Renting out LEGO Technic

[Corvette3]

Honestly if i was the designer of one of these Mocs, i would be happy with a credit and a small cut ~3-7% maybe? but for the prices he is charging he should be using the most correct colors possible not this BOLOCS.

[Boxerlego]

Hi guys (and girls),

Did you know that there is a German website where you can rent LEGO Technic?

They even have some famous MOCs in theire catalog!

http://www.spielstei...gosondermodelle

What do you think of this idea?

I personally find it quite expensive and don't like the 'rainbow models'...

This might seem like a nice idea at first to the person with tons of LEGO but for the person that owns all that LEGO its not worth it in the long term. You will just find yourself loosing LEGO parts left and right and recovering any lose is going to take time and money and think about that shipping that is what going to cut into the profits the most.

This idea would probably be better if you were to able to build what ever you want and not solely MOC creations that happen to be built by other people that offer instructions themselves. Renting out LEGO can certainly be a good idea but not like this.

Disclaimer:I am not in the business of buying, selling or whatever, instructions or built MOCs, be mine or not, and I am not talking of anyone in particular.

Instructions piracy or plagiarism are directly a No, but this is about built models.

I disagree on the first account, even if I find rude not mentioning the original designer, I don't think asking for permission even morally is necessary in this case.

On the second account and to simplify things l assume they own legitimate instructions.

And that's all, because this is like renting your car. They are not even selling. What if I decide to quit and sell my Lego, do I need to ask TLC permission to sell my built sets? What makes MOCs different?

There have been some outraged MOCers because someone was selling their built model; I disagree on that stance. Furthermore when the model is branded and someone gets outraged because someone else is simply selling a built copy of it, it baffles me because they want to claim rights when -I am guessing- they failed in first place to properly license their model, and some of those offended by the fact are selling the instructions, a commercial activity. So the irony is "criminalizing" someone for something that indeed is legal when the MOCer may be the one doing something wrong.

Don't get me wrong, licensing for such small scale operations would be ridiculous in my opinion but anything about built models beyond asking for attribution is too. I find asking them to remove a set is outreaching, Like Honda calling me and telling me I can't sell or rent my bike.

Just my 2 cents.

+1 I agree with aol000xw. What makes MOCs different here?

[Blakbird]

From a moral point of view, well, I believe that he should cite the author of the MOC, and above all, write that his is a derived version, not the original. Maybe not everyone thinks like me, but my pick-up is...a bit ugly

This is why I think the analogy to renting out your car is not quite accurate. Yes, anyone should be able to rent out their Honda Accord to someone without permission from Honda. But what if they are altering it to look or perform terrible? What if they pull out two of the four spark plug wires and then rent it? At that point it could be argued that they are damaging the Honda brand. Likewise, when Sheepo is trying to sell instructions for his Land Rover and then someone goes and makes a terrible version of it and rents it out, it is damaging Sheepo's future possibility of selling his instructions because they are perpetuating a negative connotation to his brand. For these reasons and others, I don't think renting out other people's creation without their involvement is moral, though I can understand those who disagree.

[bonox]

According to the translation provided at post #17, the instructions are being purchased for each rental.

That being the case, why on earth is changing colour schemes or design any different in a rental context to what anyone purchasing and not renting them will do?

If you're talking about damaging brands, i've seen far more third party models of famous MOCs at general entry lego and toy shows with no crediting and various additional colours/mods etc. Where's the hate for them?

As far as i'm concerned, if the designer get's his cut, then what ever colour or change you choose to do to a model is your business. I'd be pissed if Honda took me to court for respraying a vehicle I had decided to rent out!

I just bought Ingmar's Mk4 trailer but I changed the plate colour from tan to stone grey lattices. If I ever show this to anyone, am I damaging his brand?

[rumpletump]

The way I see it if you take the time to purchase all the parts to make up somebody's MOC then they are your parts and you can do what you like with them.. It is no different to buying from a bricklink seller who just happens to have 100% of the parts needed for a certain MOC..

If you do include in your sale description the helpful information that you are selling the parts for a certain MOC you will save somebody the time and stress of trying to find all the parts themselves which can be quite daunting the first few times you do it..

