Baron Sat's Lego Death Star Playset

[ISDAvenger]

So here it is, I Bricklinked and built Baron Sat's Death Star Playset built in the likeness of the Kenner Micro Playset. It was a rather expensive, but fun build. That being said enjoy the pictures.

IMG_3052 by SDIronClaw, on Flickr

IMG_3053 by SDIronClaw, on Flickr

IMG_3054 by SDIronClaw, on Flickr

IMG_3055 by SDIronClaw, on Flickr

IMG_3058 by SDIronClaw, on Flickr

IMG_3057 by SDIronClaw, on Flickr

IMG_3056 by SDIronClaw, on Flickr

Edited March 11, 2014 by ISDAvenger

[BaronSat]

Nice build but as I noted in my instructions you are NOT ALLOWED to sale the model you build from them. The parts maybe yours but the work is mine. Please respect my work.

[ISDAvenger]

Nice build but as I noted in my instructions you are NOT ALLOWED to sale the model you build from them. The parts maybe yours but the work is mine. Please respect my work.

I have removed the for sale post, when I initially read the disclaimer I was under the impression that only reselling the instructions was not allowed. Frankly if I would have known, I would have not have spent the money, but my mistake. FYI the parts list to build the MOC is not 100% correct, might want to relook them again.

[BaronSat]

I have removed the for sale post, when I initially read the disclaimer I was under the impression that only reselling the instructions was not allowed. Frankly if I would have known, I would have not have spent the money, but my mistake. FYI the parts list to build the MOC is not 100% correct, might want to relook them again.

Good.

Concerning my copyright, here's the text that appears on all my isntructions:

"WARNING : These instructions are for personnal use only. You are not allowed to copy it in anyway, sale it, or sale the model built from it, or publish it in anyway (web, edition etc...).

Thanks to respect my work and build well."

Do you meab it's not clear enough?

About the partlist I will fix that.

[ShrikeArghast]

Good.

Concerning my copyright, here's the text that appears on all my isntructions:

"WARNING : These instructions are for personnal use only. You are not allowed to copy it in anyway, sale it, or sale the model built from it, or publish it in anyway (web, edition etc...).

Thanks to respect my work and build well."

Do you meab it's not clear enough?

About the partlist I will fix that.

Lol @ copyright claims on Lego build instructions. Pretty sure there's no law protecting the intellectual integrity of items produced from instructions released to the public, PARTICULARLY when the thing you're claiming to copyright is actually the intellectual property of Lucasarts/Disney. Something tells me that, if anyone here was going to get litigation of some weight dropped in their lap, it'd be you Baron, and not ISDAvenger. FYI he's selling the bricks, not your instructions. And as the bricks are his possession, he can arrange them as he likes, and sell them to whom he pleases. If you don't want people doing that with stuff produced from 'your' instructions, then don't release them.

Edited March 15, 2014 by ShrikeArghast

[Borex]

It is to sell. Not to sale.

But cool build!

[BaronSat]

Lol @ copyright claims on Lego build instructions. Pretty sure there's no law protecting the intellectual integrity of items produced from instructions released to the public, PARTICULARLY when the thing you're claiming to copyright is actually the intellectual property of Lucasarts/Disney. Something tells me that, if anyone here was going to get litigation of some weight dropped in their lap, it'd be you Baron, and not ISDAvenger. FYI he's selling the bricks, not your instructions. And as the bricks are his possession, he can arrange them as he likes, and sell them to whom he pleases. If you don't want people doing that with stuff produced from 'your' instructions, then don't release them.

The problem is that he arranges the bricks the way I create the model. Now if creation is no more a property...

But thanks you help a lot trying to protect people that use my work to make money... I'm sarcastic of course.

As I always say, if you want to make money on custom models build your OWN ones. Is it so difficult to understand?

[ShrikeArghast]

The problem is that he arranges the bricks the way I create the model.

You chose to release the directions. You either want people to build this MOC or you don't. If you want people building it, what difference is it if they sell it afterwards?

Now if creation is no more a property...

The model is his property. The instructions, on the other hand, are your property. But both are not yours.

This bears further examination, so let me employ an analogy, if I may. Imagine that you are J.K. Rowling, and your instructions are The Sorcerer's Stone. Now, as Ms. Rowling, you can sell your book (the instructions) or give it away for free – that's your call.

However, what someone does with those books after they buy them is their business. If they want to, say, turn around and build a big, strange-looking fort out of those books, and sell them to someone else, you can't do anything about it. Your proprietary rights ended with the initial sale.

The books belong to him; as does the book fort. The bricks belong to him, as does the model. You surrendered ownership by giving him the instructions for free.

But thanks you help a lot trying to protect people that use my work to make money... I'm sarcastic of course.

