LEGO Ideas: Made-to-measure ethics

[astral brick]

In relation to Lego Ideas:

- Topics' limits: ethical, reasonable

- 1% royalties: unethical, they should be - at least - 10%

- 3 years to sell instructions after rejection: unethical, the designers should be able to regain possession of their own ips immediately after the deadline's expiration or the refusal

- Rejecting a model because of internal development: understandable, however ethical only if the model is rejected in the bud or in the very early stage of support's gathering

- Selling a model which shares many similarities with a submitted idea: debatable, related to the outcomes of the previous point, overall unethical and counterproductive in term of brand image. Since coincidences are hard to prove, the idea's designer should receive some benefits.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Peppermint_M
Made thread title clearer.

[Mylenium]

Did I miss anything? Sorry there's just too much tapeworming on this forum and threads simply get too long and overstuffed. TL; DR Anyway, my thoughts:

5 hours ago, astral brick said:

- 1% royalties: unethical, they should be - at least - 10%

You should be glad you get anything, considering that pretty much all proposals get a major internal overhaul and incur cost on LEGO's part as does of course the distribution, actual production, marketing etc.. 10% royalties is pretty insane, to be honest. A fitting analogy would be digital media like stock photo and video sites. I don't see any of those people drive around in fancy cars. It's a bread & butter business where you can be glad you make 3% sometimes. It only works on a mass basis. Of course we could discuss how you as an "artist" should be compensated, but very few photographers, painters and so on rise to a level where they can truly ask for some serious cash, so it's kind of pointless to even waste time on such a hypothetical, in the LEGO realm of all things...

5 hours ago, astral brick said:

- 3 years to sell instructions after rejection: unethical, the designers should be able to regain possession of their own ips immediately after the deadline's expiration or the refusal

We can agree on that. It's very "We want our cake and eat it, too!" without any rational reasoning behind it.

5 hours ago, astral brick said:

- Rejecting a model because of internal development: understandable, however ethical only if the model is rejected in the bud or in the very early stage of support's gathering

Ask that the guy who did the red Fiat 500 last year... I'm sure he's beyond frustrated. It's overall a good point, though. Not only should LEGO be more open about communicating this at least to the users affected (if need be in private under NDA), but also be more strict in culling certain projects early. At the very least it would spare us the umpteenth office/ living room set design from everyone's favorite comedy series...

Mylenium

[astral brick]

36 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

Did I miss anything? Sorry there's just too much tapeworming on this forum and threads simply get too long and overstuffed. TL; DR

No worries, no defenders to the bitter end and no rhetorical devices' lists, so far.

36 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

You should be glad you get anything, considering that pretty much all proposals get a major internal overhaul and incur cost on LEGO's part as does of course the distribution, actual production, marketing etc.. 10% royalties is pretty insane, to be honest.

In my opinion it is pretty fair, reaching a good level of execution is relatively easy nowadays, but finding interesting concepts is much more difficult. That's why an idea, ie a thought, is so valuable.

36 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

... At the very least it would spare us the umpteenth office/ living room set design from everyone's favorite comedy series...

Moreover they would - and should - spare designers' and supporters' time and expectations. 

[deraven]

6 hours ago, astral brick said:

- 1% royalties: unethical, they should be - at least - 10%

From a "gut feeling" standpoint, sure.  As a business reality, 1-3% is reasonable, due mostly to the factors Mylenium noted.  Also, I've heard comments from a couple of designers that make it clear that the 1% equates to 10's of thousands of dollars even for a lower-volume ("less successful") Ideas set, and I doubt most people selling their own instructions make anywhere near that amount so it again doesn't seem unreasonable from that standpoint.

6 hours ago, astral brick said:

- 3 years to sell instructions after rejection: unethical, the designers should be able to regain possession of their own ips immediately after the deadline's expiration or the refusal

Agreed here.  I mean, maybe for a few months if there are some legal issues with the set being misconstrued to be a Lego product due to the Ideas exposure, etc., but not 3 years.  You know what I'd say?  I'd say let them sell immediately and from a link posted on the Ideas project page, and Lego gets a 1% cut themselves!    That actually seems like it would be a win-win.

