About the Modular Western Town?

[Dorayaki]

Not sure if it's should be in general discussion, so please inform me if needed.

Once upon a time, there was a sad news for AFOLs before the heartbreaking Christmas.

The Modular Western Town project conflicts with an ongoing project at the LEGO Group. As a result, the project does not meet the business case requirements and has not passed the LEGO Review.

So as concluded, there was going to be an official Modular Western Town from a project/theme that TLC would make to replace this project ---- and after more than a year passed, I think I'm sure there is no such kind of product in catalogue. So what actually happended in TLC's so-called "ongoing project"?

Possible project 1: The Lone Ranger

Another big summer hit of Disney films, which is a common license company appears in Lego lines. Though not being a big theme, there were still many remarkable choices of sets such as a mine mountain and a west train. However, the only set doing with "town" is the 79109 Colby City Showdown. The sets consisted of two small models of a bank and an office. But generally, the two are not very close to the previous Modular project which consisted of buildings with two storeys. So, it's not doing with the reason.

Possible project 2: The Lego Movie

As an official Lego original film, it provided a very complete view of a classic western town, and have many nice building ideas. When it comes to the physical sets featuring Western themes, there are 70800 Getaway Glider, a western style hang gliding, and 70812 Creative Ambush, a plane that was originally a saloon. The movie sets feature some vehicles that can be converted from buildings or cars, however, the Saloon Plane itself is one of those which can't convert into its original building, that means there is no Western building in this theme.

Still,the Sea Cow represents the Pirate theme. Though maybe not all AFOLs, but I believe some Pirate fans are very excited about this.

Generally Lego products need one year to design and produce, not to mention the time when the Cuusoo project actually achieved. Therefore, it's been more than one year and we can't see a Western Town, what should it mean? Another unknown or postponed project? Or even easier----- it was a lie?

If not giving any reasons just like the recent reviews, I personally think the Modular Western Town couldn't pass because it consists of multiple buildings and looks very like a theme project since each building fit in an independent set box, which clearly violated Cuusoo's guideline. But now I'm alittle confused since we were given a very different and unproved answer.

Ironically, there was another project from the same creator, mb_bricks's UCS Sandcrawler. It wasn't clearly rejected for another possible set, but now it's confirmed to appear this year.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Dorayaki

[Ardelon]

The general consensus here was that the MWT was in conflict with the LR theme. I think is plausible, and it would canniblize sales, especially of Colby City, as you noted.

I dont think TLM western sets were an issue, as you said, there are no western buildings in line.

Furthermore, it was said that only one building would be done out of the whole project (I think the saloon?), so the argument that the project couldnt pass because it was too big to be viable is void. Nor do I think the official explanation was a lie, the conflict with LR seems like a valid reason, even though I didnt like reading it.

What I would like to see is for TLG to put it back in line after the LR sets disappear. After all, the project did get 10 000 valid votes, and the official reason not to make it would then be void. I wonder whether something would stop them doing this scenario?

[The_Cook]

Ardelon beat me to a response...

We don't know for sure but the general assumption is that they couldn't do the Western Modular because it would have conflicted with the Lone Ranger theme. Given that Lone Ranger is a licensed theme there may well be contractual issues that stipulate TLG are not allowed to sell anything that could be considered as competing with the licensed theme.

Now that the Lone Ranger theme has passed there's nothing to stop the Western Modular being re-submitted to Cuusoo and pursuing the 10,000 votes again. If it gets there TLG would be obliged to consider it again. If it's a good set idea it will get to 10,000 votes again, good ideas always will. There's still no guarantee it would pass, but the immediate obstacle, Lone Ranger, would have passed. The next issue is likely to be set size, they've been favouring smaller sets for their time-to-market and there's a broader appeal at the lower price points.

Edited February 13, 2014 by The_Cook

[LegoFjotten]

They could also see it as in conflict with their current range of modulars.

I am sure they didn't lie, why would they?

Submitting it again is pointless IMO, even though I personally think the buildings are awesome.

