Slegengr

I think I know your point and generally agree, but I think 'paranoid' is a bit reductionist, as brand identification or misidentification can have a huge impact in the public eye before damage can be controlled. Example: If someone uses a logo very similar to yours, then proceeds to exploit workers and disrespect IP laws, the public may confuse the companies and attribute fault to your company. Obviously, the fine lines of regulation require legal considerations to determine where and how patents/registrations/trademarks apply, but these issues are not just paranoia ('irrational distrust') but can have real impact on business.

That part of my comment was intentional hyperbole or tongue-in-cheek for the laugh, not at all a serious ask. I will definitely check our your recommendations for more information when I have the time! Wow, this is a lot more to look into when I find the time!

I'm quite interested in the topic, but do not have the legal experience nor time to help out right now. The main thing I think is to try to understand the principles that go into IP laws instead of just strictly looking at the current laws to understand what is likely the general opinion of most on what they find applicable or preferable in terms of copying. Though fact can be drawn around the precise laws, it requires a level of legal understanding that likely only lawyers have. When it comes to a community like EuroBricks, fact and opinion or preference seem quite difficult to strictly separate, as we discussed on the other thread. It would be nice if the baselines could always be set on fact alone, but I think this is quite difficult in a hobby open to all sorts of cultures and backgrounds. Businesses get legislation, hobby communities get vibes. I'll be following along to see if there is an easier way to know more about IP structure (nationally and internationally). Oof! This is what makes in-depth IP discussion difficult in an open hobby community. Thanks for sharing, your comment gave me a laugh! I work as an engineer at reasonably deep levels of technicality, but would still find this legal document very overbearing to understand fully. (...not to mention I cannot read German and must rely on translation...) What a fun idea! I'd want more than Space for sure, but Space is certainly included in my interests. Though I understand the purpose of some stickers and the idea that some children enjoy stickers like the random extras included with some sets to be placed by choice, I am a strong supporter of as many prints as possible and think it inexcusable that the premium market-leading brand (LEGO) still so severely minimizes the use of prints, in my opinion. Though I have not seriously entertained these thoughts yet, I am already countering LEGO's current market strategies that oppose my preferences by just designing my own sets for my nephews in the themes I like. It really is a serious commitment of time and effort though in designing structurally-sound playsets and accurate instructions! Without doing it primarily for fun as I do, it would take a lot of compensation to make it worthwhile to do for others beyond my personal interests. I still use LEGO parts only thus far, but that is due to my already large collection and familiarity with BrickLink for individual part needs. Other brands, especially Gobricks, are on my list to research more after these discussions. I still think an open community working together for the good of all interests would be the best solution possible, but geographic and economic constraints make this essentially impossible in the consideration of the making of parts and sets. We just need a benevolent benefactor to donate our community some CAD design software, mold-making tooling, plastic injection machinery, and sources of the best plastics! Then we can all just creatively pursue our interests without the need of a corporation in the market. In the business of design, it is a never-ending battle back and forth between the benefits of compatibility and standardization versus protecting intellectual property so it is worthwhile to invest the resources on new designs with reasonable expectations for compensation. Every company has to choose where and how they draw the line of compromise between the two ends. Interesting, I'm saving this for future reading.

Not that I am aware of, and this would be incredibly difficult given how much of the build is dependent on invisible sub-structure. The best that could be done accurately would be to make general assumptions of the structure and list visible parts. In my experience, the best solution seems to be to garner your own experience with sets and MOCs and ask for advice on the forum (though a fully dedicated response would be quite the volunteer commitment, especially on a build the size of the one you showed!). Also, one method worth trying would be to communicate with the MOC builder. Not everyone can or will want to give a full response, but you could ask. Without a digital model of the build or full instructions, it is a large task to pass on MOC information, even more so if the build was designed and built physically only.

Indeed!

