Andy Warhol was a capable artist.
>> > Ba...@samael.demon.co.uk
>>
>> -------------------------------I hope this won't be construstrued as
>> entering into a "flaming,..." but I think (having been staff artist for a
>> local newspaper some years ago,) that this is quite a piece of work. I
>> suppose, as with Mapplethorpe, it depends on whether you can handle the
>> content/context and judge the piece on technical merit alone.
>>
>> As for Andy Warhol; he was primarilily a concept guy who had neat ideas and
>> then had other people execute the actual work, like a film director. I don't
>> think Warhol is a good comparison here. Salvadore Dali; Bosch... yes.- Nola
>
>
>
>Come on Barry, Lego has grown to love it, why can't you :) ?
>
>>>>>>>>>
>
>Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
>Dear Alan,
>
>We thank you for your swift reply of 22 January 1999 regarding your
>homepage. We appreciate that you take the time to answer us. We note your
>remark about your "legodeath" as a piece of art. I hope you forgive us for
>saying that bearing the context in mind, to us it is not obvious that it is
>meant as a piece of art.
>
>We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern, however, for
>the time being we shall not pursue the matter.
>
>Yours sincerely
>The LEGO Foundation
>
>Henrik Faurbye Jensen
>Legal Department
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>ALan
>al...@datax.com
<g> That's legalese for "we knew we hadn't a snowball's chance in
hell of winning an actual legal confrontation but we had hoped we
could intimidate you into doing what we wanted".
Good for you. :)
Damraska
>>> PS: he did say "maybe" in his title. Do you really dispose of all the
>>> Lego weapons from your sets?
>>
>>No, but I don't allow their use in aggressive roleplay by my kids. Note
>>that not all weapons are weapons only.
>
>Lances come to mind as a Lego weapon with many other uses.
Ya. They make great gun barrels on spacecraft and mechs.
-Doug
--
WickedD...@Yahoo.com . (Nix 'Wicked' to reply.)
Nix '.net' to reply to my AOL address.
Dear LEGO, I'd like to request an all black sci-fi theme, please. :)
Robert Wallace
> Alan wrote in message ...
>>
>>We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern, however, for
>>the time being we shall not pursue the matter.
>>
> In other words, "you're not falling for our bluff and we hate you."
> Jesse
I guess they weren't expecting the "Whack a bee; get the whole hive"
response from this group, either.
Of *course* they monitor RTL.
Robert Wallace
rob...@netcom.com
Damraska
>Alan <al...@datax.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
>>Dear Alan,
>>
>>We thank you for your swift reply of 22 January 1999 regarding your
>>homepage. We appreciate that you take the time to answer us. We note your
>>remark about your "legodeath" as a piece of art. I hope you forgive us for
>>saying that bearing the context in mind, to us it is not obvious that it is
>>meant as a piece of art.
>>
>>We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern, however, for
>>the time being we shall not pursue the matter.
>>
>>Yours sincerely
>>The LEGO Foundation
>>
>>Henrik Faurbye Jensen
>>Legal Department
>
>
>"We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern" ...
>
>So in lawyer-speak "understand our concern" means something like
>"accept our wishes and do what we say regardless of your own wishes" ?
That's a pretty harsh reading. It sounds more like, "we had hoped you would
accept our point of view, or honor our wishes, but as you will not, and as
there is nothing we can do about it, we'll be moving along now."
I'm fascinated by how a simple request has been blown into the evil decree of
a fascist dictatorship by members of this newsgroup. I am also fascinated that
the majority of people seem to recognize no gradation between cartoon violence
and a bloody severed head. It is as if the violence of Mario jumping on a
mushroom, squishing it to death, is equivalent to some Mortal Combat character
ripping his opponent's spine out and watching the shower of blood rain forth.
Neil Postman was right.
Mike Stanley
>>"We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern" ...
>>
>>So in lawyer-speak "understand our concern" means something like
>>"accept our wishes and do what we say regardless of your own wishes" ?
