Do MOC's have copyright?

[Richard Dower]

Is this the reason TLG don't make official sets out of MOC's?

[Milan]

They dont have to. Nor they have unlimited freedom, regarding budget (parts), time limits and specific theme. They used some solutions found on MOCs, though.

In my opinion, mocs dont have copyright. Crediting original builder is the most you can get.

[TheItalianBrick]

In my opinion, mocs dont have copyright. Crediting original builder is the most you can get.

I think the AFOL should create an official organization/company who can certificate MOCs. Every body who wants to be part of it should pay a little quote.

Specially thinking about instructions.....cos there are people out of there who sells our instructions claiming the rights and getting the money. Non fair at all!

Edited January 31, 2015 by TheItalianBrick

[Omikron]

If you are talking in juridical terms then it's a has very vast field of explanations that has to be done before arguing. But first of all - it's intellectual property. Something that was made by a brain, belongs to the owner of the brain. You can patent this property or prove that you was the first one that came up with the idea/shape/solution

[Faefrost]

A lot of it will depend on the nature of said MOC. If it is something that is based on a well known or well known type of subject then no typically a MOC would not have a copyright. The reality is the creative limitations in building with standardized bricks means that there will be parallel designs. "You built the same color house as mine!" Or "you used the same design for those window details" type issues are not really valid.

Where you may see a reasonable claim of copyright is the cases where someone uses Lego simply as the medium for more traditional art and sculpture. Such as Nathan Sagawya's stuff (did I spell his name right?).

It gets into grey areas and is very very hard to really nail down.

[King Andy]

Copyrights would only allow something like, if somebody copied the design of one of your MOCs you could sue them in courthouse. But I think that doesn't make any sence, because you're not actually creating something from scratch but connect multiple LEGO parts creating a kind of sculpture. It's easy to end up building a MOC with similar stuff like other people for multipe reasons, like various people trying to model the same object in the same scale so it will sook similar, or simply because it's not that hard to somebody end up making a similar building technique to one you developed, because LEGO has it's limitations.

A LEGO MOC isn't like a house or a car designed from scratch, LEGO has the bricks shape limitations so you only figure out a way to combine multiple LEGO bricks to make something, and in my opinion you can't copyright it.

But then there's the popular rules. Like, if you copy somebody's work claiming it's yours, you're taking a big risk to be ashamed. So that's why if you copy a MOC built by another person because you really liked it, you can share on the internet saying it's a replica of the MOC X made by the person Y. If you copied another people's MOC but with your own changes, call it a MOD of the MOC Z made by the person H. If you use some building techniques you saw on other MOCs to make your own MOC, it's won't take you too long to credit them.

LEGO would be criticyzed if they copyed somebody's MOC to make a LEGO set (excluding LEGO Ideas), and since they have a lot of really creative workers, LEGO won't need to copy random MOCs.

I think the AFOL should create an official organization/company who can certificate MOCs. Every body who wants to be part of it should pay a little quote.

Specially thinking about instructions.....cos there are people out of there who sells our instructions claiming the rights and getting the money. Non fair at all!

So if I wanted to create a MOC I had to be part of that organization, if not other people could copy my work with no problem? And then what the organization could do? Ashame the people who copy MOCs? Because I don't see any way it could avoid the problem...

About the guys who sell instructions, I think it's fair. Nobody is obligated to buy them, I only buy instructions if I want to. Your organization suggestion looks way more unfair, because the "presidents" of them would gain a lot of money from AFOLs of the entire world to somehow "protect" their MOCs.

Edited January 31, 2015 by King Andy

[Omikron]

MOC presumes that it is MY OWN CREATION. Not MY OWN MODIFICATION. So it's intellectual property. If the country has a law to protect it - then it belongs to you.

[jantjeuh]

They used some solutions found on MOCs, though.

I guess you're referring to the various 'SNOT' techniques some AFOLs pioneered? Curious if you have any other examples.

