Staff views on knock-off discussion and promotion

[MAB]

There is also likely to be confusion over, for example, custom figures from IPs. If someone makes their own version of a Batman figure, for example, then I guess it is fair play that they can show their custom figure here as a work of art. What if they then try to sell the figures? They are then producing something stolen (IP of DC) and selling it, so no different to Lepin apart from the scale. It is also not ripping off lego, but a third party IP. Is it OK to do that so long as they are not infringing against lego? Of course, you could replace Batman with Ghostbusters symbol arms, Gondor shields, etc and various other things that lego do not make (or had not made at the time in the case of GB arms) that have been sold on here.

[Robianco]

I actually don't think this was a snobbish decision to make and to be honest it's one that I think was becoming inevitable. I think making a decision to 'censor' something is actually a hard decision for a site to make.

The reproduction of many, many sets by Lepin was drawing comparisons to the bootlegging of minifigures which is completely understandable. While the bootleg minifig thread was started due to completely different figures from those produced by Lego there did then develop a systematic copying of Lego's licensed minifigures... essentially no different from the Lepin issue with those sets. Lego's court case against Lepin has brought them very much into focus and Lepin then having a platform on a Lego forum, albeit in the community section, to have their products discussed puts this site at odds with Lego's interests... a site that has a very good relationship with Lego.

So with that I think that one thread being closed was always going to result in both being closed. I still think that the bootleg companies have actually brought some really nice minifigure parts, and indeed minifigures, to the market that compliment anyone's Lego collection (just don't judge everything created the same as some are absolutely horrific). But with that comes the issue raised previously about custom minifigures in general. Any likeness of a licensed character is owned by someone and the customisers don't have a license to replicate that but are being allowed to by inaction of the license holders. There has recently been a case where a very well known customiser was due to release a new character but had a cease and desist order from the license holder. This license holder didn't ask for any of the other figures being produced to be stopped even though they hold the licenses to them. So seemingly license holders choose their moments to exert their authority when a release can coincide or compete with their own future or impending releases. I knew someone who did something similar with needledrops of first pressings of Beatles vinyl. He got a visit from EMI's legal team at his some 6 months before the Remasters were released and he was asked to stop his 'work' for 18 months. They admitted that surviving members of the Beatles had heard his discs and even owned some of them but they wanted any barrier to the remasters releases to be removed. He was told that EMI didn't want to appear like the 'big bad' and go after a one man band but they'd stop him if he didn't comply. That said he stopped and 18 months later started up again... offering a service to Beatles fans of authentic first press vinyl sound cleaned up and brought to the digital age...all with the knowledge of EMI, Apple and the Beatles themselves. I also know that the people that bought his discs (or were sent them for doing QC on the sound) also bought the remasters, had previously bought the other CDs, owned vinyl and had contributed to the financial juggernaut that was and still is The Beatles and will continue to do so forevermore.

So, as far as I'm concerned, the matter of whether the reproduction of a likeness is acceptable is only down to the license holder and if they allow it to happen then that's fine. It's that simple. If they didn't allow it then there are 4 or 5 customisers who'd have their shops shut down by now (and yes, most of them are US based). I think Lego and their license partners know and happily accept that customisation and creation of new figures is something that enhances and expands a fan's collection, but systematic replication of their product on an unprecedented scale isn't and it's not something they want to accept.

I think if Lepin had just cloned a couple of the early modulars then lego probably wouldn't have taken this strong a stance... As much as they wouldn't have liked it they may have even accepted that people who missed out on those sets might buy them instead of the genuine sets from resellers or scalpers. They'd have lost no sales because of it. But that's not how it went and for the next 12 months I can only see Lepin cloning more and more in an effort to get their product on the market. If their bricks are getting as good as some people say then who knows... the case might prompt them into investing in a designer or two and making some unique sets in the way that some of the other clone brands have done. Turn what seems to be a decent brick quality into something more legitimate. Something that can be discussed and even compliment the modular landscape in a much more positive way.

[MAB]

Another complication - what if lego lose the court case? Or win, but it turns out that what they were objecting to was the use of their artwork and not the design of the sets? In that case, lepin would then be a clone not an (illegal) knock-off.

[Robianco]

The term clone brand has always annoyed me a bit. Isn't Lego a derivative of Kiddicraft's Interlocking Brick System? In which case Lego is a clone brand. Just that they're now the brand that has it's name used as recognition of the entire toy genre in the same way that Sellotape and Hoover have.