[tkatt]

Could Lego could make a parts list and a set of instructions for the rejected Cuusoo sets? I could see how doing this may conflict with sales of existing or future sets, but it might also drive a lot of Pick a Brick sales. If TLG was concerned about losing sales to Bricklink they could add an option to import the parts list to PaB. I think that many people would pay the higher PaB price if all the pieces could be bought at once brand new from Lego.

I don't know how much it costs to produce a set of instructions, so this idea may not be financialy viable. I'm also aware that instructions are available to purchase from ReBrickable, and other sites. But having an official set of instructions and an easy way to get all the needed parts in one purchase would be pretty great. This is especailly true for the larger buildings like the western modulars or Ghostbusters Firehouse.

[Dorayaki]

The general consensus here was that the MWT was in conflict with the LR theme. I think is plausible, and it would canniblize sales, especially of Colby City, as you noted. I dont think TLM western sets were an issue, as you said, there are no western buildings in line.

What I would like to see is for TLG to put it back in line after the LR sets disappear. After all, the project did get 10 000 valid votes, and the official reason not to make it would then be void. I wonder whether something would stop them doing this scenario?

I didn't think LR was the project in conflict because there was no similar single product provided in line. In your statement, it's more like that the project conflicts with LR just because they're based on the same "style".

In a commericial way, it's true, but there is such a guideline:

If you get an idea for a new LEGO set, it's possible our design team has had a similar idea on their own. If the LEGO Group introduces a product similar to an idea submitted on LEGO CUUSOO you understand and acknowledge that any coincidence is unintentional and release the LEGO Group against any claims of infringement.

Yes, it stated a similar concept of building, not a similar theme, or many other projects are clear choices for deletion, such as the "Female Minifigures Set", in conflict with City and CMF. A beneficial conflict with licenses has nothing to do with the Cuusoo guideline.

I'm not surprised if a police station project is rejected because TLC won't stop their City theme. But it's debatable for generic Western themes because it's not a longterm theme that TLC promised, and we even didn't know that Disney was making LR.

It was a pity that TLG pointed out the saloon from the movie, but didn't decide to make a convertible saloon.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Dorayaki

[Nagyzee]

I didn't think LR was the project in conflict because there was no similar single product provided in line. In your statement, it's more like that the project conflicts with LR just because they're based on the same "style".

Most likely their licensing deal with Disney didn't allow them to put out western themed sets while the LR theme was running. It's quite logical.

[Faefrost]

I didn't think LR was the project in conflict because there was no similar single product provided in line. In your statement, it's more like that the project conflicts with LR just because they're based on the same "style".

In a commericial way, it's true, but there is such a guideline:

It was a pity that TLG pointed out the saloon from the movie, but didn't decide to make a convertible saloon.

It is probably in the high 90% of certainty that the conflict with the MWT was LR. It's a licensed theme, and they will carry non compete clauses. Disney especially seems to bundle them in. And the non compete is not simply a specific comparative product. It is also one that can be viewed as sideways related or synergistic to the licensed product. Because the side product would be effectively pulling from marketing and interest from the licensed IP and source materials. It's why Lego can't release a Pirate ship or any sort of Pirate set while PotC license is active (at least not without Disney's approval). License holders get real nasty about this sort of thing. They want their IP supporting the licensed products, not un licensed add ons that they don't get a piece of. And Disney would view the MWT as an unlicensed add on for their LR IP. No way around it.

And chances are the LR license is not "over". The theme is over. But it is un likely that the calendar span of the effective license and its non compete periods have expired yet. We may have a year or so before Lego can make a new unlicensed Western theme.

The LR license is most likely a reason why the Creative Ambush set does not have a conversion back to a Western building of some sort.

And as far as the MWT, chances are that it is dead. Lego cannot release plans for the set, but it's creator can. (As happened with the Winchester.) once Lego rejects a project it is released back to its creator.

[tedbeard]

What are you people talking about? They came right out and said that they could not do it because of the Lone Ranger. There is no "maybe" or "possibly". LEGO employees said so directly.

Anyway, it would be nice if they could either revisit the concept or perhaps a new, single set as per the revised Cuusoo rules, could be put forward.

