The Real Indiana Jones

LEGO Ideas Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Guess no one cares about the Winnie the Pooh set, as I haven’t seen a single mention of the leaks on the forum. I mean that’s fair, I don’t care either lol

Edited by Modal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Modal said:

Guess no one gives a shit about the Winnie the Pooh set, as I haven’t seen a single mention of the leaks on the forum. I mean that’s fair, I don’t care either lol

1. Why be rude about it?

2. As posted after you, you aren't looking in the right place :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Exetrius said:

👉 But here comes the real comment that left me dumbfounded and pissed: "Your recent project submission contains many LEGO Minifigures, suggests a Minifigure series, collectible Minifigures, Minifigures and accessories, a “battle pack” or a mass customisation Minifigure maker Product Idea. We love Minifigures too, but can only accept submissions that contain a significant LEGO model." Excuse me? WHAT? My model is 1760 pieces; I have 7 minifigs. Does that seem exceptional or unreasonable? I include accessories for them, yes, but I am not providing extra minifigure parts whatsoever. Scrapping one or two figs would mean redoing several renders. Cut me some slack, it's not like everyone on IDEAS else is holding back on minifigs! :angry:

Man, this is very surprising and strange to say the least. If you take a quick look at recent approved ideas, there are several with 7+ minifigures:

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/2e98bb20-f510-405b-bdf2-ab4d385d2d48

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/f85a10b9-df51-45af-82e5-eb0c83fd0e9d

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/9f4241ba-b7d4-4642-9c51-1a7c72842fc0

What is going on? There must be something else that they do not want to explain. It can be very frustrating to deal with rejected ideas submissions, as you get little to none explanation about why your project was rejected and, in some cases, just generic and poor sentences.

ALL our submissions to the portal were rejected 2-3 times, with no explanations. We had to contact directly to moderators using non-Lego Ideas mechanisms to get information of what was wrong and what to change.

Your minifigures message is just shocking, the only thing I can think about is that you are using non official parts in the minifigures or accessories, but if that were the case, you would get a different answer. Really weird... please, keep us updated.

Edited by DadiTwins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Exetrius said:

Secondly, I made close-up renders that only show part of the build, and put them on a sheet that's larger than the render itself. In other words, making sure there is some blank space around the model, it's more presentable that way. Commentary: "Please remove the white border in the photos, so the build is in full view." Ugh.

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you've done here. So you've done a main render, then supplemented that with close-up renders - and then after that, you've essentially put a white border around the close-up renders (different process, by the sounds of it, but the same end result)? So if my understanding is right, your close-up renders don't show the whole model and the edge of the image is all-white?

Apologies if I've misunderstood you somewhere, but if I'm reading you right I have to say that I don't see how that looks more presentable. The Ideas platform is putting a white border around the images anyway just from the whitespace on the page, so all you seem to be accomplishing is making the image smaller to the eye. Just at a glance, the submission on the front page of Lego Ideas right now (the Village Post-Office) has done close-up renders of different parts of the build, and it looks a lot cleaner than if they'd added artificial whitespace on top of what the Ideas site is already adding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

1. Why be rude about it?

2. As posted after you, you aren't looking in the right place :wink:

:facepalm: 
 

I was in a weird mood lol

Edited by Modal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we had some new molds for the Sesame street line, but the fact that Eeyore is made entirely of a new mold is exciting! It makes me a little sad that we didn't get the Flintstones more recently, because maybe then they would have made a Dino figure. But moving forward, it's good to see this is no longer such a big obstacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Succulent Garden is the 36th project to make this review.  What's the record?

Meanwhile another The Office project has almost reached 10K - they have 8 days to get 32 supporters.....

Edited by Vilhelm22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Vilhelm22 said:

Succulent Garden is the 36th project to make this review.  What's the record?

Meanwhile another The Office project has almost reached 10K - they have 8 days to get 32 supporters.....

35, so this is a new record!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JintaiZ said:

35, so this is a new record!

For some reason I thought it was 42....

Anyway, there are still 8 with over 9000 supporters, and many more with 8000.  This review stage is going to have an insane number of projects - I can never remember when the closing date for this support period is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DadiTwins said:

Man, this is very surprising and strange to say the least. If you take a quick look at recent approved ideas, there are several with 7+ minifigures:

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/2e98bb20-f510-405b-bdf2-ab4d385d2d48

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/f85a10b9-df51-45af-82e5-eb0c83fd0e9d

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/9f4241ba-b7d4-4642-9c51-1a7c72842fc0

What is going on? There must be something else that they do not want to explain. It can be very frustrating to deal with rejected ideas submissions, as you get little to none explanation about why your project was rejected and, in some cases, just generic and poor sentences.