6 hours ago, astral brick said:

- Rejecting a model because of internal development: understandable, however ethical only if the model is rejected in the bud or in the very early stage of support's gathering

Disagree.  I don't see how rejecting it sooner would be more "ethical," and by rejecting it earlier on those grounds Lego would basically be revealing internal development info that they probably don't want made public.  I'm sure that's why they still let the project go through the process even if they're likely to reject it for that reason.  Here again, however, I think the designer should be able to pivot immediately to selling a kit or instructions.  After all, if Lego comes out with something very similar and people would still prefer to buy instructions from the designer, that's fair competition and all on TLC's head.

6 hours ago, astral brick said:

- Selling a model which shares many similarities with a submitted idea: debatable, related to the outcomes of the previous point, overall unethical and counterproductive in term of brand image. Since coincidences are hard to prove, the idea's designer should receive some benefits.

Eh.  This works both ways - hard to prove timelines and such, and if it truly was an independent design by TLC and a coincidence, then it's not "fair" for them to have to reduce their earnings becomes someone else had a similar idea.  But as you said, I think it does go back to the point above and that the designer should be able to sell their instructions immediately and see how they do against the official Lego set.  I think /something/ for the designer might be in order, however, as they basically provided TLC with additional market research data from the supporters who liked their project.  Maybe a reasonable lump-sum cash payment and signed copy of the official set or something like that just to show some good will.

[Peppermint_M]

I made the topic title clearer.

 

I honestly don't engage in any TLG controlled contest of any kind. I will not sign over the rights of my creations, ever. Because of the fineprint mostly.

[leafan]

9 hours ago, astral brick said:

In relation to Lego Ideas:

- Topics' limits: ethical, reasonable

- 1% royalties: unethical, they should be - at least - 10%

- 3 years to sell instructions after rejection: unethical, the designers should be able to regain possession of their own ips immediately after the deadline's expiration or the refusal

- Rejecting a model because of internal development: understandable, however ethical only if the model is rejected in the bud or in the very early stage of support's gathering

- Selling a model which shares many similarities with a submitted idea: debatable, related to the outcomes of the previous point, overall unethical and counterproductive in term of brand image. Since coincidences are hard to prove, the idea's designer should receive some benefits.

That's some questionable reasoning, but others have touched upon that, so I'll just say this...

9 hours ago, astral brick said:

- 3 years to sell instructions after rejection: unethical, the designers should be able to regain possession of their own ips immediately after the deadline's expiration or the refusal

I agree that this is silly. I wanted to say that this would not hold up in court and is not enforceable. They cannot stop you selling your instructions, so long as you don't do it on their owned websites.

[Trekkie99]

The only thing I can somewhat agree with is that the designer should be able to sell their instructions earlier. However I can see a couple possible reasons for why Lego does it such as deterring people from using Ideas as a place to advertise their model. 

Is one allowed to give away their instructions for free before the deadline is up? Because if not then yeah I'd say that's exsessive.

Ideas is a subpart of Lego as a hobby for fun and should be treated as such IMO. Submiting your model, watching it grow, maybe have it reach ten thousand, maybe have it made into a Lego set, reading and watching people's opinions and reviews of your model, etc. This is all supposed to be fun. The only problems are the ownership issues, but as long as you're not selling any part of your model then this probably won't be a issue for you. 

[Mylenium]

5 hours ago, deraven said:

by rejecting it earlier on those grounds Lego would basically be revealing internal development info that they probably don't want made public.

I honestly don't think anyone seriously cares. LEGO is a quasi-monopolist, anyway. It's basically always the same like with the current situation of the leaked Crocodile locomotive or before that the Sián. Some of the fanboys will get their undies tied in a knot over it, the rest will just shrug it off and move on. And it's not that there are other ways that info could leak or people simply deduce a few things and speculate from other breadcrumbs of info out there...

Mylenium

[dr_spock]

2 hours ago, leafan said:

That's some questionable reasoning, but others have touched upon that, so I'll just say this...

I agree that this is silly. I wanted to say that this would not hold up in court and is not enforceable. They cannot stop you selling your instructions, so long as you don't do it on their owned websites.

LEGO can sue you under contract laws.  Basically you are breaking the terms that you have agreed to when you submitted an idea to them. Likewise, you can sue LEGO if they didn't pay you your 1%.

The delay to sell your work sounds similar to non-compete clauses in your employment contracts. I think best to consult your lawyer. 

 

 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Mylenium said:

I honestly don't think anyone seriously cares. LEGO is a quasi-monopolist, anyway. It's basically always the same like with the current situation of the leaked Crocodile locomotive or before that the Sián. Some of the fanboys will get their undies tied in a knot over it, the rest will just shrug it off and move on. And it's not that there are other ways that info could leak or people simply deduce a few things and speculate from other breadcrumbs of info out there...

