TLG take-down of custom 3D printed parts for infringement

[Appie]

3 hours ago, suffocation said:

TLG states that it doesn't want the name "Lego" and other bits and bobs used without permission. You use them without permission, you've had your fair warning, you get taken down, end of story.

This is all there is to this topic imo and the title of this topic should be adjusted to reflect that.

Lego is not on a crusade against custom 3d printed parts, they are on a crusade to stop people from using their name to make sales, which they are obligated by copyright laws (and common sense) to do.

[aol000xw]

Well there is fair use you know...

Just stating that you make something compatible with X does not make that an infringement.

Wording is important however and a disclaimer stating that it is not a Lego product not endorsed by Lego and that Lego is a Trademark property of TLG etc may help.

The typical legalese crap.

[Tommy Styrvoky]

11 minutes ago, Appie said:

This is all there is to this topic imo and the title of this topic should be adjusted to reflect that.

Lego is not on a crusade against custom 3d printed parts, they are on a crusade to stop people from using their name to make sales, which they are obligated by copyright laws (and common sense) to do.

The issue is they weren't clear with the take-down, the thing that I am confused by is why my model, as there are still hundreds of more models on thingiverse containing Lego in the title with no reference to compatible with.

[Paperballpark]

Of course TLG doesn't want the LEGO name used to describe LEGO-compatible bricks, however they're made. Because that is a slippery slope - if people get used to describing all bricks as LEGO, then LEGO becomes a name for interconnecting bricks, rather than a name for one brand of interconnecting bricks.

If you doubt this, consider that in the UK (not sure about elsewhere) a vacuum cleaner is known as a hoover. I hoover the house, and when I go to buy a new one, I go to buy a hoover - even if I buy a completely different brand. The problem with this for the Hoover brand is obvious - how do they distinguish Hoover the brand from generic hoovers (i.e. all brands)? The answer is that they can't really. Once people refer to all brands as your brand name, you're knackered.

That's why TLG is so precious about protecting the brand. They always have been - all large brands are the same. If a company describes one of their products as 'the Rolls Royce of [whatever]', they'll get a nice little cease and desist letter from RR's lawyers.

[Appie]

3 minutes ago, Tommy Styrvoky said:

The issue is they weren't clear with the take-down, the thing that I am confused by is why my model, as there are still hundreds of more models on thingiverse containing Lego in the title with no reference to compatible with.

Doesn't matter, plenty of reports in this topic alone to change the title to something that is actually true. Or instead of jumping the gun and making a topic with a title that at best is only half true: wait and see/investigate yourself why they actually took it down.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Appie

[Tommy Styrvoky]

4 minutes ago, Appie said:

Doesn't matter, plenty of reports in this topic alone to change the title to something that is actually true.

I am not trying to do anything disingenuous, i just noted that a couple other users of thingiverse had their models taken down, I am not entirely sure of the scope of how many models, since I can't view them, but having models taken down on 3 of the major 3D printing sites would be considered significant. I and everyone else is assuming that this is a usage of the Lego word, and not of the model itself, but we have yet to receive reason of this. And like others, I am unable to dispute this to fix any issues with my model's description on thingiverse.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Tommy Styrvoky

[coinoperator]

5 minutes ago, Paperballpark said:

LEGO becomes a name for interconnecting bricks

They should be proude that they are the name setting company.

But okay, let state that is is NOT forbidden to say that "bricks" are compatible with "brandname".

[zoo]

I see many people jumping to conclusions.

For all I know, TLG support could have had issues with people contacting them regarding bricks that are not originaly LEGO bricks.

[Appie]

2 minutes ago, Tommy Styrvoky said:

I am not trying to do anything disingenuous, i just noted that a couple other users of thingiverse had their models taken down, I am not entirely sure of the scope of how many models, since I can't view them, but having models taken down on 3 of the major 3D printing sites would be considered significant. I and everyone else is assuming that this is a usage of the Lego word, and not of the model itself, but we have yet to receive reason of this. And like others, I am unable to dispute this to fix any issues with my model's description on thingiverse.