Agreed, and along with that, those of us that might prefer to be mostly LEGO-specific may use a [LEGO] tag for easier sort (it seems easier to sort for a specific tag than to try to sort out other tags), so long as this will not seem to give any indication of hierarchy setting one brand above the other just from being specific. There is no brand-loyalty superiority in my mind, just preference based on personal history and current collection of parts and sets. I know I have some interest in learning what innovations alternate brands can bring so I do not need to make sure I never see them, but I do like to know what system (even to detail) is used for a given build (and am fine with others mixing brands) and think this can work well enough for me with the hope that the community has interest in adding tags or explanations for clarity, just like EB has been to-date with custom or 3rd-party inclusions. I will likely always prefer the folder-like structure of separated sub-forums and do recognize this as a personal preference that will not be required preference for all. Edit: It is interesting, though, as currently the poll indicates an 86.21% preference for forum separation in some manner (including options #1,2,3) versus 13.79% for merging all brands across the forums. Granted, this discussion is not exactly the same when applied to sets or sold products versus MOCs.

I apologize if my responses are causing more confusion than helping or if I am not explaining myself well enough to be understood, and I do not know how much of this is in response to me versus using your response as a general reminder. In all of my responses, I am trying to account for different cultures, Autism, etc. to try to be fair to all and only responded lastly because of a quick movement of the discussion to a deeper level than I expected about a topic I find important (ethics/IP) that seemed very dismissive toward validity of ethics. Part of what made this stand out in my mind is that another of the respondents on this thread is a forum moderator who seems to push for agreement toward one opinion and in some cases does not seem to offer validity to some of the differing or countering opinions, especially directing the conversation towards facts over opinion, usually seeming to indicate that open thinking towards alternate brands is on the factual basis while anything that seems to oppose that thinking is based on feelings/opinions only, even directing the conversation according to systems of thought. I am guessing that @aFrInati0n and I might agree on quite a bit, but some of this is coming across wrong through forum thread interaction... Sorry if I'm misreading any of this. Indeed, any place of gray area that needs clearing up or those that do not are to be determined by the moderators, and I am open to that and hope I am not coming across as impatient with others. I've got no problem with the forum being open to all. Also, if it may seem that I am trying to be black and white, it is really an effort to consider examples to see where decisions could lead and see what others think, as I am quite confident I can accept a lot of gray in the EB community as a whole. None of this is meant to be assumptions of what will happen or what the final decisions are. If I had to define it, I would probably say that I am a guy that prefers when things can be agreed in black and white but recognizes and accepts how much gray there is, especially when considering different cultures across the world. Again, sorry if I've ever come across differently, but this is precisely part of why I like to engage with discussions like this. I'll probably be back to just reading along for now... I'm curious about this question as well.

I agree, and, if we are trying to work by fact as much as possible rather than opinion, it should be quite easy to find times to be on the same side and times to be opposed to a given company's practices. I do not support anyone to allow personal disgust to lead to hate of LEGO as a whole, but find it much more productive to show where I have disagreements with the practices instead, and, as such am not tying my thoughts to specific brand loyalty. There really is more to my thinking than that, though I would continue to struggle to be able to substantiate this with my explanations to those who do not get it.