However you should not provide them with instructions for rebuilding but encourage them to purchase a licence for the instructions from the designer.

I would rent out all my Technic to fellow Tasmanians but since Paul B seems to have gone AWOL again I guess I'm the only one left. :laugh:

[technicbasics]

It's clear that anyone can do what he wants with Lego, but if you already operated on models of other people you should specify the author himself at least. I was for a long time once again for his side, with the newer models it is at least to which they are rebuilt and even some indications of the origin, maybe he improves yes. Hope dies last.

Who finds spelling mistakes may keep them > translated with Google

regards

Technicbasics

[Kumbbl]

According to the translation provided at post #17, the instructions are being purchased for each rental.

That being the case, why on earth is changing colour schemes or design any different in a rental context to what anyone purchasing and not renting them will do?

If you're talking about damaging brands, i've seen far more third party models of famous MOCs at general entry lego and toy shows with no crediting and various additional colours/mods etc. Where's the hate for them?

As far as i'm concerned, if the designer get's his cut, then what ever colour or change you choose to do to a model is your business. I'd be pissed if Honda took me to court for respraying a vehicle I had decided to rent out!

I just bought Ingmar's Mk4 trailer but I changed the plate colour from tan to stone grey lattices. If I ever show this to anyone, am I damaging his brand?

I fully agree. With one addition: in case of MOCs (eg like Hans sheepos etc) the name of the designer should be mentioned and probably also the link to the official website where the original model is shown. This would be respectful.

Apart from that i found nothing morally damnable...

But as already said: IMO the prizes are way to high to get a successful business case. So IMO this website will sooner or later disappear...

[martijnnab]

I really don't know what to think of this initiative. My Rolls is on there (free instructions) but indeed with a colorscheme that is so bad that I am glad he doesn't make a reference to my original design, but for some reason it doesn't feel right that he is trying to make a lot on model on my design. He is not selling/renting out a random selection of parts (which nobody would want) but advertising the model that I designed and trying to make money with it. For me sharing open source means you everybody can use it for themselves, but cannot make monay out of it.

If this were legal and moral Lego could also take all models with free instructions, stow them in a box and sell them under the Lego Brand. That would be considered illegal without consent or agreement with the designer who holds the intellectual property.

For my next builds I will be sure to mention the right licencing (Attribution, non-commercial) to prevent this sort of leeching on other peoples work.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/

[Bricksonwheels]

Mission impossible, wouldn't worry too much.

[aol000xw]

Not really.

It's more like renting someone else's car without telling it's someone else's car.

Wrong. He is not taking the bricks from someone else's house. Those are his bricks and he can do whatever he wants with them without telling anyone.

Here we don't talk about physical property, this is about intellectual property.

I'll try to explain what I know even If that might be different from country to country.

Customization

if I am publicizing it as an official model that plays a role but it falls under false advertising.

However if when claiming it is an official mode a trademark is used(name, logos...) then see next.

Branding

For damaging a brand there needs to be such a brand... supported by a trademark.

If Sheepo for example registers his own trademark under the right Nice classes (a classification which states in what kind of business the trademark applies) in this case Nice class 28.260 (Building block toys), he can prevent any use of his brand by anyone in that class. Doing so without permission is a trademark infringement. That is how the brand is protected.

A contract might allow the use of the trademark by a third party. Then the use of the trademark with a crap customization will be allowed and while not representing a trademark infringement, with the right clauses it might be breach of contract.

Instructions

Lego Instructions are considered creative works,

Lego Instructions are protected by Copyright laws

Hard to fight, but the law is on your side.

Models

It could be worth a lawsuit the classification of Lego Technic models as creative works but until then...

Lego Technic models aren't creative works, (in the same way that an engine isn't a creative work)

Lego Technic models are industrial designs composed of functional and ornamental characteristics (chassis and body for example)

Lego Technic functional designs might be patentable if novel, (but unless you invent a new kind of mechanism, hence novel, won't be granted)

Lego Technic ornamental designs are patentable. (but if previous art exists, something close to what you did, won't be granted)

So unless you filled a design patent and it was granted you have no rights over your model. Forget getting a patent on a Lego Mustang by the way, Indeed you probably are infringing on a bunch of rights.