Surely a clone brand should be a company that only produces clones of existing sets whereby anybody that does their own thing are just competitor brands.

[Peppermint_M]

Clone brand kind of stuck back in the day to the likes of Tyco and Megablocks. Change now might confuse the issue further.

and yes, LEGO pinched the original idea, fiddled with it a bit and became better known. They quietly swept up the patent when trying to shut down another brand and admitted as much. It was only recently that it was properly acknowledged.

[Robianco]

Just now, Peppermint_M said:

Clone brand kind of stuck back in the day to the likes of Tyco and Megablocks. Change now might confuse the issue further.

and yes, LEGO pinched the original idea, fiddled with it a bit and became better known. They quietly swept up the patent when trying to shut down another brand and admitted as much. It was only recently that it was properly acknowledged.

Yeah... and I can see why. It's probably only something that has any kind of really negative connotations when the likes of Syco, Megablocks and Oxford are lumped into the same category as Lepin or Decool. Previously it was probably pretty fair.

At least the history is now know and admitted. Lego should certainly be confident enough in who they are and what they've become to acknowledge such things.

[MAB]

10 minutes ago, Robianco said:

The term clone brand has always annoyed me a bit. Isn't Lego a derivative of Kiddicraft's Interlocking Brick System? In which case Lego is a clone brand. Just that they're now the brand that has it's name used as recognition of the entire toy genre in the same way that Sellotape and Hoover have.

Surely a clone brand should be a company that only produces clones of existing sets whereby anybody that does their own thing are just competitor brands.

It is the bricks that are clones, not the sets.

And of course, everyone calling any building brick a "lego" or refering to all building bricks as lego(s) is exactly what lego don't want and they say as much in their fair play brochure. They don't want the term to become a generic one for fear of losing it. Although of course I am also breaking the guidelines, by writing lego instead of LEGO and not adding a noun afterwards.

 

[Im a brickmaster.]

Yay. I for one finds bootlegs and knockoffs to be to detrimental to the company they are knocking off, so I am glad to hear the staff has put an end to it!

[Captain Britain]

51 minutes ago, Robianco said:

There has recently been a case where a very well known customiser was due to release a new character but had a cease and desist order from the license holder.

Would you be able to DM me who that was if possible please?

I'm definitely interested to see how all if this does effect the customs market. 

[CaptvirgilHilts]

I think a new thread with rules outlined at the beginning to ensure that no Copies of TLG figures or sets are permitted would potentially please the new rule change. With many regular posters I think it could be easily self-policed.

Despite some of the Chinese companies reproducing TLG sets and figures; XINH and POGO specifically have been making figures than will likely never see the light of day from TLG whether its Suicide Squad and Game of Thrones for its Subject Matter or X-Men and Fantastic Four because of Marvel's issues with 20th Century Fox.

Do the Mods think that such a thing could be possible?

[Peppermint_M]

If they are not products that are not replicating TLG designs, then they are a permissible competitor product. I noticed that a lot of these brands make figures based on modern military forces and more eastern cultural stories too, something TLG does not delve into. A thread covering those sort of figures would not fall foul of the rule.

[MAB]

26 minutes ago, Peppermint_M said:

If they are not products that are not replicating TLG designs, then they are a permissible competitor product. I noticed that a lot of these brands make figures based on modern military forces and more eastern cultural stories too, something TLG does not delve into. A thread covering those sort of figures would not fall foul of the rule.

Could you clarify these two:

What if they are doing alternative versions of minifigures that TLG do make? So, for example, Batman or Joker in a different costume.

What if they are doing characters from an IP that TLG has but doesn't make the minifigures? So, for example, Fantastic Four when they do have Marvel.

Obviously neither being exact copies of TLG products.

[BigPoppaBrick]

What a shame, a lethal combination of white knights and moderators going all North Korea on a tiny part of this site.

Very little reason now to visit this site apart from to read the latest ridiculous rambling from Sven.

Enjoy the Lego love in! ;-P

[CaptvirgilHilts]

1 minute ago, BigPoppaBrick said:

What a shame, a lethal combination of white knights and moderators going all North Korea on a tiny part of this site.

Very little reason now to visit this site apart from to read the latest ridiculous rambling from Sven.

Enjoy the Lego love in! ;-P

Well as mentioned before I think we can create a thread with TLG copies not mentioned, those discussions can surely just be brought to the various subreddits in place currently that will likely blossom now.