[TheItalianBrick]

So if I wanted to create a MOC I had to be part of that organization, if not other people could copy my work with no problem? And then what the organization could do? Ashame the people who copy MOCs? Because I don't see any way it could avoid the problem...

About the guys who sell instructions, I think it's fair. Nobody is obligated to buy them, I only buy instructions if I want to. Your organization suggestion looks way more unfair, because the "presidents" of them would gain a lot of money from AFOLs of the entire world to somehow "protect" their MOCs.

I think you simply misunderstood me!

Listen this: I do instructions and I do sell them ok?!...then someone buys my instructions and re-sells them claiming it's their instructions..not mine!! So basically I spend months and money to create something unique and then someone without moving a finger makes money!! HOW CAN YOU CALL IT FAIR?????????

A corporation would protect us by taking legal actions againt those who steal! And the quote to pay it's not for the president....but simply to keep and run the organization....that's it!

[JGW3000]

Yes, creators of original MOCs own the copyright to that MOC - regardless of artwork, construction, written work (instructions), digital work, etc. However, if the MOC contains elements that belong to someone else, then they are not free to profit or make use of their own MOC. For example, if you use LEGO bricks that are patented, you cannot sell your MOC without TLG permission. If your MOC has for its subject someone else's IP, you cannot sell it either. An example would be a "Batman off-roader". If your MOC is simply an interpretation of some one else's IP, then you cannot get copyright - almost all Star Wars MOCs fall into this category,

So if your MOC is original, and does not include someone else's IP - you are good to go.

If your MOC is a new use of someone else's IP, then you likely need a sub-licence to use your MOC - including use of unexpired patented parts.

Edited January 31, 2015 by JGW3000

[dr_spock]

If MOCs are considered works of art, then in the USA you have copyright the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. You should register your copyright at the US Copyright Office if you think your work will be stolen by infringers to make lots of money.

[andythenorth]

then someone buys my instructions and re-sells them claiming it's their instructions..not mine!!

I dunno, me playing armchair lawyer is dubious, but anyway. Copyright varies by jurisdiction, significantly in some cases.

For the UK:

- You'd have straightforward copyright on the content of the instructions, in printed, or digital form. It's a straighforward Literary or Artistic work, similar to any book or video or technical manual or software program, and if you can prove you're the author of the work, the copyright defaults to you (unless you explicitly assign it elsewhere, or its covered by a pre-existing contract such as employment, or work-for-hire).

http://www.copyright...k_copyright_law

- Protecting the copyright on the designs is more complex (and I'm less familiar with it). There appear to be rights, but you'd have to demonstrate that the design is unique,

http://www.copyright...5_design_rights

You wouldn't need to start a MOC-protection association. You could try something like the Copyright Service (I have no idea if they are good or bad).

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/

Be very aware though that services like that are private limited companies. They are not official government bodies or charities, and they have no statutory powers. Some of them may be bona-fide and dedicated to protecting authors. Some others act more like legalised mafias: they try to extort companies, charities, public organisations, freelancers etc by writing legally threatening letters to them and 'licensing' them to copy material. I have been on both sides of this, protecting work, and being threatened with (bogus) 'fees' for copying (we weren't, it was a scam).

Edited January 31, 2015 by andythenorth

[King Andy]

I think you simply misunderstood me!

Listen this: I do instructions and I do sell them ok?!...then someone buys my instructions and re-sells them claiming it's their instructions..not mine!! So basically I spend months and money to create something unique and then someone without moving a finger makes money!! HOW CAN YOU CALL IT FAIR?????????

A corporation would protect us by taking legal actions againt those who steal! And the quote to pay it's not for the president....but simply to keep and run the organization....that's it!

Ohh, sorry I really misunderstood you. In this case I agree with you. I just tought you were against the instruction selling.

I guess you're referring to the various 'SNOT' techniques some AFOLs pioneered? Curious if you have any other examples.

I guess everybody already saw this little exclusive set:

Doesn't it look familiar to you?...