No problem. He deserves to not be harassed.

As I always say, if you want to make money on custom models build your OWN ones. Is it so difficult to understand?

You can say and think whatever you like. But the law is on his side. And, frankly, you attempting to bully and strong arm someone on these forums because they wanted to sell a few Legos is contrary the spirit of capitalism, if not the hobby itself. If you want to hoard your MOCs and dictate how they’re distributed, don’t give away the instructions. How is that difficult to understand?

[Brickmamba]

You chose to release the directions. You either want people to build this MOC or you don't. If you want people building it, what difference is it if they sell it afterwards?

The model is his property. The instructions, on the other hand, are your property. But both are not yours.

This bears further examination, so let me employ an analogy, if I may. Imagine that you are J.K. Rowling, and your instructions are The Sorcerer's Stone. Now, as Ms. Rowling, you can sell your book (the instructions) or give it away for free – that's your call.

However, what someone does with those books after they buy them is their business. If they want to, say, turn around and build a big, strange-looking fort out of those books, and sell them to someone else, you can't do anything about it. Your proprietary rights ended with the initial sale.

The books belong to him; as does the book fort. The bricks belong to him, as does the model. You surrendered ownership by giving him the instructions for free.

No problem. He deserves to not be harassed.

You can say and think whatever you like. But the law is on his side. And, frankly, you attempting to bully and strong arm someone on these forums because they wanted to sell a few Legos is contrary the spirit of capitalism, if not the hobby itself. If you want to hoard your MOCs and dictate how they’re distributed, don’t give away the instructions. How is that difficult to understand?

What are you a lawyer? I have bought barons MOC instructions in the past and grateful for it and baffles me why in the first place someone would bother reselling any of his creations. If there was any real value I'm sure baron wouldn't be offering his instructions to the public and sell the models himself.

Baron is a respected member of the MOCn community and if he is kind enough to offer up his creations for a small fee then in return people should respect his conditions. We are talking ethics here, you can't just take someones unique design without permission and try to sell it off for your own benefit. Seriously put away the fancy law talk, this is a LEGO fan forum, not the supreme court.

[Chills]

Brickmamba, I think this is an interesting argument, and it should be worked out. This kind of issue will likely come up in the future.

It makes sense that Baron owns the IP rights to the instructions of his MOC, but does that really mean someone can't sell a model based on the instructions? ISDAvenger never took credit for the build, he rightfully said his model was created from Baron's instructions. He is simply selling the pieces used to create the model; essentially saving a buyer from having to source the pieces himself.

It would be like someone Bricklinking the UCS MF and then selling the completed model on ebay. Could LEGO go after that person, especially if the person gave full disclosure that the model was created using LEGO's instructions, pieces sourced on Bricklink, and in no way was trying to say the model was his own creation? I don't think LEGO could or even would do that.

That being said, there is a printed "warning" on the instructions (which I assume were there at the time of purchase). Does ISDAvenger's purchasing of the instructions mean he automatically entered into a contract with Baron, and bind him to agree with the limits of use set forth by Baron? I think it would if at the time of purchase there was some sort of notification by Baron to ISDAvenger stating something like, "by purchasing these instructions you agree to the limits contained herein." If not then it would be difficult to enforce any limitations beyond currently recognized IP rights. Otherwise a MOC creator could put just about any limitation on their instructions and expect the buyer to abide by them even if the buyer did not explicitly agree to the terms of the limitations.

I completely understand Baron's desire to exert control over his creations, but is this control reasonable? I think it is more reasonable to expect that someone in ISDAvenger's position be able to sell the pieces, but the instructions must be purchased from Baron.

[thrakkazz]

Hi,

I personnaly bougth 4 instructions from Anio's and honestly 5euro each is ridiculous compared to the contribution of such skilled MOCer.

I took that more as a congratz from me to him than a transaction

What ever there's an IP or not I would say it's more a question of fair play and respect than making money (and what amount of money 5 euro wow... tha's not even a very small lego box)

Maybe if you want to make money from what you buy you should discuss a distributor agreement with the instruction builder and share the benefit.

Personnality i'm not trying to discuss this as I don't intend to resell "congratz and well done"...

[Anio]

+1 with ShrikeArghast.

A friend and I provide professional instruction to the community. And we don't mind if someone sells one of my MOCs. The bricks are NOT mine.

My models are often pretty expensive, and I understand that some people may need to sell them after they enjoyed building it.

The thing I just ask to the seller is not to send the instruction. The buyer of the model has to buy the instruction to me, as I own the design.

ISDAvenger, regarding that Death Star base, I would sell the kit with absolutely no qualms.