>
> That's a pretty harsh reading. It sounds more like, "we had hoped you would
>accept our point of view, or honor our wishes, but as you will not, and as
>there is nothing we can do about it, we'll be moving along now."
Yeah, it is a little harsh. Call me crazy, I have a mad-on for
bullies in suits, which is basically what most corporate lawyers are
with respect to their dealings with average people.
It is accurate, though, if also harsh. They wanted him to take it
down, he said no. They obviously didn't care what he wanted (nor
really should they - nobody is completely selfless) when they made the
request. Now that he has stated his reasons for not complying with
their wishes, they whine a little and, in typical lawyer-speak, do not
drop the matter and move on, they say they'll not pursue it further at
this time. So they might come back to it, maybe at a time when they
think the winds would be more favorable to their hypocritical cause.
> I'm fascinated by how a simple request has been blown into the evil decree of
>a fascist dictatorship by members of this newsgroup. I am also fascinated that
>the majority of people seem to recognize no gradation between cartoon violence
>and a bloody severed head. It is as if the violence of Mario jumping on a
>mushroom, squishing it to death, is equivalent to some Mortal Combat character
>ripping his opponent's spine out and watching the shower of blood rain forth.
>Neil Postman was right.
Well, if you think that the minifig head with a red liquid pouring out
of it is the equivalent of the Mortal Kombat (no C) death scene, I'd
say you aren't seeing the gradations either.
I'd also have to say that the majority of the outrage over this issue
is focused on the completely hypocritical "non-violence" issue raised
in the original letter. If the letter had simply addressed the trade
dress issue it probably would have been seen as overbearing, but not
really something to argue with, unless you bring the whole art as a
first ammendment statement issue into it.
The non-violence claim, though, was enough to make me puke.
--
Unofficial listing of weekly US Lego Shop at Home phone specials
http://www.lugnet.com/lsahs/
800-835-4386 (S@H USA) / 800-267-5346 (S@H Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - Meet more LEGO fans in your area through LUGNET
Mike Stanley
>>>No, but I don't allow their use in aggressive roleplay by my kids. Note
>>>that not all weapons are weapons only.
>>
>>Lances come to mind as a Lego weapon with many other uses.
>
> Ya. They make great gun barrels on spacecraft and mechs.
They also make great rods for hanging things.
slink
> I'm fascinated by how a simple request has been blown into the evil decree of
>a fascist dictatorship by members of this newsgroup.
As a number of us have pointed out, there is no such thing as a simple
request when it is signed "Legal Department". I believe that TLG
tried to use strong-arm tactics in an arena where they have no
business doing that, while standing on shaky ground themselves. Large
corporations are prone to that because they so often get away with it
due to the ignorance of the average individual, the implied threat in
"Legal Department", and the resulting fear. How you managed to blow
that opinion up into "evil decree of fascist dictatorship" is
fascinating all in itself.
> I am also fascinated that
>the majority of people seem to recognize no gradation between cartoon violence
>and a bloody severed head. It is as if the violence of Mario jumping on a
>mushroom, squishing it to death, is equivalent to some Mortal Combat character
>ripping his opponent's spine out and watching the shower of blood rain forth.
I guess to me the rendering in question *is* cartoon violence.
Minifigs are not living beings and that is not real blood. Wiley
Coyote always rises from the dead and so will that minifig.
On the other hand I never found much amusement in cartoon violence so
I'm not sure why there is more virtue in that as compared to
depictions of the real thing.
>Neil Postman was right.
>
About what? I did a quick look up on him and came away with the
impression that he hates computers and is afraid of information
because it disturbs his peace of mind.
Richard Wright
...here at the school, it is my policy to toss all the Lego weapons. In
the past, we have purchased kits on clearence for the school....a good way
to aculmulate specialty items. Sometimes swords or guns would be
included...and they are anthetical to what we are trying to teach kids.
Sometimes my students ask "don't you have any guns?" I tell them "No" and
explain it is our goal to build for positive peaceful purposes. When they
ask what happend to such items, I tell them that I melted them down.
There are simply too many "war toys" or "combative blah blah etc etc" on
the market now. What made Lego elements hands-down great was the
constructive theme.