The last one was created by Nils O., before the TLG set was released....

http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/329631

Edited January 31, 2015 by King Andy

[LegoFjotten]

Doesn't it look familiar to you?...

They do look familiar, since they both are Lego representations of the same car. The builds are plenty different.

[jantjeuh]

With such small models, it's no surprise the same solutions are found. Looks like a mere coincedence.

[Erik Leppen]

So if your MOC is original, and does not include someone else's IP - you are good to go.

Is the 2x4 brick someone's IP?

Is any other LEGO element someone's IP?

(We all use LEGO elements for our MOCs, after all. Are they original works, or are they always derivative works?)

Is the digital representation of any LEGO element inside a computer program someone's IP?

Most of us use 3D-models of Lego elements when we make instructions. Are those instructions original or derivative?

---

Anyhow, to answer the original question, I do think that indeed, TLC will avoid using MOCs as inspiration to avoid discussions like this. Because discussions like this are never fun if a lawsuit is at stake.

[Faefrost]

The main issue is that in most cases you are simply arranging some else's creation, the Lego itself, in expected ways to create your own designs. Now in theory you could probably attempt to make a copyright claim on anything you build. But in practice there is so much parallel developed works of others that it would simply fall under expected use of someone else's product. Ie you cannot copyright a blue wall simply because you purchased blue paint and applied it to a wall. Painting the wall is the expected and common use for paint.

To rise to being copyright able requires a certain fairly high level of complexity (at least in Lego's case) and uniqueness.

Technic gets into some further strange areas, because unlike other types of Lego bricks you can often use Technic to realize certain non technic specific engineering designs. Say you design a new mechanism or transmission, then you use technic parts to realize the design. You would be copyrighting the engineering work, not the technic design necessarily. And even then the high burden of their being no prior or parallel work still applies.

[JGW3000]

Any IP on the 2x4 brick, and other common parts, has long ago entered the public domain - hence competition from Mega Blocks, etc... LEGO still has patent protection on many of its parts, plus IP in the form of design and artistic creations, so still have the possibility of creating contaminated work, from an IP perspective.

With regards to tools used to create the IP, use of a tool in itself is not infringing - so use of LDD to create a MOC or instructions is not violating IP rights, unless there is some language agreed to when accessing or installing the tool. I am not going to read the fine print on LDD's end user's agreement to find out.

Bottom line, if your MOC has no commercial value, don't worry. If you think its going to generate tangible income, get a lawyer specialized in IP.

[Paul Boratko]

Is this the reason TLG don't make official sets out of MOC's?

Lego doesn't make official sets out of MOCs because 99.99% of MOCs(including my own) are not up to LEGO's standards, plus they already have the best team of designers in the world and don't really need outside help or the hassles that could go along with that, including and most importantly legal ones...

As far as MOCs go, It doesn't bother me if people build my models and sell them...If someone wants to go through all of the trouble of gathering parts just to make $20 in profit, then more power to them... As loing as no one else is selling my instructions, I don't care what they do... That is of course unless they are trying to pass off the design as their own and take credit...

Edited January 31, 2015 by Paul Boratko

[Omikron]

I always was curious about TLG designers. Do they experience "wonder" feeling when they see a MOC. Like "Oh wow, how does this work, how did he made this stuff to move in that manner, what powers this ,or how did he connected those 2 in that amount of space?" Or all our MOCs are "boring" to them. Like "I saw this 10000 times, and this one isn't even in the first half."

Everybody talks about how good those mythical divine designers are, I don't believe most of the mocs don't reach their standards. Maybe some of standards, but I'm pretty sure there are mocs that meet them, and even some that beat them.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Omikron

[aol000xw]

There is a difference between copyright and patents. While copy rights are intended to protect creative works, they do not apply to every aspect of intellectual property, mechanical designs for example are covered by patents -for a notably shorter term-. Instructions are covered by copyright but I don't believe possible to enforce copyright over the MOCs/MODs defined by those very instructions unless we are talking about built models, and that isn't obvious either.