Mylenium

I think a lot of people will care. You only need to look at the rumours threads on EB to know that people talk about sets or rumours of sets before they are revealed. LEGO saying you cannot make X will mean people will talk about X, and much earlier in the design process.

4 hours ago, Trekkie99 said:

Is one allowed to give away their instructions for free before the deadline is up? Because if not then yeah I'd say that's exsessive.

Yes you can, you are allowed to give instructions away. Just not sell them.

[leafan]

1 hour ago, dr_spock said:

LEGO can sue you under contract laws.  Basically you are breaking the terms that you have agreed to when you submitted an idea to them. Likewise, you can sue LEGO if they didn't pay you your 1%.

The delay to sell your work sounds similar to non-compete clauses in your employment contracts. I think best to consult your lawyer.

T&C's for a website submission aren't the same as a contract, and I believe in my experience with these things, that it would not hold water in this case.

Also, the submission isn't for instructions, it's for the design, so it'd be on shaky grounds that they try to stop you selling instructions.

[MAB]

I can understand them wanting a delay between them rejecting it and the designer being able to profit from it. It wouldn't surprise me if some people started marketing their designs as  "Rejected by LEGO, now you can buy the set they banned ...". With the delay, it takes it out of the public eye for a while. Of course, if the designer wants to allow people to build it, they can always give them away for free.

Plus they will be profiting from their design, as the 10,000 club get a nice prize for getting to review. 

[Mylenium]

Well, here we go...

2 hours ago, dr_spock said:

LEGO can sue you under contract laws.

Arguable. One-sided contracts putting one of the parties at a significant disadvantage are by definition nil and void in many countries under applicable laws. That's a common misperception. Just because they are big, a company like LEGO doesn't hold a different status then if you were to make a contract with another privateer or a small business. The relevant part for such discussions is the status of the "legal entity" rather than who has the bigger stick. Of course LEGO would come down with an army of lawyers and try to intimidate you, but on a formal level they may not at all be on the right side of the law.

2 hours ago, dr_spock said:

 Basically you are breaking the terms that you have agreed to when you submitted an idea to them.

Again not entirely correct. You are agreeing to implied terms and rules, not specifically negotiated individual contractual regulations. That being the case, the pertinent question becomes how deeply you actually understood those conditions and the circumstances under which they are provided. And of course it becomes then a question whether how relevant and applicable Danish law is, even by proxy via local legal representatives under regional laws or international mutually agreed harmonization rules. You may factually have have broken LEGO's rules, but legally not done anything wrong. It's complicated.

50 minutes ago, leafan said:

T&C's for a website submission aren't the same as a contract

Correct. You are merely granting them an unlimited license/ unlimited usage rights and recognize that the 1% is sufficient compensation. No more, no less.

Mylenium

[AmperZand]

6 hours ago, MAB said:

I can understand them wanting a delay between them rejecting it and the designer being able to profit from it. It wouldn't surprise me if some people started marketing their designs as  "Rejected by LEGO, now you can buy the set they banned ...". With the delay, it takes it out of the public eye for a while. Of course, if the designer wants to allow people to build it, they can always give them away for free.

Plus they will be profiting from their design, as the 10,000 club get a nice prize for getting to review. 

It’s not just that. The LEGO employees who decide which submissions are successful don’t want to be shown up as having made a commercial error. Imagine if someone’s submission was rejected by LEGO and the designer went on to sell lots of the set or instructions for it. That would make someone or some people at LEGO look bad which is unacceptable from their perspective.

Edited May 28, 2020 by AmperZand

[astral brick]

17 hours ago, dr_spock said:

Likewise, you can sue LEGO if they didn't pay you your 1%.

The problem is 1% of what? Only Lego knows exactly how many sets are sold, the beneficiary of the 1% doesn't have access to this essential information.

15 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Arguable. One-sided contracts putting one of the parties at a significant disadvantage are by definition nil and void in many countries under applicable laws.

I am in agreement. The problem in this case is to establish which law has to be applied, the Danish one or beneficiary's national one. There are so many intricacies related to the criteria of choice of the competent court in the international procedure law.

17 hours ago, dr_spock said:

The delay to sell your work sounds similar to non-compete clauses in your employment contracts.

I think you have a point.