Like I said in that same post (perhaps you missed it, since I edited 2mins before you replied)

9 minutes ago, Appie said:

Or instead of jumping the gun and making a topic with a title that at best is only half true: wait and see/investigate yourself why they actually took it down.

Efferman already mentioned it is related to the name and not the parts itself. And if you try to be sincere, again, the title of the topic should reflect that. You're now pointing a finger at Lego for something that at best is half true.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Appie

[Tommy Styrvoky]

Also to state a similar case that happened recently on thingiverse. There was a similar case where a video game company Wargaming did a similar DCMA to items relating to WOT, and tanks related models, so users that didn't even have WOT in their description or models from that game suffered because of some people who directly ripped models from their game. This is somewhat different,as this was direct infringement and stealing of their products.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Tommy Styrvoky

[brunojj1]

1 minute ago, Appie said:

Like I said in that same post (perhaps you missed it, since I edited 2mins before you replied)

Efferman already mentioned it is related to the name and not the parts itself. And if you try to be sincere, again, the title of the topic should reflect that. You're now pointing a finger at Lego for something that at best is half true.

Let the OP decide himself what he himself considers to be true and let everybody have their own opinion, please! As far as I know, this forum is not owned by TLG but is dedicated to discussions around the hobby.

Another prominent example in Germany where TLG issued a warning by their lawyers regarding potential trademark infringements, was a German Lego store owner,  Held der Steine, who was selling mostly Lego products. Back then he was a normal retailer making YT reviews about Lego products only (free advertising for TLG!). He had his own logo, formerly showing a brick with 4 nipples on top (which btw is not patented per se) – the controversy was all about this trademark logo by which the customers allegedly were supposed to identify/confuse him as the official Lego company.

The result of the whole argument wasn´t a battle in court, but simply a change of the logo ... and a complete change of the product portfolio in his business. Now he is promoting other brick brands as well, amongst TLG products. Who cares...

[Appie]

Just now, brunojj1 said:

Let the OP decide himself what he himself considers to be true and let everybody have their own opinion, please! As far as I know, this forum is not owned by TLG but is dedicated to discussions around the hobby.

He can decide whatever title he wants, but there's a legal term for wrongly accusing somebody or a company of something they didn't do as well: slander. And personally I expect people to do some research before accusing people or companies of something. I personally wouldn't wish to wrongfully accuse somebody of something he/she/it didn't do.

Held Der Steine didn't have a leg to stand on, Lego was defending their copyright, that simple, so of course he didn't go to court, he would have surely lost the case and money.

[Tommy Styrvoky]

Also it appears shapways provided that it was a trademark infringement, however thingiverse mentions just an IP infringement. I assume those are the same, however I am more frustrated that the result of this basically means I cannot fix my description of my model on thingiverse's site and reopen the model to the public, as basically once a DCMA happens it feels like there is little I can do to dispute it besides reuploding the model, which I will do. But if there's something with the model itself that infringes on Lego, that could result in a ban of my thingiverse account. So I don't just want to go about doing stuff to circumvent the DCMA, just to get hit again.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Tommy Styrvoky

[Bartybum]

8 hours ago, Appie said:

they are on a crusade to stop people from using their name to make sales

But so many of them were available for free. Nobody was charging anyone for anything

[suffocation]

I sometimes wonder what happened to common sense.

It's not just a matter of folks using the Lego name to make money. What if some kid chokes on a "Lego-compatible" part? You do realise, don't you, how much (unfair) vitriol TLG would get, right? Hence why they don't want unauthorised people and/or companies marketing anything "Lego-compatible". A competent legal department will always work to prevent worst-case scenarios - no surprise, e.g., that in countries such as the US you might buy a packet of salted peanuts and see the disclaimer "Warning: contains nuts". Stupid legal department? No, smart legal department pre-empting a stupid society.

[Bartybum]

1 hour ago, suffocation said:

What if some kid chokes on a "Lego-compatible" part? You do realise, don't you, how much (unfair) vitriol TLG would get, right?