Copyright is -at first sight- pretty straightforward but patenting is a way more convoluted process subject to concession, revision and whatnot, and a MOC could be covered by industrial design patents -a special kind of patent for the "looks"-, but as a MOC is indeed a bunch of Lego parts conforming a mechanical device with several functions and a specific design things get very complex.

So in the end anyone could take your instructions make a new ones with different steps, colors, page desing, building order etc., and then you are out of look as that is an "original work" even if in the end the resulting Lego model is the same.

On the other hand it would be hard to enforce a design patent for a MOC even if someone was selling the parts and the instructions together, as those parts may represent or may not the patented design and the instructions aren't covered by that. However if you had a design patent over a MOC and someone was selling BUILT copies of that MOC that might have some force... Unless they made exactly the same car for example except they modified a bit the body to avoid failing in the scope of your design patent.

In the end you can't get into the intellectual property world and keep your common sense and sanity intact.

But this is a pretty simplistic view and worse one that varies a lot from country to country.

[Sariel]

In the end you can't get into the intellectual property world and keep your common sense and sanity intact.

Very well said. Besides, people seem very quick to suspect TLG of stealing designs. It does not seem too logical that a huge company would employ an entire team of highly qualified and well paid (meaning: costly) designers specifically to browse the web and steal people's stuff. I mean, I had people telling me TLG stole my Tumbler model, but having built both these Tumblers I can positively say it did not. Not only the models are very different, but it actually appears that TLG's designer (whom I know and who's well aware of my model) made a specific effort to avoid resemblance.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Sariel

[aol000xw]

Many of you might be somehow violating rights given by design patents of commercial models

Most of the MOCs I see are modelling real life designs by companies that really did patent all that they could conceivably patent and since selling instructions is a commercial activity that is benefiting not only from those designs but from the brand that made those, that leaves the door open to litigation. An exaggeration probably but IP lawyers love brands

Irony is complaining about someone "stealing" your instructions of a MOC of a real life counterpart for which you did not care to license with the company that designed the model those very instructions help to build

Whatever... I don't give a shit, where are my new pneumatics?

Btw I agree with Sariel When MOCing the same subject given 2 technics or designs one is always of higher fidelity to the original. Hence two equally skilled builders coming to similar or even identical designs isn't only probable, is expected.

There are people who really love to scream that A is a copy of B, when most probably both are inspirations first of the real model and then of many other MOCs.

[Superkalle]

About patents. Many of LEGOs patens on bricks are so called design patents, i.e. not a traditional patent (based on a invention/technical solution). Design patents are only valid in US.

I'm not sure patents (of any kind) are relevant for the discussion since they concern the copying/manufacturing of the individual brick, i.e. their purpose is to prevent competitors from making the same type solution/design for the brick.

Maybe I'm taking this discussion a bit further OT now, but I guess one has to divide MOC building into a couple of subcases to get some grip on it:

Question 1 - Parts used

1) Building a MOC using only traditional/non-IP/non-protected bricks (2x4, bows etc)

2) Building a MOC using also IP-parts (i.e. SW minifigs etc)

Question 2 - Design protection

a) Building a MOC that is a copy of a real-world object that is not design protected (i.e. Niagara Falls or Notre Dame)

b) Building a MOC that is a copy of a real world object that is design protected (i.e. a Ford F-150)

c) Building a MOC that is a copy of someones elses MOC (can be of type a or b above).

Question 3 - Commercial aspect

Then the next question is increasing level of "commerciality" I suppose

A) Is the MOC a one-off not for sale (99% of ones made in community)

B) Is the MOC a one-off for sale

C) Is the MOC made in many copies and for sale

If one combine one from each group above, then we have a a lot of different case. Which one(s) are we talking about in this discussion?

[Jared]

I guess it depends. If the person did it as something to sell, then to an extent I guess, but in general I don't think so. I mean, is information copyright to universities? Goodness forbid never!