As to winning battles ( wise words from a fellow r.t.l. member )...well, I
have no say at the Lego company. What I have is an educational vision and
a personal belief. I hope I can influence the Lego company...My goal is to
set a role model for others....that's a battle I can win.
Richard
rwr...@pcsedu.com
www.weirdrichard.com
*relevent quote*
Richard Wright
Howdy,
...just to make it clear ( maybe for myself ), that I do not see the trend of Lego
designs as a "cartoon violence." When the Lego group first
broke away from making kits for positive purposes, with the castle kits, they
referred to the "romance of the days of knights" and stated they
were not focusing on the violence. This has not been the case...an example of one
of those "slippery slopes."
Even if it is important to gradiate violence, what I am saying is there is plently
of that out there in the world. I like Legos because they
did not have a violent bent at all. Now they do. I prefer the latter designs.
Yup. I read "Entertaining Ourselves to Death."
Richard
Damraska wrote:
> I'm fascinated by how a simple request has been blown into the evil decree of
> a fascist dictatorship by members of this newsgroup. I am also fascinated that
> the majority of people seem to recognize no gradation between cartoon violence
> and a bloody severed head. It is as if the violence of Mario jumping on a
> mushroom, squishing it to death, is equivalent to some Mortal Combat character
> ripping his opponent's spine out and watching the shower of blood rain forth.
> Neil Postman was right.
Dave!
>
> That art looks pretty capable to me. Suppose a hidden stash of Warhol
> originals was found, and one of those was a minifig head dripping blood (or
> paint). Would that then be an instantly recognized "work of art"? Just
> because it's a 'Warhol'?
>
> This piece should be judged by its own merits, by each individual. Not by
> comparison to other art or artists.
Well, I think comparison to other art and artists would be valid if it
were possible to agree on common ground between them (which, of course,
it isn't).
However, you've just recited the mantra of the premiere
critical/aesthetic school for most of this century: the art is in the
object and not in the artist. I couldn't agree more, but the fact
remains that many "artists" in other fields (like Stephen King, for
instance) enjoy a certain momentum of appeal. That is, they are able to
bet on the acceptance of their work by virtue of previous work and or
success. To bring this back to your point, it seems quite likely to me
that such a "hidden stach of Warhol originals" would instantly be hailed
as art on the basis of who made them.
Dave!
Todd Lehman
> <g> That's legalese for "we knew we hadn't a snowball's chance in
> hell of winning an actual legal confrontation but we had hoped we
> could intimidate you into doing what we wanted".
>
> Good for you. :)
Everyone is blowing this way out of proportion.
Alan should not have a page up called "legodeath" without a disclaimer
saying that it's art and that it's not meant to reflect on TLG's recent
losses.
TLG's legal team is taking the right steps.
--Todd
Alan
> c...@newsguy.com wrote something like...
>
> >Alan <al...@datax.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>Jour. no.: 263-00427/hfj
> >>Dear Alan,
> >>
> >>We thank you for your swift reply of 22 January 1999 regarding your
> >>homepage. We appreciate that you take the time to answer us. We note your
> >>remark about your "legodeath" as a piece of art. I hope you forgive us for
> >>saying that bearing the context in mind, to us it is not obvious that it is
> >>meant as a piece of art.
> >>
> >>We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern, however, for
> >>the time being we shall not pursue the matter.
> >>
> >>Yours sincerely
> >>The LEGO Foundation
> >>
> >>Henrik Faurbye Jensen
> >>Legal Department
> >
> >
> >"We had of course hoped that you would understand our concern" ...
> >
> >So in lawyer-speak "understand our concern" means something like
> >"accept our wishes and do what we say regardless of your own wishes" ?
>
> That's a pretty harsh reading. It sounds more like, "we had hoped you would
> accept our point of view, or honor our wishes, but as you will not, and as
> there is nothing we can do about it, we'll be moving along now."