I understand people who don't make instructions, those that make and keep for themselves, those that share and those that sell.

Any of those options is valid and has pretty foreseeable consequences, some good, some not. Your choice....

Trying to keep under strict control what you share is not possible, and any protection comes at a cost. Just because due to hard work you claim a right does not mean you really have that right. And remember all Technic MOCs are for the most part based, inspired or copied from other people works, from how to make certain hub or bracing to all kind of chassis and body designs.

Sharing makes the AFOL community richer, alive and interesting, helps others learn and improve and that reverts back to the community. If plagiarism or modifications concern you, don't share.

Edited May 3, 2015 by aol000xw

[Phoxtane]

And yet the forum still practically goes on a crusade every time it's discovered someone is selling someone's model/model instructions without permission or re-uploading a builder's videos to their own YouTube account. Just because it's their bricks and it's not technically wrong to do this, doesn't make it right. At the very least, they should be giving credit to the original builder. We all agree that the Ball Factory GBC module "belongs" to akiyuky, and we all agree that the Terex RH400 Mining Excavator model "belongs" to sheo. I'm pretty sure that in this and the Lego community it's generally accepted that if you build an original model, it's your model in that it's your design, your interpretation of either a real-life machine or object; or, in the case of GBC and others, it's entirely your original work.

So as far as I'm concerned, it's not technically wrong to do so - but just because it's not technically against the "house rules" that we all play by in this community, doesn't make it right either.

I don't have any skin in this game, in that I don't see anything I've built on that website, but frankly I'd be appalled if I did. It basically amounts to the work I put into that model being used for someone else's gain, without my permission to do so! If I did see something of mine on that site, I'd request it to be removed, as I never gave permission for it to appear on there. If there's one *good* thing I've learned from Tumblr, it's to give credit where it's due, and I'm not seeing this happen here.

At this point I'm willing to agree that a model someone built is "their" model, in that we recognize that the model was designed and built by them and they have the rights to either share or not share how they built it, whether it be via images, instructions, video, or directly-to-brain ionizing radiation. If that's the case, then they also have the right to say that it's "their" model, and request that others must at least say so. Why? Because it's the nice/right thing to do. It keeps everyone happy and the community open and civil.

Of course, not everyone will play by the rules, but if the majority do, like I already see here, then it's relatively self-policing: someone brings up the issue and we all have a nice chat about it like now. I'm not saying to go as far as slapping a Creative Commons license on your models and the relevant work that goes with it, but I'd say that what's at matter here is the intent rather than the official interpretation.

[Erik Leppen]

I really think Phoxtane hits the nail on the head. This is not a legal issue. It's a social issue. It's about feelings.

What they did apparently upsets many people. The reason for being upset is of second importance, it's a plain fact that people are upset. So whether it's officially unjust or not and by whatever reasoning, isn't the point. The point is that people feel that it's unjust. And isn't that feeling much more important than any rule whatsoever?

[Theo van Vroenhoven]

Although this implementation is rather clumsy and unattractive there might be a business case for building very large MOC's.

The investment for parts for these MOC's exceeds $1000 most of the times.

If you could rent the parts for a few weeks for let's say $100 that could be interesting...

If on top of this you should pay the Designer the fee for the instructions then everybody would be happy I guess?

Big challenge of course is to keep the sets complete and in good condition.

[aol000xw]

First

And yet the forum still practically goes on a crusade every time it's discovered someone is selling someone's model/model instructions without permission or re-uploading a builder's videos to their own YouTube account.

I can't accept your statement as it is based in a flawed premise: that models/instructions/videos are the same.

For instructions and videos I agree. I also believe in attribution and is hard to justify not to say who the original designer was. So I agree on that account too.

So again I am talking about the models ONLY. The models per se, replicating, modding, selling, renting or setting it on fire are a very different matter..