This is startling to me. @Divitis seems to be engaging civilly in discussion but holding differing opinions than a few other users who are frequently responding in this conversation. This type of action seems to imply an intolerance to differing opinions on this thread that cannot be determined strictly as fact. How much of any of this discussion can specifically come down to fact alone? I genuinely do not understand this, especially if tolerance, acceptance, and community growth seem to be promoted at the same time. A forum or community has to be based on shared opinions or we lose the community. Community literally has roots in a definition of sharing together, which involves opinions and feelings, so I do not think fact versus feeling is as easy to separate in this discussion as some of us would like it to be. If we are only considered valid if we dismiss our own preferences entirely, we might as well be reduced to a logical algorithm of strict rules. This discussion seems to be centered by the original poll as precisely about our own preferences and voting as such. What is the set of facts alone that judge between the different poll options without still having some basis on personal preferences? I was formulating my thoughts about the recent discussion considering a response, and now I am compelled to consider this much more important to me than before. If opening to other brands requires us to dismiss any dislike for IP gray areas or borderline cases and can only judge strictly on precise, defined legality, discussion breaks down quite quickly in my opinion (yes, really what do any of us have but our formulated opinions on what information we have interpreted when it is presented to us? If anyone can prove to me absolute truth, it would surely simplify my need for personal judgement.). Give me a factual reason why allowing or encouraging copying of parts does not lead to disincentive to the commitment of resources to new designs? I would love a strictly altruistic world where we all just do what we like for the shared benefit of others without the burden of life necessities and business/market/currency, but I think we all know that markets exist for a reason and designs are made with at least some profit motive at some point in the product lifecycle. Our part as a volunteer community can have openness to new designs, but I also consider it a fact (is it?) that allowing for direct copying reduces interest in committing resources (especially time and focus) to creativity and innovation. Maybe users on EB may not work in a creative field that involves IP laws and the principles behind them and therefore may not have had a reason to think much about it before, but it goes beyond personal bias that the general consensus across the world is that IP is valued and ends up receiving legislation around it. Why do IP laws exist to begin with? Who here would find it acceptable if, for example, some other user started copying all of the original user's posts on Eurobricks and pretending it was their original generation since it is not strictly illegal? This is not meant to be accusatory or offensive, but for sake of discussion so I can better understand what the feelings really are behind the arguments people are presenting here. Question: what differentiates set or theme IP as of valid importance while part design is argued to not be valid IP? Is it strictly based on legality? Is there value to us as a community in working toward any consensus on any thoughts, which seems to be the inherent purpose of the creation of this thread? If we start to come across as a community that does not regard IP principles and rely strictly on laws currently on the books, this will be a drastic change to our community, enough that some will likely leave (I do not have data, so this can be argued as 'just my opinion' at this point, but there likely are historical examples that could work in a predictive nature for this beyond just my own bias). If that shift is made, it makes me wonder why it is EB changing significantly as a whole that is required rather than separate forums or a different forum board for those holding a differing opinion. I'm not taking an extreme view here that this will be the result, just trying to consider the impacts that different decisions on the forum could make. If we are a creative community that can support fairness in these considerations even if it is not precisely legally binding, I think history shows that creativity is more encouraged than if we take things into legal terms only. This also seems to firmly move us away from the main topic discussion and into moderating which brands will be accepted versus denied and what set of rules will be used to make these arbitrations. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that this is not a simple task, and I remain hopeful that our moderators will do their best to consider this carefully and work to best benefit the community to as great an extent as possible. The forum is a difficult place to discuss these sorts of topics, since we miss the benefits of in-person interaction, but these issues are important to me, so I am interested in continuing the discussion. Like always, I have too many thoughts to find enough brevity to share all in a useful manner in short time. P.S. @aFrInati0n I have Daniel Kahneman's book 'Thinking, Fast and Slow" on my bookshelf for my reading priority but have not found the time to read it yet. I do tend to feel that, though not in specific terms of the author yet, I generally like considering what is discussed in the book and try to apply this to my interactions with others. One other note, if it will be considered relevant: in pursuit of my engineering certifications, there was a mandatory course specifically on ethics that went far beyond strictly what is legal. I'd have to search for specific sources, but I am confident that many schools have similar requirements, probably across the world. Is it too bold to claim that all of us value ethics but dislike it when we find disagreements on issues under the category of ethics that have to be worked through? I hope for a willingness to try to work through them in place of taking hard stances on our ethics being the only correct answer, and I think enough responses from others here show agreement in this effort. Another note: I am trying to make a distinction between principles of IP laws (ethics) and the laws themselves, for the purposes of this discussion.

I wish I had a simpler way to indicate my appreciation and support than just responding to all these comments, but respond I will. These (all 3) are what I am hoping for and trying to work towards! Moderators: Thanks for your work and consideration. I am interested to see your decisions going forward.

For my comment on option #1, I agree; just made distinction for those that may have voted only option #1 to see no changes to EB format, which would leave alternate brands in the 'community' section. For sake of as much brevity as I can muster (it is too easy for me to always overexplain...), I will just state that I think we are looking at this discussion over the same points and considerations, just possibly with a different angle of preference. Separate sub-forums between brands would be a hard-set choice that rubs some the wrong way who feel excluded through separation and adds complexity surrounding the separation lines. Merged sub-forums may be a workable compromise if there is a good tag system (at least encouraged if not directly requested in MOC topic creation) and filter-by-tag options that may be savable as preferences per user. Hopefully at least some of this has been helpful; it is certainly my intention, for what my opinions are worth.