I can't accept this - not only is it speculative of how people would react to a kid swallowing a choking hazard (I think most people would just say "well duh, don't let your kid play with choking hazards"), but it also doesn't factor the near statistical impossibility of it ever happening to begin with. The odds of a kid choking on printed Lego are so much smaller than for real Lego, purely by how much more exposed kids are to real Lego. It also doesn't consider the removal of large Lego elements, such as the giant mug and parrot. I can't buy the notion that it's to do with safety in any way.

Generally speaking, kids don't choke on printed Lego because kids don't play with printed Lego.

2 hours ago, suffocation said:

I sometimes wonder what happened to common sense.

Play nice my dude, we're talking about toys here

[iLego]

I think TLG hired one MBA too many 

[Enantiomeer]

On 10/1/2019 at 4:19 AM, Bartybum said:

In my books this is a hell of a dick move by TLG.

It may seem like overkill by TLG. However they do have to protect their intellectual property (IP). Any model which is a direct copy they have to take action on. If they don't take action against people printing those then if at a later stage some company start mass-producing these copies TLG will, in some countries, have a problem in blocking that mass production (which can hurt them financially). The reason is that in some countries if you don't actively protect your IP that legally you could be considered to have abandoned it.

Where it gets murky is the models of modified parts. A brick which is 1 stud longer or shorter or a gear with 1 tooth more or less will probably fall within the copyright protection of existing beams. But let's say something like a Y- or X-shaped beam will probably not.

[Bartybum]

1 hour ago, Enantiomeer said:

Any model which is a direct copy they have to take action on

They're taking on trademark infringements, not copyrighted designs. My issue is that these trademark infringements are against models that aren't even being sold to begin with - that's why I'm saying it's a dick move.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Bartybum

[Ivan_M]

13 hours ago, Appie said:

He can decide whatever title he wants, but there's a legal term for wrongly accusing somebody or a company of something they didn't do as well: slander. And personally I expect people to do some research before accusing people or companies of something. I personally wouldn't wish to wrongfully accuse somebody of something he/she/it didn't do.

Held Der Steine didn't have a leg to stand on, Lego was defending their copyright, that simple, so of course he didn't go to court, he would have surely lost the case and money.

And vice versa, TLG should be more cautious before jumping and take things more calmly, explaining, asking...

[agrof]

What about this interpretation:

The natural evolution of language is known, this is how brands like "hoover" spreads for object in general, there is countless examples. This can be a great thing, and considered as Free Marketing, Respect or even Praise towards a brand, which will be part of human linguistic history in this way. This might be read as Honor in most of the cases, and I dare to say the real infringements cases belongs to court, and need no preventive actions, like described in this topic. TLG acts like fighting desperately against this natural evolution. If they keep on with this, the word LEGO will be not the analogy for interlocking bricks, but for a greedy company, who stamp down everybody, but especially individuals.

Also, watching the history of recent years, it feels like TLG is behaving like a hysteric child, they are not really successful against real copycat companies*, so they found an easier and way more powerless target to hit. The problem is, that this target is their so called: fan base. Normally, people don't hurt there, where love and food is coming from, but we try to cooperate, support each other. Fans do this by creating and sharing content, spend endless hours and money to keep the heart beating.

*It is a known fact, if you move any kind of production to China, it will be copied. TLG did this to earn more profit (=greed?), they took, but didn't realize the obvious risk, now we suffer from the consequences.

What TLG does in return? Did we see any kind solidarity as copycat brands started to steal MOC designs - many was even with the help of TLG, as in Cuusoo platform everybody could download LDD models. I do believe, all the fans would have been happy about some words from TLG back than. Nowadays we see actions like this against 3D community (again: fans). I wouldn't call it appreciation, and as written previously, we can not expect any official explanation either soon.

Is that a legal move? Might be. We all know that law and ethic don't walk hand in hand. Many cases the one wins, who can twist the words better, or can afford more lawyer. There is many read of this infringements story, for me it just doesn't feel right to waste energy into punishment efforts (and even hitting the wrong target group), instead of putting the same energy into innovation. TLG acts as big tired tyrant, who doesn't want to keep the position by earning love and respect (the hard way), but by kicking and intimidating everybody from the near of the throne (the easy way).