[Ltfalcon]

45 minutes ago, BigPoppaBrick said:

What a shame, a lethal combination of white knights and moderators going all North Korea on a tiny part of this site.

Very little reason now to visit this site apart from to read the latest ridiculous rambling from Sven.

Enjoy the Lego love in! ;-P

I totally agree,

AFOL "Greed" has consumed this hobby.

[H3ssian]

2 hours ago, Peppermint_M said:

If they are not products that are not replicating TLG designs, then they are a permissible competitor product. I noticed that a lot of these brands make figures based on modern military forces and more eastern cultural stories too, something TLG does not delve into. A thread covering those sort of figures would not fall foul of the rule.

Just just to clarify please, it's ok for discussions/threads about products that breach IP's just as long as they are not LEGO IP's?

regards

-H 

[Robianco]

Just now, H3ssian said:

Just just to clarify please, it's ok for discussions/threads about products that breach IP's just as long as they are not LEGO IP's?

regards

-H 

And I think this is where any discussion could very quickly go south. It's a very fine line. Even if SY or a similar company did a set of DC related figures that Lego haven't done then we know someone's IP has been breached yet it's not a replica or clone of an official Lego product so technically can be discussed.

Things such as Sen Bao's Falcon Commandos can surely be discussed as they don't infringe upon any immediate IP but some of the camo print can be very similar to CitizenBrick's parts. But then I suppose CB don't have any copyright over camo print. The guns and accessories that are issued with the Sen Bao figures look to be copies of moulds from companies such as Brickarms etc but then I'm sure BrickArms don't have a license from Heckler & Koch to produce likenesses of MP5 machine guns. Where is the line drawn or are people making far too much of some things?

I personally don't see a problem with a thread that says 'Hey... Here's a '66 Batgirl by a Chinese company' when we don't have one from Lego and it's a glaring omission from the '66 Batcave and polybag. I see that as no different from any of the customisers who freely sell on eBay and other open and public platforms. Many accessories are created from non-Lego ABS so as long as the product is of decent quality then it's about as valid as any other custom figure. It's personal preference whether people want it on genuine Lego pieces. Each bootleg minifigure has subtle differences in their moulding that make them not be complete copies yet are almost entirely compatible. It's when that Batgirl figure is one of eight from a set and the other seven are all clones from the official set. It's difficult to talk around that and conversation may ultimately lead to far more cloned figures being shown than those that are unique. I'm sure it'll still get people popping into the thread to call it immoral, illegal etc.

Maybe it's something that could be tested out but I think it'd be an awkward process at least at first. People will be cautious about what they can and can't say for fear of it being shut down again and eventually that may happen anyway.

[CaptvirgilHilts]

2 hours ago, Peppermint_M said:

If they are not products that are not replicating TLG designs, then they are a permissible competitor product.

 

2 minutes ago, Robianco said:

And I think this is where any discussion could very quickly go south. It's a very fine line. Even if SY or a similar company did a set of DC related figures that Lego haven't done then we know someone's IP has been breached yet it's not a replica or clone of an official Lego product so technically can be discussed.

Things such as Sen Bao's Falcon Commandos can surely be discussed as they don't infringe upon any immediate IP but some of the camo print can be very similar to CitizenBrick's parts. But then I suppose CB don't have any copyright over camo print. The guns and accessories that are issued with the Sen Bao figures look to be copies of moulds from companies such as Brickarms etc but then I'm sure BrickArms don't have a license from Heckler & Koch to produce likenesses of MP5 machine guns. Where is the line drawn or are people making far too much of some things?

I personally don't see a problem with a thread that says 'Hey... Here's a '66 Batgirl by a Chinese company' when we don't have one from Lego and it's a glaring omission from the '66 Batcave and polybag. I see that as no different from any of the customisers who freely sell on eBay and other open and public platforms. Many accessories are created from non-Lego ABS so as long as the product is of decent quality then it's about as valid as any other custom figure. It's personal preference whether people want it on genuine Lego pieces. Each bootleg minifigure has subtle differences in their moulding that make them not be complete copies yet are almost entirely compatible. It's when that Batgirl figure is one of eight from a set and the other seven are all clones from the official set. It's difficult to talk around that and conversation may ultimately lead to far more cloned figures being shown than those that are unique. I'm sure it'll still get people popping into the thread to call it immoral, illegal etc.