[Dorayaki]

What are you people talking about? They came right out and said that they could not do it because of the Lone Ranger. There is no "maybe" or "possibly". LEGO employees said so directly.

Glad to hear it. Could you provide the reference?

Edited February 14, 2014 by Dorayaki

[just2good]

I'm even starting to think LR is the reason we didn't see any TLM western sets based on a building.

[rodiziorobs]

The clear conflict with the MWT was LR, as several posters have stated. I like to think that TLG saw the MWT and groaned because they would rather have produced MBbricks' modular buildings than been tied down to a license (especially when the movie tanked). But that's just my POV.

I hadn't thought about the LR license affecting the Lego Movie sets, though, but it makes a lot of sense. Again, I feel like TLG would really liked to have produced other western buildings, but their hands were tied.

Unfortunately, that means the MWT (along with TLM) was just the victim of poor timing; I'm sure if the project--or a single set from it, to be in line with Cuusoo's revised guidelines--were to get the required supporters today, it would be approved. By the time the set came into production any loose ends with the Disney license would have been taken care of. It's too bad that ship has sailed, but maybe MBbricks will resubmit one of them?

While I liked most of the LR sets--let's face it, it was good to see TLG do a western theme again!--it's a shame that we could have had so much more if not for the conflict with the license.

[deskp]

I think it was obviosuly in conflict with Lone Ranger, Lego was already making a western theme with that film, you dont need a set that is DIECTLY conflicting for being too similar.

It as never ever said that lego was making any western modular.

[Ardelon]

I still wonder why TLG wouldn't return to this project after the LR license expires - after all, it passed the vote threshold, and the reason it didn't pass the business case would be void.

Could Lego could make a parts list and a set of instructions for the rejected Cuusoo sets? I could see how doing this may conflict with sales of existing or future sets, but it might also drive a lot of Pick a Brick sales. If TLG was concerned about losing sales to Bricklink they could add an option to import the parts list to PaB. I think that many people would pay the higher PaB price if all the pieces could be bought at once brand new from Lego.

I don't know how much it costs to produce a set of instructions, so this idea may not be financialy viable. I'm also aware that instructions are available to purchase from ReBrickable, and other sites. But having an official set of instructions and an easy way to get all the needed parts in one purchase would be pretty great. This is especailly true for the larger buildings like the western modulars or Ghostbusters Firehouse.

The thing is, the only one that can make precise instructions for a rejected CUUSOO project (or one that hasn't reached the threshold yet) is the creator - AFAIK, TLG has nothing to do with it. What's more, accepted projects get modified by the LEGO designers - and since I'm sure this happens only after it passes the business case, TLG would not yet have made instructions for their own version. So nope, TLG can't release intructions for rejected sets - they don't necessarily know 100% how the creator created the model, and they are not working on their official version. You can only hope the creators of the project release their own instructions.

[pcvando]

I have to say the timing of the town submission to TLG was bad… very bad. I know he can't really control cuuso etc… but he should have waited until noting good was coming out.

TLG definitely did not go with this because TLR was coming out.

Sad.

Anyways, hopefully someone will make some more good western or pirates cuuso sets.

[Faefrost]

I still wonder why TLG wouldn't return to this project after the LR license expires - after all, it passed the vote threshold, and the reason it didn't pass the business case would be void.

It is probably somewhat complicated to return to a third party solicitation like that. There can be some weird business, law and licensing issues that we would never think of in the real world.

Here's the thing. In order to avoid HUGE issues with licenses, Lego CuuSoo can never ever say or even give a subtle hint that an answer could possibly be "maybe". Even the slight implication of "we cannot do this at this time" leaves an implication that it might be done in the future. Which in and of itself can have a negative effect on a current or forthcoming licensed product line. Setting a precedent that they will re examine something in the future causes more harm to TLG than they would gain benefit from making 10-20k MWT sets.

The only way for CuuSoo to have even a chance of working, and co existing with Lego's existing licensed and internal production groups is CuuSoo must stick to a hard binary yes or no at the point of review. With no re visitation. Otherwise it would get unworkable complex and the lawyers would have a stroke.

[Dorayaki]

I'm even starting to think LR is the reason we didn't see any TLM western sets based on a building.