ALL our submissions to the portal were rejected 2-3 times, with no explanations. We had to contact directly to moderators using non-Lego Ideas mechanisms to get information of what was wrong and what to change.

Your minifigures message is just shocking, the only thing I can think about is that you are using non official parts in the minifigures or accessories, but if that were the case, you would get a different answer. Really weird... please, keep us updated.

Oh, that sounds worse for your projects! :look: And yes, asking questions.... I had some technical questions, but beyond the FAQ there is nothing dedicated to ask questions about IDEAS, very inconvenient. I admire you for succeeding in actually getting to speak to the moderators directly. *huh*:thumbup:

As far as my minifigs go, I can assure you haven't used any non-official parts, just a lot of recolours. Two of the projects you listed got me thinking though: they do not have a shot that shows off all figs and accessories, and I do. It should not matter, but it does put some extra emphasis on them, I guess. 

6 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you've done here. So you've done a main render, then supplemented that with close-up renders - and then after that, you've essentially put a white border around the close-up renders (different process, by the sounds of it, but the same end result)? So if my understanding is right, your close-up renders don't show the whole model and the edge of the image is all-white?

Apologies if I've misunderstood you somewhere, but if I'm reading you right I have to say that I don't see how that looks more presentable. The Ideas platform is putting a white border around the images anyway just from the whitespace on the page, so all you seem to be accomplishing is making the image smaller to the eye. Just at a glance, the submission on the front page of Lego Ideas right now (the Village Post-Office) has done close-up renders of different parts of the build, and it looks a lot cleaner than if they'd added artificial whitespace on top of what the Ideas site is already adding.

To be clear, I put my 1000x750 render images (just the model with transparent background) on 1300x1000 backgrounds that are very light grey with a subtle spotlight effect. So indeed, my close-up images don't show the full model, but the edge is very light grey. You raise a good point though about the double white space, I had not considered that the site already provides some of that. 

 

Btw, speaking of The Office, now those have minifigures, ladies and gentlemen! 
https://ideas.lego.com/projects/86dd17b7-c266-4426-b67b-8cb525882504 13 minifgs, I think around 600 pieces?
https://ideas.lego.com/projects/53360c86-aae2-420d-8cec-3eb02c8e59e1 10 minifigs, 1079 pieces
https://ideas.lego.com/projects/c744aa34-24b4-49af-9b17-ba9d72808890 13 minifigs, 751 pieces, great ratio!
https://ideas.lego.com/projects/d093e27c-6dee-4884-9e6a-2184eb8745c0 18 minifigs, whoppa! That's more like it! :pir-huzzah1:Also looks to be close to - or exceeding - 3000 pieces to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/3/2021 at 1:51 AM, DadiTwins said:

What really pisses me off is that we cannot make any money from our design as it is owned by Lego, but chinese companies can. We cannot sell instructions, inventary or productize the idea using a third party company, but we have to see chinese companies making money out of our hard work while Lego does nothing. The fair play here would be that, in the case our idea is cloned, Lego releases us from our contract inquirements and let us monetize our idea like chinese companies do. I can see Lego going after us if they see our idea in rebrickable with paid instructions, but they won't move a finger if it is a chinesse company...

To be honest we were expecting more professionality from Lego. It is weird that they allow a chinesse company to clone their Ideas portal designs with total freedom, but it is even worse that they do not have any kind of conversation, agreement or compensation with the designers.

Lego should start thinking on a Lego Ideas designers protection initiative, with clear rules and statements. We fan designers should feel protected at every moment, we do not deserve this kind of frustration.

What would you like TLG toy company to do about another country's lack of legislation or adherence to copyright/intellectual property law that the arms industry, tech industry, automotive industry, aerospace industry and superpower states haven't been able to accomplish?

The company in question is under the jurisdiction of a government that itself steals and copies weapons of war while also being one of only five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and stealing from the other four with no repercussions. A toy company is probably not going to be the entity to solve this problem so being mad at them for not being able to do anything is a bit misguided. Technically Lego was also stolen from because they own your design for 3 years as you agreed to when you submitted to the platform.