Edited October 2, 2019 by agrof

[Appie]

7 hours ago, Bartybum said:

But so many of them were available for free. Nobody was charging anyone for anything

Doesn't matter, they are using the Lego name to highlight their own products. 

TLG acts like fighting desperately against this natural evolution. If they keep on with this, the word LEGO will be not the analogy for interlocking bricks, but for a greedy company, who stamp down everybody, but especially individuals.

 

1 hour ago, Ivan_M said:

And vice versa, TLG should be more cautious before jumping and take things more calmly, explaining, asking...

That's not how copyright laws work. In order for a company to keep their copyright and trademarks, they need to maintain a zero-tolerance policy for people who wrongfully use their name. Lego doesn't need to ask first when stuff like this happens, this isn't their first time with copyright/trademark infringement and it won't be the last. Lego's legal division is doing exactly what it is obligated by law to do.

And the reason why they have to use a zero-tolerance policy is also simple. Once a company stops protecting their trademarks, even on the smallest of matters, it leaves the door open for big players (Megablocks/Knex etc) on the market to use it against Lego in a lawsuit concerning Lego's trademarks. They will use it in the case to say: "but you allowed that website/shop or whatever to continue their business for weeks/years, you don't really care about your trademarks". A judge will weigh such situations very heavily and that won't help Lego. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Appie
Added quote from agrof

[suffocation]

6 hours ago, Bartybum said:

I can't accept this - not only is it speculative of how people would react to a kid swallowing a choking hazard (I think most people would just say "well duh, don't let your kid play with choking hazards"), but it also doesn't factor the near statistical impossibility of it ever happening to begin with. The odds of a kid choking on printed Lego are so much smaller than for real Lego, purely by how much more exposed kids are to real Lego.

I guess you live in a happy bubble, away from the intricacies of modern legal systems and the explosive mix of idiocy and perversion running rampant in most if not all modern societies. Lucky you.

First, TLG don't know if these 3D parts are sold with an appropriate, ironclad disclaimer against improper use (that same disclaimer TLG uses and which demolishes the last part of your "argument").

Second, and this should have been obvious, the "kid choking" is an example among many and far more likely than it is in your happy bubble: a 3D part might break and cause damage or injury or, very simply, "distress" to someone (doesn't work as intended or hoped; needs sanding down but user doesn't know how; and so on and so forth) - more than enough for a quibble-happy lawyer to have a field day and a draconian judge to blow a massive hole in TLG's balance sheet, not to mention the damage to the brand's image.

Third, a decent corporate legal team is always going to protect the company from even the most unlikely scenario, so anything they sell is going to have a disclaimer that can be upheld in court against pretty much anything and everything, an anything connected to the company's brand(s) without authorisation is going to be cracked down on.

Fourth, read Appie's comments.

Over and out.

Edited October 2, 2019 by suffocation

[aol000xw]

I see on this conversation the same kind of speculation that floats around licensing, many guesses and opinions but very little facts,

There are safe harbors on IP laws on every country and you can use a brand name as long as you follow the rules. There is some degree of variation from country to country, but you can mention  model and brand when you want to commercialize something that is compatible o designed for a product.

It is not the same "Lego MYTHING" that ""MYTHING compatible with LEGO" or "MYTHING for Lego".

Anyone can take a look at the guidelines book for selling in Amazon for example and will find rules depicting exactly this type cases.

No need to invent things or choke children to make a point, it is way easier. 

Of course that does not prevent any rights holder from abusing the system and taking your items down even if you did nothing wrong. Or even someone who isn't the rights holder from doing so, as the burden of proof falls over the infringing party.

[ozacek]

On 10/1/2019 at 7:07 AM, nerdsforprez said:

Lego is designed for kids, [...]

Is it? People keep saying that, but I have to say, I've never met a kid with even the remotest interest in gearboxes...