Feelings are subjective, and I hope I don't need to explain why laws aren't based on feelings. The thing Is it doesn't matter how you do feel. Learn the law, learn the rules, learn what can you expect and what not, learn the consequences, take a decision and live with it. Getting outraged every time someone does something they are entitled to do just because you don't like it is childish.

A Creative Commons License or any other License are not applicable to the models.

And in the end the question is: Why do you care so much?

You are in Lego as a hobby or as a professional? If you are in the hobby the time invested is just part of the hobby you don't put a price on the time, you just enjoy it. If it is and economic issue then you are running a business, just use the law and pay the fees. If it is not economically reasonable don't run the business. It is how every single business out there works and they are doing fine in this regard.

If it is not economic it is a personal interpretation of how do you think people should behave, over The Internet, furthermore you pretend to restrict something that the law allows no less. Just because you feel it is right. Do you want examples of how wrong is that?

[Boxerlego]

And yet the forum still practically goes on a crusade every time it's discovered someone is selling someone's model/model instructions without permission or re-uploading a builder's videos to their own YouTube account. Just because it's their bricks and it's not technically wrong to do this, doesn't make it right. At the very least, they should be giving credit to the original builder. We all agree that the Ball Factory GBC module "belongs" to akiyuky, and we all agree that the Terex RH400 Mining Excavator model "belongs" to sheo. I'm pretty sure that in this and the Lego community it's generally accepted that if you build an original model, it's your model in that it's your design, your interpretation of either a real-life machine or object; or, in the case of GBC and others, it's entirely your original work.

So as far as I'm concerned, it's not technically wrong to do so - but just because it's not technically against the "house rules" that we all play by in this community, doesn't make it right either.

I don't have any skin in this game, in that I don't see anything I've built on that website, but frankly I'd be appalled if I did. It basically amounts to the work I put into that model being used for someone else's gain, without my permission to do so! If I did see something of mine on that site, I'd request it to be removed, as I never gave permission for it to appear on there. If there's one *good* thing I've learned from Tumblr, it's to give credit where it's due, and I'm not seeing this happen here.

At this point I'm willing to agree that a model someone built is "their" model, in that we recognize that the model was designed and built by them and they have the rights to either share or not share how they built it, whether it be via images, instructions, video, or directly-to-brain ionizing radiation. If that's the case, then they also have the right to say that it's "their" model, and request that others must at least say so. Why? Because it's the nice/right thing to do. It keeps everyone happy and the community open and civil.

Of course, not everyone will play by the rules, but if the majority do, like I already see here, then it's relatively self-policing: someone brings up the issue and we all have a nice chat about it like now. I'm not saying to go as far as slapping a Creative Commons license on your models and the relevant work that goes with it, but I'd say that what's at matter here is the intent rather than the official interpretation.

Look, What if you did something electrically with LEGO that everyone in the LEGO community thought could never work they way it did. I didn't see the community flock around the idea that it remotely "belongs" to me or something like that along those lines. Do you know how much research work I put in to that 18v LEGO electrical connection. It wasn't something I built a week ago when I brought it to the forms in December 2012, however because it look so easy to build people assume that it took it like that like I made it a week ago. I put alot of work in that connection I piratically made that connection as a way to power my 18v Drill motor but it failed miserably at doing so, so I didn't use it and keep it in a closed box for a couple of months then finally showing everyone at the end of the year in 2012 and along with being a sort of introduction for me for the forms to boot. Off the bat already I was feeling left out as to what I built.

I know what is up on the forms, People feelings are either good or bad based on how they feel about you and where you come from.

[aol000xw]

Let me add this as an example:

No one complained about the reverse engineering and instructions created on the Akiyuki Lego Ball Factory. I don't know if with his permission, it was not stated, but at least on the Eurobricks thread no one that I can recall asked if Akiyuki was ok with that. Why? Just because there was attribution? What If he did not want to see instructions or he is outraged by the pink render? What if he feels it is not right? Do you feel it is right?

Feelings are a slippery slope.

[Lipko]

I agree with aol000xw and I still envy the crap out of people who has this problem.

[Erik Leppen]

Getting outraged every time someone does something they are entitled to do just because you don't like it is childish.

Is anyone getting outraged?