Even if this was outside the Ideas platform and you were selling instructions like you now desire you could still be stolen from as a number of other builders have been over the years. This is not a new thing, here's a Eurobricks member who had their Idea stolen and made as a set after it was released from the 3 year Ideas contract... five years ago. They'd take your instructions, make all the pieces and sell it as a complete product regardless of whether it was in Ideas or not.

So Lego is not the bad guy here and neither are the non-involved Chinese people (capitalized and spelled correctly).

Edited by koalayummies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why they haven't outright blocked all The Office projects and banned any new ones (on the basis that someone else owns the rights now) I don't get.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, koalayummies said:

What would you like TLG toy company to do about another country's lack of legislation or adherence to copyright/intellectual property law that the arms industry, tech industry, automotive industry, aerospace industry and superpower states haven't been able to accomplish?

The company in question is under the jurisdiction of a government that itself steals and copies weapons of war while also being one of only five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and stealing from the other four with no repercussions. A toy company is probably not going to be the entity to solve this problem so being mad at them for not being able to do anything is a bit misguided. Technically Lego was also stolen from because they own your design for 3 years as you agreed to when you submitted to the platform.

Even if this was outside the Ideas platform and you were selling instructions like you now desire you could still be stolen from as a number of other builders have been over the years. This is not a new thing, here's a Eurobricks member who had their Idea stolen and made as a set after it was released from the 3 year Ideas contract... five years ago. They'd take your instructions, make all the pieces and sell it as a complete product regardless of whether it was in Ideas or not.

So Lego is not the bad guy here and neither are the non-involved Chinese people (capitalized and spelled correctly).

I am not saying TLG is the bad guy at all, I am just saying that they do not offer any kind of protection against this even when the idea is now owned by them. I am just saying that they should play fair and, in the case a chinese company steals and reproduces your design, they should free you from your legal contract because it cannot be stopped. It is clear that if TLG is not even able to protect their own in-house models ad designs, we cannot expect anything from Lego Ideas designs protection. So, to be fair with the designers, they should the least break the contract and let you do whatever you want with your design because others are already making money out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DadiTwins said:

So, to be fair with the designers, they should the least break the contract and let you do whatever you want with your design because others are already making money out of it.

Why not just do it anyway? LEGO are not going to sue you if you start selling instructions, they will just kick your design out of IDEAS, which is not a big deal as you won't win anyway if it is already being made by a third party (with or without your permission).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, MAB said:

Why not just do it anyway? LEGO are not going to sue you if you start selling instructions, they will just kick your design out of IDEAS, which is not a big deal as you won't win anyway if it is already being made by a third party (with or without your permission).

I think we have to differentiate two groups of ideas here. One group are the ideas that you submit to Lego Ideas accepting an agreement in the process by which you give TLG the rights of your ideas for 3 years and, if you make any money out of it, TLG removes it from the portal.

The other group are the ideas that reach 10k supporters. When you hit 10k, you receive a set of papers and contracts you have to physically sign and send back. Between those papers there is a copyright one which is very explicit about what you can do and what you cannot do from that moment with that idea (involving sue and legal issues). That is the the contract I am refering to in previous posts.

Edited by DadiTwins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DadiTwins said:

I am not saying TLG is the bad guy at all, I am just saying that they do not offer any kind of protection against this even when the idea is now owned by them. I am just saying that they should play fair and, in the case a chinese company steals and reproduces your design, they should free you from your legal contract because it cannot be stopped. It is clear that if TLG is not even able to protect their own in-house models ad designs, we cannot expect anything from Lego Ideas designs protection. So, to be fair with the designers, they should the least break the contract and let you do whatever you want with your design because others are already making money out of it.

Yeah I don't see any problem with them releasing a designer from the TOS if their Idea is stolen by a company like this. Its obviously not your fault that it happened and that you've now been stripped of your creaton from the platform. It's definitely not right. They should release you from the TOS agreement and allow you to do what you like with your design now. If I was at TLG I'd also offer some condolences that it happened, encourage you to keep building and coming up with new ideas and send out a gift as a sign of appreciation for your support of the platform and fondness of building.

In a way you're part of a select few now, along with and in the same league as TLG, that have been selectively stolen from by these scumbag knockoff companies. It makes you special, even though that probably doesn't make you feel any better about what has transpired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2021 at 12:56 AM, Tube Map Central said:

[Oh yes, and while I am here on this thread I will have a quick rant: Designers, stop submitting just renders, if you can't be bothered to build it for real, even after it has 1000 votes and looks promising, then why should I?]