I did not want to start a new thread and split off what I thought relevant here, but I am open to that if it makes sense. I think most of the discussion is complete at this point, and I acknowledge that there are a lot of posts to this thread that could make it seem daunting to those not following along from the start but still unsure how to know when to keep discussion here when it seems relevant versus taking the discussion elsewhere. Thanks for clarity on the poll. Not that I think my agreement is entirely necessary, but it relates to my earlier discussions quite directly, so I will state my agreement with your comment about MOC posting. My general point about design copies/new designs is that I think alternate brick companies should make their own designs instead of copying when the part detail goes beyond the basic system for compatibility. I do not think Lumibricks must be a banned alternate brand for copying hair pieces, but I will gladly defer these decisions to you moderators and am willing to give my input where I consider I may have relevant thoughts to share. Working out these details appears a daunting task for you moderators! I'm in full support of hoping to hold onto what EB currently has while being open to new growth, which is why I may continue to mostly prefer being a purist personally due to my current collection but am willing to see EB open up to alternate brick brands. Thanks for clarification. I am confident there is a path forward that can accommodate our community wishes reasonably well. The main reason for the discussion here about non-LEGO parts in MOCs is that, to date, EB has been a LEGO-only website (including a more-open community section for alternate brands) with some generally accepted exceptions like you mentioned, but opening the community to other brands seems likely to lead to a culture in the future where the need to clarify use of non-LEGO parts/accessories will not be the normal condition. I'm not too concerned it will ruin our community or have some other drastic effect, but I do think there are risks to be considered based on how this is handled, so I am glad to see the opinions shared and discussed on this thread.

That makes sense. 'Community/Other brands' corner becomes obsolete in all but option #1 of the poll. Though option #1 has strong support statistically at this point, it really sort of competes against all three other options combined for the 'LEGO-only' vs. 'Allow alternate brands' question, in my opinion. Even with mandatory tagging requirements, it could be easy to miss the correct tag, so, although I can agree that tagging may be a reasonably valid solution, it is not a perfect solution. I do think splitting the LEGO-only sub-forums per theme from the other brands' sub-forums per theme still has relevancy for the opinions of a not-insignificant number of members responding here (so as not to be 'completely irrelevant' though I think I understand your opinion/point here). I consider the natural filtering of people going to their choice LEGO-only sub-forum or Alternate Brand sub-forum to be a better sort method than tagging, but I would have to find out if there is a way to make this more empirical with data that I do not have. I am at the point where my preference is for separate MOC sub-forums between brands but am willing to concede this to a well-applied tagging system for relevancy filtering if the community agrees enough and the moderators decide so. Indeed! ...though maybe we need some bigger, more nuanced points to complete the arguments! (like size 72 in bold italics!) . ...alright, back to the topic discussion for me now...

I think I understand your point about complexity in separate forums, but I also think enforcing (or even just encouraging) topic filter tags is also quite open to complexity. It seems simpler to me for those who want LEGO-specific information like EB has been to-date more simply get that information within a sub-forum distinction rather than needing to rely on accurate tagging. In the case of a mistake, a thread in the wrong sub-forum can be moved to the appropriate sub-forum while I think most would be posted to the correct sub-forums due to users navigating within their own interests. If the correct tag is missing or an incorrect tag is applied, it becomes part of one continuous stream in a fully merged sub-forum across brands, which adds to the confusion and makes it difficult to address. Also, to be clear, I am not advocating for any specific structure of differentiating the forums at this time; just wanting to feel out how others feel about specific implementations of this discussion/poll. One thing I would find really helpful is the distinction for any willing to discuss it for their preferences within either of the 2 broadest cases: If we separate the forums to consider the preference of many to keep LEGO specificity, how would the separation be best handled to still provide for the interests of those wanting alternate brand inclusion? If we merge the forums to include alternate brands or not differentiate by brand within forums, how would tags/filters or other solutions be implemented to try to provide for those who want to stay LEGO-specific (or other-brand specific; I just do not have enough experience or opinion to know how to discuss whether there should be distinction between any of the alternate brands). I think it helps each of us understand our own opinions and develop further thoughts to discuss if we can take the time to consider how we would work within different types of outcomes. Also, I want to reiterate again that I have appreciated this conversation and hope a good solution is found through this community engagement. Not everyone can be kept perfectly happy, but I hope EB can continue to be the wonderful site and community it has been thus far, at least for sure in the very vast majority of my experiences!

I'll let Sven J answer too, but I see it on your last response to me. I'm pretty sure the change of typeface happened at least once to me before when I was copying and pasting a prior comment instead of using the quote function directly.