I see people voicing their opinions. I don't see people raging out.

Also I don't see whom the rest of your post is referring to. It looks like you're overreacting. I see no need to drag the law into this, because the fact is, if you ask those guys to take your model from their shop, they will.

For the rest of your post, 100% disagree. I guess you and I have different views on life :)

at least on the Eurobricks thread no one that I can recall asked if Akiyuki was ok with that. Why?

That's how reputation works.

Blakbird has a good reputation in the AFOL scene. So people won't question his every move - they assume it's OK because they can take an educated guess about how he thinks about these things. There's no need to question until something questionable happens.

The case with this shop is radically different - they're people we don't know, so they don't have a reputation, and they do something that, apparantly, some people dislike. So people are more cautious.

But, to be honest, I don't think this is new to you :)

Also, yes, attribution is a big factor, at least, to me. Had this shop added "this supercar is made by Erik Leppen and you can find free building instructions [here]", I might not have taken action.

[__________________________]

This is why I think the analogy to renting out your car is not quite accurate. Yes, anyone should be able to rent out their Honda Accord to someone without permission from Honda. But what if they are altering it to look or perform terrible? What if they pull out two of the four spark plug wires and then rent it? At that point it could be argued that they are damaging the Honda brand. Likewise, when Sheepo is trying to sell instructions for his Land Rover and then someone goes and makes a terrible version of it and rents it out, it is damaging Sheepo's future possibility of selling his instructions because they are perpetuating a negative connotation to his brand. For these reasons and others, I don't think renting out other people's creation without their involvement is moral, though I can understand those who disagree.

I doubt anyone renting from that website even knows who Sheepo is. I seriously doubt any reputation damage will be done to him. Anyone who might use this "service" probably is some 11 year old swiping a parent's credit card.

Look, What if you did something electrically with LEGO that everyone in the LEGO community thought could never work they way it did. I didn't see the community flock around the idea that it remotely "belongs" to me or something like that along those lines. Do you know how much research work I put in to that 18v LEGO electrical connection. It wasn't something I built a week ago when I brought it to the forms in December 2012, however because it look so easy to build people assume that it took it like that like I made it a week ago. I put alot of work in that connection I piratically made that connection as a way to power my 18v Drill motor but it failed miserably at doing so, so I didn't use it and keep it in a closed box for a couple of months then finally showing everyone at the end of the year in 2012 and along with being a sort of introduction for me for the forms to boot. Off the bat already I was feeling left out as to what I built.

I know what is up on the forms, People feelings are either good or bad based on how they feel about you and where you come from.

And boxerlego didn't even claim to be the inventor of this 18V setup, while this guy is implying he created all of these models.

[aol000xw]

And yet the forum still practically goes on a crusade....

I see people voicing their opinions. I don't see people raging out.

Sorry maybe is the language barrier but I am failing at following part of your reasoning. Those seem contradictory. Anyways I am voicing my opinions too, not overreacting.

The law is what define what can be done and what not, so the law is relevant to the matter. Our view of life guide us on what should be done and what not, but those can't preclude the law.

Reputation and discrimination are two sides of the same coin, and are not different of "if he is my friend is ok". A simple relation of trust or distrust that has nothing to do with facts. I am trying to establish facts, like the difference between instructions and models and how those relate to the law. In that regard my view of life is of no relevance, however I can tell you tolerance and not imposing my beliefs are key.

I was not criticizing Blackbird or the German guy who made the videos, If you or me like or dislike it, or trust/distrust how or why they do it is of no relevance to the fact. under the law there is no reason for them not to do that, and for the renting guy to run his business.

In the end Erik your last response proves exactly what I tried to address in my last post, there is nothing contradictory between what you said and what I am saying. Your opinions come from the subjective, and you are entitled to them, however had the guy chose not to remove your model, that even if wrong under your point of view is not wrong under the law.

I think that his business is absurd, his recolors ugly and his attitude rude, however before any crusade is called , someone should check the law right?