Because building the things for real isn’t necessarily feasible? Sometimes a submitter may want to use a particular part in a color in which it has rarely or never appeared in real life yet. Some submitters may not have access to as many bricks as you do. Should Ideas be only for the wealthy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My latest project submission was returned for resubmission agian, yay! I didn't have high hopes, since I thought my pics might be interpreted as blurry, but the mods saw different flaws. My project description is in the spoiler, the feedback in the quote:

Spoiler
Introducing the Radio TV tower, a minifigure-scale broadcasting tower with music recording studio! Take your modular line-up to new heights with the tallest modular yet!
 
Radio-television towers
The iconic Eiffel Tower, CN Tower, Seattle Space Needle, Tokyo Skytree and Fernsehturm, all have at least one thing in common: they are radio-television towers! Once you are aware of them, you will see them everywhere: on top of a hill in the distance, in the countryside, or in a city. They broadcast radio, TV, and provide telecommunication to a large area. Also, they often help define a city's skyline, thanks to their height and unusual shapes. Where most buildings are rectangular, radio-TV towers are typically cylindrical, sometimes even trigonal, or asymmetric. These towers always stand out from their surroundings!
 
Why did I build this?
The combination of unusual geometry, imposing height, and the function of reaching many people with music, really speaks to me. Secondly, no official minifigure-scale LEGO radio-TV tower had ever been released, and not many really tall LEGO sets in general. Those were the reasons for me to start developing this idea, in 2018.  
 
The model
This radio-TV tower connects to modular buildings, and is sure to be an interesting build experience, with its unconventional round, trigonal and even hexagonal geometry. It will also add some modern/industrial design and a touch of urban greenery to your LEGO city. The model:
 
  • Measures ** cm (** in.) tall including antenna, and ** cm (** in.) excluding antenna.
  • Features a detailed radio broadcast studio, music recording studio, elevator, and green public space.
  • Has removable roofs and window segments for easy access to the interior and display.
  • Includes radio DJ's, aspiring musical artists, and a maintenance person. 
  • Consists of **** parts.  
Notes
If this were to become a real set, I think the elevator would probably need work. Right now,  the cabin is so narrow that it barely fits a figure, because it has to fit through a very tight gap in floor. Also, I’m not sure if the cabin will hold itself up by friction, and I’ve been unable to integrate a winch mechanism. Otherwise I’m pretty satisfied with the looks, structural integrity and part-efficiency I have achieved, which have been very challenging.
  
 
Thanks for your support! Also have a look at my other projects! :)
 
 
Disclaimer: the Radio logo is fictional and my own work. Any resemblance to a real-world logo or company is unintended.
Quote

We could not approve your entry for the following reasons:

Your project has too short of a description or uses irrelevant filler text to meet the minimum text length.

Please remove references to Eiffel Tower, Seattle Space Needle etc as these are multiple IPs mentioned. 

As a minimum, your project description should have at least 1-2 full paragraphs and should describe: 

1) Your model (what it is),

2) Why you built it, and

3) Why you believe it would make a great LEGO set.

 

Your recent project submission contains many LEGO Minifigures, suggests a Minifigure series, collectible Minifigures, Minifigures and accessories, a “battle pack” or a mass customisation Minifigure maker Product Idea. We love Minifigures too, but can only accept submissions that contain a significant LEGO model.

So what I gather is that leaving out the overview shot of the figs and accessories (present in my initial submission) wasn't enough. Pity. Maybe it was a naive to hope that they wouldn't add up the number of figures between the shots. I'm still very much opposed to the idea that 7 figures is too much for a 1700-piece set, so perhaps I could dumb down on printing, dual molded arms and hairpieces, to make them less appealing, less collectible:poke: :ugh:

Another thing: just thought I'd give some examples of towers people are familiar with, but mentioning named, real-world things seems to be not-done? The world of licenses and IPs is one of many mysteries, to me...

Lastly, my text is too short?! I'm simply baffled. I mean, take this project's text, for example. What does it have that mine doesn't? To the best of my judgement, my description ticks all the content requirement boxes. 

Thanks in advance, my friends. 