Not sure if it's true. If western sets weren't made due to conflicts with LR, then same for PotC conflicting with Pirate. However, Sea Cow is made this time, and ironically PotC has announced a sequel, so I guess it's just that TLC didn't want to make any western buildings under this theme, not they're in conflicts with LR.

Offtopic: I'm actually curious to know if the ships featured in Little Mermaid could be made, but there are no news for more Disney sets this summer.

I have to say the timing of the town submission to TLG was bad… very bad. I know he can't really control cuuso etc… but he should have waited until noting good was coming out.

I'm not sure if it has something to do with this rule:

Please only suggest new ideas. Don't submit projects requesting we re-release or "bring back" discontinued LEGO products or themes in their original form, and don’t submit projects that are “modifications” or “improvements” to existing or past LEGO sets.

This rule only mentioned that we can submit projects which have repetitive ideas with existed Lego sets. Now, the MWT idea is still not used in any other new Lego sets. So resubmitting this project doesn't violate this rule. After all, "bad timing" is definitely not what the projects have to be responsible for.

So what if we can't resubmit a project that has achieved but failed? It's not actually written in the guidelines. If the project was rejected for inappropriate content like religions or competitor brands, it doesn't work for sure. However, the reason why it was rejected for a so-called "ongoing project" so we don't even know how to start.

Maybe mb_bricks have resubmitted this project but failed? It's better to directly ask him for answer.

Here's the thing. In order to avoid HUGE issues with licenses, Lego CuuSoo can never ever say or even give a subtle hint that an answer could possibly be "maybe". Even the slight implication of "we cannot do this at this time" leaves an implication that it might be done in the future. Which in and of itself can have a negative effect on a current or forthcoming licensed product line. Setting a precedent that they will re examine something in the future causes more harm to TLG than they would gain benefit from making 10-20k MWT sets.

So here's the thing: if the MWT project is made in a further future, it wouldn't have any conflict with LR or TLM (if they're the so-called official project). It's actually nice for movie fans if LR or TLM were going to be a longterm theme so that we may see more western themes, but as a fact it's not guaranteed, and I guess we're not seeing any new western things in this year.

It seems like that Cuusoo projects are immediately designed and produced after the they pass. But if any conflict could happen in this situation, there should be another guideline that allows Cuusoo projects to postpone in order to protect project creators.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Dorayaki

[rodiziorobs]

Not sure if it's true. If western sets weren't made due to conflicts with LR, then same for PotC conflicting with Pirate.

I think this is a different case, as each theme would be drafted under a different license. TLG already had a pirate theme when they first licensed with Disney to do PotC, and so likely included a clause in that agreement that would allow them to continue with their own theme.

On the other hand, there had not been a proper Western theme since 1996 (unless you count the re-release a few years later), so it is unlikely that TLG sought to include that kind of exception in the LR license.

I wonder actually if the licensing agreement for LR was written to exclude any Western sets period; if you notice, both of the Western-themed TLM sets (Getaway Glider and Creative Ambush) are both flying machines, and could thereby be considered "fantasy", allowing TLG to sidestep the LR license if that were the case. It guess it doesn't really matter though.

As nice as it would be to see MWT pass review, I don't see how in its current state- it doesn't even abide by CUUSOO's new guidelines (multiple sets). I also don't think a postponement guideline could ever be implemented, although maybe when a project hit 5k votes the CUUSOO team could inform the creator about a potential conflict? The problem there is that preempts the review stage. Besides, even if the project creator were notified of some licensing conflict, what could they do? Shelving the project would kill any momentum it had on social media (which is pretty much the only way to get to 10k), and what other realistic option is there?

The only way the MWT (or any other project) would be reconsidered is if it were put out as a new single set and got the 10k supporters once again.

[Dorayaki]

I think this is a different case, as each theme would be drafted under a different license. TLG already had a pirate theme when they first licensed with Disney to do PotC, and so likely included a clause in that agreement that would allow them to continue with their own

I wonder actually if the licensing agreement for LR was written to exclude any Western sets period; if you notice, both of the Western-themed TLM sets (Getaway Glider and Creative Ambush) are both flying machines, and could thereby be considered "fantasy", allowing TLG to sidestep the LR license if that were the case. It guess it doesn't really matter though.