>
> I'm fascinated by how a simple request has been blown into the evil
decree of
> a fascist dictatorship by members of this newsgroup. I am also
fascinated that
> the majority of people seem to recognize no gradation between cartoon violence
> and a bloody severed head. It is as if the violence of Mario jumping on a
> mushroom, squishing it to death, is equivalent to some Mortal Combat character
> ripping his opponent's spine out and watching the shower of blood rain forth.
> Neil Postman was right.
I'm used to expecting the worst from lawyers - from 1995 to mid-1998 I did
a web site called Web-*-Sketch (name edited to protect the
innocent...ahem!) Etch-*-Sketch was none too happy when they found out
that I had done it first and wouldn't sell it to them. I was totally
non-commercial blah, blah, blah and received a similar letter at first.
And even though I was legally protected from similar attack, the fact that
their legal budget was 10,000 times as much as mine (I figure mine was
about $2 or $3 for photocopies), made them in the right. So, I don't
think it's harsh for people who are tired of being bullied by bigger
corporations to ready themselves for what might be a bigger wave. Who
knows what would have happened if I remained quiet and all this didn't
stir up....
Alan
Todd Lehman
> I'm used to expecting the worst from lawyers - from 1995 to mid-1998 I did
> a web site called Web-*-Sketch (name edited to protect the
> innocent...ahem!)
That was you? You're famous!
> Etch-*-Sketch was none too happy when they found out
> that I had done it first and wouldn't sell it to them. I was totally
> non-commercial blah, blah, blah and received a similar letter at first.
> And even though I was legally protected from similar attack, the fact that
> their legal budget was 10,000 times as much as mine (I figure mine was
> about $2 or $3 for photocopies), made them in the right. So, I don't
> think it's harsh for people who are tired of being bullied by bigger
> corporations to ready themselves for what might be a bigger wave. Who
> knows what would have happened if I remained quiet and all this didn't
> stir up....
What did they ask you to do? Take down the site? Change the name? Add a
disclaimer noting that Web-A-Sketch was not associated with Ohio Arts or it
Etch-A-Sketch product? Did they make it clear that they were concerned that
"Web-A-Sketch" might present possible dilution to the 50-year-old "Etch-A-
Sketch" trademark? Did they make it clear that if they believed there was
reason for concern, that they were compelled by law to talk to you about it?
Were they jerks, or friendly?
--Todd
slink
wrote:
Do you call your auction sales "winnings" to avoid state sales tax?
Larry Pieniazek
> Mike said:
> >
> >Lances come to mind as a Lego weapon with many other uses.
>
> Ya. They make great gun barrels on spacecraft and mechs.
Wicked. It's not just a name any more, it's a way of life. :-)
John Neal
someone with a twisted sense of humor and some graphics software. I doubt
whether the creator intended this piece to be some sort or critique on
society, TLG, or anything meaningful for that matter. Why else post it
here in the first place, if not as a joke? I'd hardly compare him and his
work to the likes of Andy Warhol-more like to "Beavis and Butthead get
Adobe Illustrator"
Larry Pieniazek
just get Richard to CONFORM to how other people post URLs without giving
up his other (cherishable) nonconformist ways. :-)
Go check out his site!!!
Richard Wright wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> ...here at the school, it is my policy to toss all the Lego weapons.
<snip>
slink
wrote:
>I agree. IMO this is not a serious piece of "art", but merely a work of
>someone with a twisted sense of humor and some graphics software. I doubt
>whether the creator intended this piece to be some sort or critique on
>society, TLG, or anything meaningful for that matter. Why else post it
>here in the first place, if not as a joke? I'd hardly compare him and his
>work to the likes of Andy Warhol-more like to "Beavis and Butthead get
>Adobe Illustrator"
I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge of Beavis and Butthead, as
I don't watch that sort of thing.
BTW, have you ever actually looked up the meanings of the words
"sarcastic" and "crass"? Your prior usage of them seems to indicate
that you might need to.
Todd Lehman
I call them "winnings" to make sure that people understand that they're not
"orders." Nobody can "order" something through an auction; it's the wrong
word. You "win" something in an auction by competing and having the
strongest bid.