 

Edited by Exetrius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that your text is seen as inadequate in a way the Violin is not because of the content of the text. There are just under two hundred words in the Violin's description - and the vast majority of them are used to describe how that model specifically was built. Compare that to yours, where the entire first paragraph is devoted to a (very interesting) summary of what radio towers are - with real-world examples - but doesn't actually mention your model at all. Common sense says enough, but purely from the text of your first paragraph there is nothing explicitly stating that you are submitting a radio tower. I would hazard a guess that this is seen as being "irrelevant, filler text" (is it? A matter of debate to be honest, but you spend one hundred words describing what a radio tower is - the Violin, for example, spends about twenty-five words describing what a violin is, so you can see the discrepancy). If I were you, I would distill that opening paragraph to its essence:

"Providing radio and television broadcasts to a wide area, radio towers often define a city's skyline."

Cut the rest of the paragraph out. Focus on the specifics of your build - what techniques have you used? Notice how the Violin mentions specific parts that it used in specific places. You do touch on the building of your model, but it's only surface level stuff - facts and figures about how big it is, what play features you've included, what bits you haven't put in (sidenote: I would leave this out, personally - Lego will add in anything you missed as and when it comes down to designing the final set for release, and I guarantee there will be at least some people who see those notes and think "why didn't Exetrius get all this done before submitting it? I won't support this." That's not what you want!)

Obviously also don't mention IPs that aren't the focus of your model. I don't know the ins and outs of IP law, but I'm sure Lego do, and if they're asking you to remove these references it's probably best just to do it. Worst case scenario, they're being overcautious and your description misses a bit of colour as a result. Best case scenario, Lego avoids a lawsuit. Also, I'm not sure what you expected when your response to the submission being rejected for having too many minifigures was to resubmit it with the same number of minifigures, just not showing them all together. They're obviously going to catch that - and it might well colour their view of you, putting them off the submission and leaving the submission reviewers less flexible where it comes to edge cases in the rules.

Good luck with the submission, though. You're right: a radio tower is a new idea - and very possibly one that gets the nod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Exetrius said:

 

Overall, I am also quite surprised that this one was returned again. Maybe write one more paragraph about the build and it should work?

Edited by JintaiZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alexandrina Thank you so much for all your thoughtful advice, this will be super helpful, especially with rewriting the text! :thumbup: 
As far as resubmitting with the same number of minifigs is concerned, I admit that I can be dense (and certainly stubborn), but the phrase in bold is ambiguous to me:

Quote

Your recent project submission contains many LEGO Minifigures, suggests a Minifigure series, collectible Minifigures,

In my eyes: yes, it contains many minifigs (doesn't say too many); no, I'm not suggesting a minifigure series. But what do they even mean with "collectible minifigures"?
A) Figs in blind bags?
B) Figs you want to collect?
C) Figs that you really want to have?
D) Figs with unique or archetypical design and dedicated accessories? 
E) Figs that are the draw and focal point of a set?

A, B and C seem very unlikely to me. I considered D a possibility, but didn't want to throw out my minfigure designs. I hoped E would be the case, so I tried to resolve it by putting less focus on figs and especially their accessories visually (by removing that overview shot). Furthermore, I no longer mentioned the number of them in my product description (I initially did), and instead pointed out the roles they fulfill, to underline the meaning they have to the set. 

Conclusively, the phrase in bold seems to be about quantity, and content/quality, and moreover contains parts that are true and parts that aren't true for my project. Very much mixed signals to me. If they would just tell me "please reduce the number of minifigs", I would have done that for sure, even if that feels disproportionately strict with regards to other projects. 

 

18 hours ago, JintaiZ said:

Overall, I am also quite surprised that this one was returned again. Maybe write one more paragraph about the build and it should work?

I'll do what I can, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Exetrius Then just leave some minifigures out when submitting the final project. But do post them in the project updates section!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly are the rules regarding instructions for Ideas submissions? I've been annoyed lately, as I've wanted to build some of the Ideas sets that have reached 10k and been not approved, but a lot of the creators won't respond to the question of selling instructions. Are they not allowed to even when their sets are no approved? Seems a bit ridiculous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Modal said:

What exactly are the rules regarding instructions for Ideas submissions? I've been annoyed lately, as I've wanted to build some of the Ideas sets that have reached 10k and been not approved, but a lot of the creators won't respond to the question of selling instructions. Are they not allowed to even when their sets are no approved? Seems a bit ridiculous

They are not allowed to make instructions available to the public, but sometimes sending an email to the creator could work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.