However, 900USD (the price that used to be written in the first post) seems quite outrageous for that model.

edit : on the same topic, in the Technic section : http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=92806

[DarthTwoShedsJackson]

Truth be told, the legal argument here is rather academic.

I even doubt if it is 100% legal to sell your own instructions for non-official lego sets, because you demand money for the intellectual property of another party (Lego, the Lego System) without explicit permission. Lego might turn a blind eye on it, but if they wanted you to stop selling instructions for non-official sets, they could enforce this with the weight of the law backing them. It's great that they don't do this, which is not common for strong brand names.

Baron, you can't claim copyright unless you really have one. That being said, you also can't force someone else to sell the bricks used for your custom set. What it boils down to is being respectful and humble, i.e. acknowledging the original creator of the set, which is awesome, btw!

Last but not least, I personally always find it a bit strange when people sell instructions and stuff like that. I'm coming from the pc-gaming mod scene, and it's common there that you can use stuff created by others for free if credit is given and you ask politely beforehand. No one demands money, especially because the elements your work is based on belong to another party. The same goes for Lego.

Edited March 16, 2014 by DarthTwoShedsJackson

[gratefulnat]

+1 with ShrikeArghast.

A friend and I provide professional instruction to the community. And we don't mind if someone sells one of my MOCs. The bricks are NOT mine.

My models are often pretty expensive, and I understand that some people may need to sell them after they enjoyed building it.

The thing I just ask to the seller is not to send the instruction. The buyer of the model has to buy the instruction to me, as I own the design.

This strikes me as a very sensible attitude

Selling BaronSat's instructions would not be correct.

Selling the model you built without the instructions is in my books not a problem, as long as a disclaimer is added of whose creation it is.

The LEGO bricks are yours - do with them what you want.

[ShrikeArghast]

Brickmamba, I think this is an interesting argument, and it should be worked out. This kind of issue will likely come up in the future.

Thank you. I have absolutely no iron in this fire, but I do think it’s worth talking about as it represents a slippery slope.

That being said, there is a printed "warning" on the instructions (which I assume were there at the time of purchase). Does ISDAvenger's purchasing of the instructions mean he automatically entered into a contract with Baron, and bind him to agree with the limits of use set forth by Baron?

It only constitutes a binding contract if the contents of that contract don’t involve a surrender of your rights.

To employ another analogy, this kind of debate pops up from time to time in the TOU or TOS of online games and MMORPGs. Most online games now require users to ‘sign’ some kind of an agreement prior to logging into their games. And, as you might expect, there are people who frequently violate those terms. While a gaming company is free to expel these violators from their game or deny them future service, the ability to prosecute or seek damages based upon these contracts almost never goes the gaming companies’ way. As it turns out, just because you call something ‘law’ doesn’t make it so in a real court.

A legitimate ‘warning’ that Baron could attach to his instructions would be something along the lines of “the contents of these directions are the sole intellectual property of John Smith, and are not to be reproduced or recreated without his specific permission.” Ergo, he can legally force people not to copy or reprint the instructions themselves. However, Baron is selling his instructions with the specific intent that people build these models after they receive the directions. They already own the Legos, and Baron cannot legally limit what they do with those Legos – even if it involves selling “his” model. This is the same reason that Lego the company can’t turn around and sue people for building their models and selling them on Ebay (not that they’d want to – the resale of Legos is big business, and only spurs future purchases).

At the end of the day, when you create something and make money off of it (or give it away for free), you can’t then tell people how to use their item once they’ve bought it. I can go pay Ford 25k for a new Mustang, drive the car back to the field behind the house, and burn it to the ground should I desire. Would this be stupid? Sure. Would many at Ford be aghast at this heinous act? Of course (and rightly so). But they couldn’t say a peep about it because the car was mine.

*Edit* I wanted to add that, while a lot of people think it would be ‘reasonable’ to ask buyers of user-created instructions not to resell those instructions, again, it’s not a legal request. If I buy a DVD, or a hammer, or a cardboard box, I am entitled to resell it. By giving it to me, a seller has surrendered the property into my care. I can’t legally recreate that item (I can’t build a factory to start making copies of that item), but I can sell the individual item because it is my property. This same rule of thumb would apply to user-created instructions. You can resell the instructions, but you can’t copy or reprint them. They’re the IP of Baron, and nobody is disputing that.

Now, I’m not arguing what is the right or decent thing, mind you. I’m just telling you what someone can or cannot do with their purchased property. I can buy Harry Potter, read it and resell it. I can’t set up a press and reprint it. Simple as that.

Edited March 17, 2014 by ShrikeArghast

[Bonaparte]

I am pretty sure we could continue for many more posts with legal arguments of what's allowed and what's not. However, in the end we are not lawyers (at least I'm not) but LEGO fans and members of the online LEGO community.