[__________________________]

And yet the forum still practically goes on a crusade every time it's discovered someone is selling someone's model/model instructions without permission or re-uploading a builder's videos to their own YouTube account. Just because it's their bricks and it's not technically wrong to do this, doesn't make it right. At the very least, they should be giving credit to the original builder. We all agree that the Ball Factory GBC module "belongs" to akiyuky, and we all agree that the Terex RH400 Mining Excavator model "belongs" to sheo. I'm pretty sure that in this and the Lego community it's generally accepted that if you build an original model, it's your model in that it's your design, your interpretation of either a real-life machine or object; or, in the case of GBC and others, it's entirely your original work.

So as far as I'm concerned, it's not technically wrong to do so - but just because it's not technically against the "house rules" that we all play by in this community, doesn't make it right either.

I don't have any skin in this game, in that I don't see anything I've built on that website, but frankly I'd be appalled if I did. It basically amounts to the work I put into that model being used for someone else's gain, without my permission to do so! If I did see something of mine on that site, I'd request it to be removed, as I never gave permission for it to appear on there. If there's one *good* thing I've learned from Tumblr, it's to give credit where it's due, and I'm not seeing this happen here.

At this point I'm willing to agree that a model someone built is "their" model, in that we recognize that the model was designed and built by them and they have the rights to either share or not share how they built it, whether it be via images, instructions, video, or directly-to-brain ionizing radiation. If that's the case, then they also have the right to say that it's "their" model, and request that others must at least say so. Why? Because it's the nice/right thing to do. It keeps everyone happy and the community open and civil.

Of course, not everyone will play by the rules, but if the majority do, like I already see here, then it's relatively self-policing: someone brings up the issue and we all have a nice chat about it like now. I'm not saying to go as far as slapping a Creative Commons license on your models and the relevant work that goes with it, but I'd say that what's at matter here is the intent rather than the official interpretation.

I really don't know what to think of this initiative. My Rolls is on there (free instructions) but indeed with a colorscheme that is so bad that I am glad he doesn't make a reference to my original design, but for some reason it doesn't feel right that he is trying to make a lot on model on my design. He is not selling/renting out a random selection of parts (which nobody would want) but advertising the model that I designed and trying to make money with it. For me sharing open source means you everybody can use it for themselves, but cannot make monay out of it.

If this were legal and moral Lego could also take all models with free instructions, stow them in a box and sell them under the Lego Brand. That would be considered illegal without consent or agreement with the designer who holds the intellectual property.

For my next builds I will be sure to mention the right licencing (Attribution, non-commercial) to prevent this sort of leeching on other peoples work.

https://creativecomm...nses/by-nc/2.5/

Pulling out the legal licensing? FOLs are getting serious lol

[Phoxtane]

First

I can't accept your statement as it is based in a flawed premise: that models/instructions/videos are the same.

I disagree. While the physical model may not be anything special, the idea for the model came from me and therefore is "my" design - that is, if someone else built a copy of it we'd say "Hey, you built that guy's model, looking good!", rather than saying "Hey, nice original design!". If I built a copy of the Unimog set in different colors, well, it gets a bit more tricky on the proper legal side, but I'd still agree that it's Lego's design in different colors.

And in the end the question is: Why do you care so much?

You are in Lego as a hobby or as a professional? If you are in the hobby the time invested is just part of the hobby you don't put a price on the time, you just enjoy it. If it is and economic issue then you are running a business, just use the law and pay the fees. If it is not economically reasonable don't run the business. It is how every single business out there works and they are doing fine in this regard.

Why indeed should I care? Why should anybody care? I care about this because it's something I enjoy to do and I'd hate to see it ruined by those who don't care much about what they do (Ebay MOC instruction resellers, for example) and how it affects others. I will however echo a previous statement made here, wherein this particular instance isn't actually that bad, given that your model will be removed if you ask, but there's worse situations out there that we've witnessed I'm sure.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but it's good to debate these things once in a while. It makes people think. Maybe the best course of action in situations like these is to just ignore the problem until it goes away, or quietly deal with it and not tell anyone... but personally, I don't think that's a healthy way to deal with these issues. Nor should we go on a rampage to deal with the issue either - otherwise you end up with a reputation similar to that of Tumblr (due to its small but extremely vocal minority that advocates rampages).