As nice as it would be to see MWT pass review, I don't see how in its current state- it doesn't even abide by CUUSOO's new guidelines (multiple sets). I also don't think a postponement guideline could ever be implemented, although maybe when a project hit 5k votes the CUUSOO team could inform the creator about a potential conflict? The problem there is that preempts the review stage. Besides, even if the project creator were notified of some licensing conflict, what could they do? Shelving the project would kill any momentum it had on social media (which is pretty much the only way to get to 10k), and what other realistic option is there?

I guess you're right about that. The Western theme has been discontinued for a longer time than Pirate (though the Cuusoo projects was made in the hope of it's revival ), which could be a different commericial case with licenses.

Still as said, there is also difference between LR and PotC. PotC is a film series (at least confirmed to have the fifth movie.), and it can still be brought back to Lego. For LR, its future potential is still vague as a one-time movie story. If it does stop TLC to make original Lego sets (I don't think so) but they can't come up with other LR sets, it doesn't sound profitable for both Disney and TLC. If MWT would possibly conflict with LR, then the Sea Cow conflicts more with PotC.

Personally, I don't oppose to the "invasion" of licenses, but as a fact the license doesn't help FOLs get more Lego sets.

As mentioned, the project itself still has some other problems, and I'd be glad to see the project be converted into other forms. What I meant is TLC could have come up with the legit guidelines instead of the super-vague project conflicts in their rejection.

Unless TLC can clearly confirm that the license would continue so the conflict won't cease, I think there's no reason why a Cuusoo project can't postpone. I agree with that each project has to be reviewed before conclusion, but still, since license conflicts are vague and have nothing to do with product design, it should be clearly noted in the guidelines.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Dorayaki

[meyerc13]

I think that based on the sets that have passed review, that it is very clear that at this time LEGO isn't willing to bet on a Cuusoo set that is as big as the western town. In this case, there was also a licensing issue, but it seems like even if Lone Ranger had never been that they would have found some other reason to pass on this. Maybe someday Cuusoo will have proven itself sufficiently that LEGO will take a bet on something this big, but I think that it won't be any time soon.

[Faefrost]

Licenses will also have time elements. So with a license that has a no compete clause, TLG would not be able to put out something in a similar or directly defined line for x amount of time around a movie, or Y amount of time after stopping production on the license sets. Lego probably does often have a small window they can use between movies in some series licenses. But it is more often economically not worth it to do so.

In the case of PotC the sets have been gone for over a year, and the next movie was pushed back an extra year. Now normally Lego would wait out the space between movies. The amount of return they get from a PotC themed wave with movie tie in is so much greater than a simple classic Pirates theme, that it is typically a better economic decision to wait it out between movies. But with the extended a sense the equation mat reverse a little. A window opens up to do their own thing a little bit. This works to both TLG and the licensors favor as it can keep the pump primed and keep interest up, so long as it doesn't get too crazy. Hence we see the small pirate Minifigs set.

The Sea Cow has little to no bearing on the PotC license. It is a fantasy steampunk creation directly related to a different media property. It has no more direct competition with PotC than the Spongebob Flying Dutchman. It may dance a little closer to the line than say a Star Wars ship or the Coast Guard boat, but it is still comfortably over it.

As far as resubmitting rejected projects. It sounds great for this specific case, but would quickly become a nightmare of fanboy generated insanity attempting to clog the system until TLG gives in. Just how many infinitely repeated Zelda and Batman Tumbler projects do you want them to keep re reviewing? Rejected needs to be rejected for the system to work. And for legal and license reasons they cannot do a "not at this time, maybe later".

[Blakstone]

Modular Western Town would never happen because it was too big as well as conflicting with a particular Lone Ranger set. Despite its beauty, it was no great loss. Even the Ghostbusters project that past lost it's wonderful fire house.

I hope the designer comes up with something that could be priced for $50 or less and then resubmits.