So seen from the LEGO community angle I think it's important to have respect for the wishes of Baronsat, a fellow community member, when using his instructions. For me that's what it boils down to. If you do not agree with Baronsat's way of working then up to you to make your very own 'My Own Creation'.

Let's please halt the 'legal discussion' and get back to discuss the actual model.

[Inzane]

That is a very cool model/playset. This is my first time seeing that. My sincere respect to the creator of that set design.

[Chills]

I am pretty sure we could continue for many more posts with legal arguments of what's allowed and what's not. However, in the end we are not lawyers (at least I'm not) but LEGO fans and members of the online LEGO community.

So seen from the LEGO community angle I think it's important to have respect for the wishes of Baronsat, a fellow community member, when using his instructions. For me that's what it boils down to. If you do not agree with Baronsat's way of working then up to you to make your very own 'My Own Creation'.

Let's please halt the 'legal discussion' and get back to discuss the actual model.

Intersting. So is that EB's official position on selling the pieces someone used to make a MOC from another's instructions? That it is only allowed if the instruction creator says it's allowed?

You may want to halt the legal discussion, but the original purpose of the thread was to sell the pieces used to build the MOC from Baron's instructions. I think it would be a good idea to have EB's official position on such actions so members know what the rules are.

[DarthTwoShedsJackson]

I think it would be a good idea to have EB's official position on such actions so members know what the rules are.

Yeah, have fun with that - it's a mine-field . I tell you this: It's very questionable if you can even demand money for instructions you created yourself without explicit permission of LEGO. Aside from the legal issue that you create a product, i.e. an instruction, using the Lego brand name and basing it on the essential elements of Lego - the bricks and whole Lego-concept - it's a bit strange and silly: On one hand people claim Lego and MOCs and everything about the hobby is about fun, but on the other hand people demand money for self-made instructions. So it's about money, no matter how little, not about the fun? This is confusing at best, and disturbing at the worst.

Edited March 18, 2014 by DarthTwoShedsJackson

[legofreak86]

WOW! All those details! Fantastic design baron! I almost wish Lego's was like this! All the key scenes put into different rooms! Its an inspired idea! It may not be in a circular shape like the official one but that looks very impressive in the flesh!

[Brickdoctor]

Intersting. So is that EB's official position on selling the pieces someone used to make a MOC from another's instructions? That it is only allowed if the instruction creator says it's allowed?

You may want to halt the legal discussion, but the original purpose of the thread was to sell the pieces used to build the MOC from Baron's instructions. I think it would be a good idea to have EB's official position on such actions so members know what the rules are.

No, the point is that this is a topic created by someone to show pictures of a model he built, and he has already agreed to comply with BaronSat's wishes and has removed any reference to selling anything, so the legal discussion doesn't belong here. Perhaps it is a good discussion to have, but this is no longer the place for it.

Bonaparte is saying that we should just enjoy the recreation of an excellent MOC, and that from a community perspective — not a legal one — we should still respect the creator's wishes.

[TheBrickHitHouse]

Hats off @ShrikeArghast - we beat bullies by standing our ground.

I would be truly honoured if someone built and enjoyed a model I made.

[Brickmamba]

Yeah, have fun with that - it's a mine-field . I tell you this: It's very questionable if you can even demand money for instructions you created yourself without explicit permission of LEGO. Aside from the legal issue that you create a product, i.e. an instruction, using the Lego brand name and basing it on the essential elements of Lego - the bricks and whole Lego-concept - it's a bit strange and silly: On one hand people claim Lego and MOCs and everything about the hobby is about fun, but on the other hand people demand money for self-made instructions. So it's about money, no matter how little, not about the fun? This is confusing at best, and disturbing at the worst.

No one is twisting your arm to buy barons instructions so why the concern.

I have had many people ask me instructions for 'Dewie' but for one I can't be bothered making instructions and second I like to keep it as a unique MOC in my collection that other people don't have so instead of all the negative opinions think of it as a privelage to be able to get instructions for some of barons beautiful MOCs.

Also the OP could have been a bit more descrete if selling the model was his intention, instead of making this thread could have posted on eBay and avoided all this commotion, to me it comes across as a bit of a slap in barons face.

I'd say it's about time admins lock this.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Brickmamba

[Brickdoctor]

I'd say it's about time admins lock this.

No, it's about time all of you listen to the admin and get back to discussing the model, not the legality of selling models like it.

[DarthTwoShedsJackson]

No one is twisting your arm to buy barons instructions so why the concern.

That's what you say. It's a great model, it has so many elements to re-create iconic scenes, and the design and size is well-done. So I might be tempted... Hat's off to baron who originally designed it!

Edited March 19, 2014 by DarthTwoShedsJackson