Maybe it's something that could be tested out but I think it'd be an awkward process at least at first. People will be cautious about what they can and can't say for fear of it being shut down again and eventually that may happen anyway.

Based on what was written above the rules are written and applied in regards to official TLG product designs not IPs.

Any discussion would mean understanding the parameters of what is allowed which would amount to any NON-TLG designs.

[Peppermint_M]

Right now it is respecting LEGO products. Of course if IP holders serve a cease and desist we'll have to re-evaluate. There will be a bit of a grey overlap, but personally I find all aftermarkets to be just as "grey" when considering this issue. For now, we play it by ear and I hope I can trust everyone to be sensible. 

 

As for everyone going on about a LEGO love in? Uh... It's right in the headline. Eurobricks Uniting LEGO Fans around the world. A little hard to miss.

If things had not been pushed so far, by the "fans" and the Bootleggers, then we'd not have had to tackle the issue. 

[Cobb]

What about the pad printed bootlegs of comic-con figures (not china figures)? Can they still be discussed?

[H3ssian]

2 hours ago, Peppermint_M said:

Right now it is respecting LEGO products. Of course if IP holders serve a cease and desist we'll have to re-evaluate. There will be a bit of a grey overlap, but personally I find all aftermarkets to be just as "grey" when considering this issue. For now, we play it by ear and I hope I can trust everyone to be sensible. 

 

As for everyone going on about a LEGO love in? Uh... It's right in the headline. Eurobricks Uniting LEGO Fans around the world. A little hard to miss.

If things had not been pushed so far, by the "fans" and the Bootleggers, then we'd not have had to tackle the issue. 

Just just to be clear, just to make sure as most forums do a blanket ban not 50/50

We can talk about and post photos of non lego products breaching IPs that lego have the exclusive brick market rights to eg marvel/Disney,dc etc as long as they are not a direct copy of something in Legos current and expired products? Eg it's a protectionist ruling for Lego group not a moral rule etc for IP infringement?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Collector]

What about something like the Senbao Helicarrier?  Sure it's technically copied from the Lego version, but it's been modified to be several inches bigger, has different decals(no SHIELD logos), and doesn't actually come with any marvel figs. 

Then there's some of the recent SY superhero sets that are exact copies of Lego sets, except they threw in a random big fig character that Lego has never made before.  Is it OK to talk about the exclusive big figs, but not the sets themselves?

[rodiziorobs]

6 hours ago, H3ssian said:

Eg it's a protectionist ruling for Lego group not a moral rule etc for IP infringement?

Thank you for putting the dilemma at hand so succinctly.

I feel that if we are going to put a ban  on discussions of products that violate TLG-held IP's, that demands a moral imperative to help protect all IPs, or else there is a double-standard as to why some discussion is allowed while another is not.

If we can't discuss some custom Avengers 'figs we saw for sale on eBay, should it be okay to talk about a listing for some unlicensed GoT customs?*

*Please note that such customs would perfectly ok if created for one's personal use with no distribution beyond a picture of the work; such things would fall under fair use, etc. and should still be allowed to be posted on EB.

It would be the difference between "look at this cool custom I made for my collection" (ok) and "look at this cool custom I'm selling" (not ok). Brickset got in trouble a little over a year ago for posting a giveaway of some custom Frozen minifigs--there was a flurry of comments calling them on it, several users reported it to both TLG and Disney, and they haven't posted anything like that since.

I am not trying to cause trouble here on the forums; I am merely seeking assurance that this rule will be applied consistently.

[Peppermint_M]

I said pretty clearly: You can discuss it if it does not copy LEGO designs and LEGO products. EB is able to offer great contest prizes, create A-class reviews and offer opportunities from LEGO because of a good relationship with TLG which we want to keep.

 

Individual IP issues will be tackled if there is a case to answer to, i.e a request from the rights holder to remove it. You can call it protectionism if you like. 

I am trying to give the fans of more modern military figures and the like the chance to carry on a discussion. 

[Robianco]

I really think people are reading into this too much and I'm not sure if some of the comments are just being awkward for awkward's sake. Start a thread and add content. If it breaks the new site guidelines it'll be closed down. If it doesn't then that's fine. Lego, DC, Marvel, BBC or Whoever aren't going to come after anyone for commenting on something on this forum but at the worst the site will be asked to cease all talk of such things.