However, if the real goal is to get LEGO talking about possible Western sets, I think the CUUSOO project just by crossing the threshold did that. The LEGO Movie sets add a bit to western MOCers too.

In the end, though you would need a revival of interest in the Wild West globally to really resurrect this this theme.

[Dorayaki]

Modular Western Town would never happen because it was too big. Even the Ghostbusters project that past lost it's wonderful fire house.

Sorry, you're missing the point. The topic is about both how to make a project pass and whether the projects were rejected for clear and legal reasons. As already mentioned, both projects you said can be directly rejected for "too large/theme-like project", which is already a guideline we knew.

We don't know if the Ghostbuster creator really wanted to make the station, or just added a background. I guess he's not that dumb.

The Sea Cow has little to no bearing on the PotC license. It is a fantasy steampunk creation directly related to a different media property. It has no more direct competition with PotC than the Spongebob Flying Dutchman. It may dance a little closer to the line than say a Star Wars ship or the Coast Guard boat, but it is still comfortably over it.

As far as resubmitting rejected projects. It sounds great for this specific case, but would quickly become a nightmare of fanboy generated insanity attempting to clog the system until TLG gives in. Just how many infinitely repeated Zelda and Batman Tumbler projects do you want them to keep re reviewing? Rejected needs to be rejected for the system to work. And for legal and license reasons they cannot do a "not at this time, maybe later".

In TLM's case, just like you said, TLC can still make a convertible saloon or a Western building that features a fantasy scene of this movie. I didn't say there must be something between TLM and LR, maybe it's just that TLC didn't plan to do it.

In the cases you mentioned, they don't conflict with any long/shortterm projects with TLC so this is a clear difference. Although I can't tell the license reasons for sure, the fact is that LR is over and there is no other conflict possiblity can be found. Well, the best result would be that LR2 is chasing after PotC5 and MWT would eventually come, but I don't think TLG can ensure this happen ("maybe later") since they didn't really admit that LR made the conflict.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Dorayaki

[rodiziorobs]

Through some act of providence or serendipity, the Cuusoo team just made an update to clarify some of the issues surrounding licensing conflicts--the exact same issues we have been discussing here.

Although they specifically mention Doctor Who (strangely; its almost like they are asking for specific submissions), as far as I can tell the same info would apply to the MWT.

[Faefrost]

Through some act of providence or serendipity, the Cuusoo team just made an update to clarify some of the issues surrounding licensing conflicts--the exact same issues we have been discussing here.

Although they specifically mention Doctor Who (strangely; its almost like they are asking for specific submissions), as far as I can tell the same info would apply to the MWT.

No it would not. The MWT was given a full review and rejected at that time. It was rejected for clear legitimate and business reasons. In order for CuuSoo to work, without opening up a literal Megablokstorm of legal squabbles over designs, ideas, etc, The end result of a review must be a binary yes or no. Any word or action that hints at a "maybe" or a "we may re examine this later" has the potential to give the CuuSoo designer leverage over an ever broader swath of internal design work. What if Lego chooses to do an unlicensed Western theme once the contracts from LR end? They have all of the nice new molds. Any vague action on their part with CuuSoo could give a third party designer an argument for a piece of that next theme. Which is a situation that no manufacturer will tolerate.

If a project makes it to review, and is fully reviewed, if it passes it becomes the property of TLG and proceeds to production. If it is failed for any reason all rights are transferred back to the creator. TLG relinquishes all designs, rights, etc with the understanding that they will not use his designs and he may do as he wishes with them. TLG holds nothing at that point. They take steps to insure that there can be no legitimate question of using those designs at a later date or for a different project sort of thing. If they even once go back to a failed project to bring it back for production at a later date, it opens the door that all others may be under consideration, and in turn may have a claim against some later product line that dances close to their subject matter. Toss in existing or ongoing licenses and it quickly is a nightmare.

Really, practically, the only way to bring back that MWT set would probably be for Lego to literally hire Marshall. Bring him in house even as a work for hire contractor. But it would have to be wholly outside the CuuSoo system. The Dr. Who projects can be re submited because they have never gotten 10k votes or been sent for review. It's a wholly different set of problems, and much easier ones to work around.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Faefrost