If it is not economic it is a personal interpretation of how do you think people should behave, over The Internet, furthermore you pretend to restrict something that the law allows no less. Just because you feel it is right. Do you want examples of how wrong is that?

It's my opinion on the matter. I feel that in this case, it's the spirit of the law vs. the word of the law - intent vs. interpretation, or something to that effect anyway.

[Boxerlego]

Let me add this as an example:

No one complained about the reverse engineering and instructions created on the Akiyuki Lego Ball Factory. I don't know if with his permission, it was not stated, but at least on the Eurobricks thread no one that I can recall asked if Akiyuki was ok with that. Why? Just because there was attribution? What If he did not want to see instructions or he is outraged by the pink render? What if he feels it is not right? Do you feel it is right?

Feelings are a slippery slope.

That is a good example.

And boxerlego didn't even claim to be the inventor of this 18V setup, while this guy is implying he created all of these models.

There was some reasons for this why I didn't claim to be the inventor of this 18V setup, don't get me wrong I'm the progenitor of it on the level. While the dual PF battery connection was something totally new at getting 18v with LEGO but how this works was already a well known fact portrayed in mathematics with the voltage difference equations V_ab = V_b - v_a. Method #2 is a series battery connection and is the simplest battery connection to understand and most well known at getting 18 volts. School taught this one to me however if you applied this electrical understanding you to would think that there is no way for the LEGO to handle that amount of voltage because it is designed for 9 volts. Right? Its only till you understand method #1 will you understand how to take advantage of this 9 volts to make this dual 18v battery connection to work. But here is the deal the Theory of electrons supports method #2 more as the reality about how electricity should function and if this was true then the 18v battery connection should destroy the negative end of the PF IR receiver due to the excessive voltage. Right?

[aol000xw]

I disagree. While the physical model may not be anything special, the idea for the model came from me and therefore is "my" design - that is, if someone else built a copy of it we'd say "Hey, you built that guy's model, looking good!", rather than saying "Hey, nice original design!". If I built a copy of the Unimog set in different colors, well, it gets a bit more tricky on the proper legal side, but I'd still agree that it's Lego's design in different colors.

While I understand why you disagree, the distinction between the model and the instructions is not a matter of opinion.

Why indeed should I care? Why should anybody care? I care about this because it's something I enjoy to do and I'd hate to see it ruined by those who don't care much about what they do (Ebay MOC instruction resellers, for example) and how it affects others. I will however echo a previous statement made here, wherein this particular instance isn't actually that bad, given that your model will be removed if you ask, but there's worse situations out there that we've witnessed I'm sure.

I did not mean you shouldn't care, I made a distinction between caring for personal or economic reasons.

It's my opinion on the matter. I feel that in this case, it's the spirit of the law vs. the word of the law - intent vs. interpretation, or something to that effect anyway.

It does not work like that in IP law.

There is a reason for things to work like that. Innovation, investment, research and development, competition, stagnation... There is an equilibrium somewhat precarious, if patent law worked like copyright does nowadays, there would be only one car manufacturer for example, the industry would have taken a setback of two centuries.

[Phoxtane]

While I understand why you disagree, the distinction between the model and the instructions is not a matter of opinion.

My understanding is that we can take the entire "work" - the model, instructions, and other related pieces such as images or video - as one single IP. Is this not the case?

So, while it's perfectly legal to be doing this, I'm still not okay with it personally and would rather that it didn't happen. I'm pretty sure at least some of the others whose models are represented on this storefront feel the same way, so I think I am correct when I say that it doesn't play by the "house rules" we stick to within this community. After all, I don't ever recall someone on the forum doing this, at least not without asking permission first.

However, I'm fairly certain that it's okay to include the disclaimer within things like instructions that it's not okay to be selling them unless you have direct permission first, which won't dissuade many. At least then you can say "Well, I told you so" and point to where you told them so. As for physical models that could be built from those instructions? As much as I dislike admitting to it, you're probably right there

It's also probably not unreasonable to request that your model not be a part of any storefront that you didn't agree to it being a part of in the first place.