--Todd
Mark Tarrabain
that of the many people who have commented on the picture mentioned in this
thread, I have not seen any person raise any sort of objection to it. I do not
feel I can stay silent any longer.
Although I do not condone current LEGO's trend towards toys of a more violent
nature than what they used to offer, I must also express my own disappointment
in the attitudes of the people here with regards to the imagery that the
artwork conveys. My wife concurs with this opinion, and has expressed concerns
about the fact that adults with children do not find this sort of portrayal at
least somewhat disturbing. Nobody has stood behind LEGO's view that the
imagery is inappropriate for their toys (1). Don't we, as parents, have an
obligation to try to teach our children what is virtuous? It's not uncommon
for a child to do something wrong, using the defense that "he saw it on TV" or
some such thing. There's an expression which says something to the effect of
"Garbage in - garbage out." I'm not saying that every kid who happens to see
this picture is going to go out and slice the neck of his or her neighbor, but
why are so many parents today afraid to put boundaries on their children's
freedom -- at least while they are staying here with us?
I do not wish to receive a plethora of emails from people telling me to shut
up, or to stop preaching. I have no intention of posting any further on this
topic. I merely wanted to let my own views be known.
>> Mark
(1) A couple of years ago, Nissan lost a lawsuit with Mattel over
"inappropriate" imagery associated with their Barbie character that they used
in one of their commercials. (2)
(2) Aqua, on the other hand, successfully defended a similar lawsuit from
Mattel last year regarding the usage of "inappropriate" imagery associated with
Barbie that was used in a song. Go figure.
slink
wrote:
>In article rec.toys.lego, sl...@netins.net (slink) writes:
You purchase the items at auctions. You win the right to purchase the
items, not the items themselves. Otherwise I'll be expecting a package
for free from you very soon now. <g>
Peter Murray
dani...@roger.ecn.purdue.edu (Daniel Miller) wrote:
>>>>They died of natural causes? That's actually reasonable for the ones in
>>>>the Adventurers sets!
>
>Tutenkhamun had his head bashed in. That's a natural cause?
None of the Lego skulls I've got have that problem :-) . Some Pharoahs
and others lived long lives, such as [checks a book] Pepy II who lived
to over 100.
Failing that, I resort to the comment in Terry Pratchett's Wyrd Sisters
that assassination is death by natural causes if you're a King....
apo...@altavista.net
influences that drew me back into Lego. I was amazed
and delighted to see someone using my childhood toy in
such positive, constructive and educational ways. It
reminded me that someday I could show my kids how to
build bridges, mechanisms, cars, robots etc. with
Lego. I think Richard's zero tolerance policy on
violent themes in the classroom is to be commended and
in fact should be endorsed by Lego themselves. As far
as I'm concerned a CyberSlam should be the name given
to the arrival of two emails in your INBOX at
*exactly* the same time.
My only question to Richard is, "Where the heck were
school's like this when I was a kid?" :)
Regards,
Allan
*** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ***
John Neal
"Nobody?" Yours is not the only voice. Please see my comment earlier in the
thread...
-John
John Neal
-synonymous SARCASTIC" "Crass: gross, insensitive" No, I think that's
exactly what I meant. As for Beavis and Butthead, I have never (or ever
would) seen the show. One does not need to have viewed that show to
understand its viewpoint. I'll bet, however, our artist has seen a few
episodes...
slink wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 1999 15:02:47 -0600, John Neal <john...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I agree. IMO this is not a serious piece of "art", but merely a work of
> >someone with a twisted sense of humor and some graphics software. I doubt
> >whether the creator intended this piece to be some sort or critique on
> >society, TLG, or anything meaningful for that matter. Why else post it
> >here in the first place, if not as a joke? I'd hardly compare him and his
> >work to the likes of Andy Warhol-more like to "Beavis and Butthead get
> >Adobe Illustrator"
>
> I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge of Beavis and Butthead, as
> I don't watch that sort of thing.
>
> BTW, have you ever actually looked up the meanings of the words
> "sarcastic" and "crass"? Your prior usage of them seems to indicate
> that you might need to.
>