Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
The Ship in the bottle has been on sale since September! Not as a 'presell', but as an actual item.
I'd be really interested to see how LEGO modifies the bottle as the original design (and the Lepin copy) is flimsy as hell. You've got multiple large panels on top of each other without any overlap whatsoever.
The wine shop one is interesting, as they have left part of a suited business man in and also a newspaper hanging in mid-air.
(I confess: that's why I bought the ship in the bottle - for the trans-clear panels. A trans-clear 6059 will set you back £8+ a piece as it has not been in production for the last 15 years!)
(Also, the decapitated business man is a little disturbing, not going to lie!)
How about this: reintroduce the 'Design byMe' service, where you could buy other people's creation and they would receive a cut from the price?
Also, even if all creators had the option to make their designs available for purchase, I’m sure some would choose not to, and that’s still entirely their call. I dislike the implication that these copies signify some sort of unmet obligation for the designers to make their work available to others. It’s bad enough when people say that kind of thing about, say, retired sets… but those were at least commercial products to begin with, whereas MOCs, more often than not, are made for their creators’ personal enjoyment.
I never said that anyone should be obliged to sell instructions/digital models. If you want to make money out of your creation - go ahead; I'm happy to pay for it. If not, that's fine by me.
I was merely suggesting an idea that might work for designers who'd rather see some return on their work than let Lepin bank all the money.
Also, there would certainly still be some rough patches that LEGO would need to work out, and limited palette is certainly one of them. The introduction and retirement of brick types and colors would have to have a concrete process that was widely communicated to creators, and creators would have to have the means to develop and publish updates to sets or retires sets as they desired when brick inventories were about to be depleted. There would also be issues with the manufacturing pipeline and supply forecasting that are somewhat different from the way LEGO handles those things today, since they would almost have to be on a piece by piece bases, which is much more complicated than on a set by set basis.
Personally, since on-demand production at volume prices is the dream of manufacturing companies economically, and because high levels of automation are one of the only ways to reliably achieve this, I feel that LEGO will almost certainly be moving towards a production infrastructure that would support an economically viable Design byME system in the not to distant future, if they aren't already. It would still need some tweaks compared to their normal commercial production to achieve (if they are moving in this direction) but those would almost certainly be worthwhile for them from a manufacturing standpoint. There might be some other issues around IP monitoring and such (so people don't just rip off other's models or IP or copy LEGOs own older products, etc) that change the equation, but I don't believe they are insurmountable by any means.
I guess this also assumes that LEGO's manufacturing throughput is large enough to mostly keep up with demand, which is also a pretty big assumption.
Yup, Disney never steals anything. No IP infringement here. Move along. Just take out your wallets and dance.
I'm sure if LEGO percieved a broad market for this piece, they could either license it, or produce one themselves.
(And perhaps send a polite 'cease and desist' letter.)
Over the past 80 years only 25% of Disney's movies have been original. The rest have been remakes, adaptations, and sequels. They'll continue this trend with Marvel, Star Wars, Xmen, Alien, Predator, etc. Disney may be good at targeting markets and suing people, but creatively they have lost their touch.
Anyways, I don't know why you thought so deeply into a meme I posted.
Regardless, I'd peruse this article about the 'controversy'.
I'd reference Led Zeppelin stealing from early Blues musicians, or that Avatar is Ferngully...
I'm not going to fault Disney because they stole some ideas, but I really don't care if someone uses their IP (they just bought) to make a few bucks.
And I'm not defending Disney for 'inspiration', 'borrowing', 'stealing', 'copying' or outright 'appropriating' in many instances. As noted above, Lion King is essentially a kid-version of Hamlet.
But, I would be worried about a nasty-gram from LEGO or Disney/Fox with regards to the Alien. (Or maybe not - as I think about it now, Disney and Fox have collaborated in the past and licensed Fox IP.)
I suppose by that rationale, DC hasn't had an original idea since the early '80's, and Marvel since the late'80's...
Honestly, for me the issue isn't that Disney makes derivative works. It's the fact that they will take these stories either from the public domain, or from other artists, and make billions of dollars off it... and then turn around and use their money to shut out other artists and creators from doing anything even remotely related in any way to one of their own works. I guess that's a little bit of an off-topic screed to go into here, though.
I wish the Arvo Brothers the best, they have made some really nice looking MOCs. But if a mouse comes knocking at the door, RUN!
It's the 'hey, that guy was speeding' argument that never works when one tries to get out of a traffic ticket.
The Avro Brothers should expect that if Fox wants to protect its IP, it can ask them to cease making models based on their IP. Or atleast advertising them as such, because they do not have a license to do so. 'Scary Booger Monster from Far-Off Planet' doesn't have the ring as 'Alien'.
Look at this crap! Was on vacation last month and found these in the gift shop at Atlantis. "Cobi" have 3 sets under the theme "Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas". I was so pissed because I would have been all over anything Lego/Atlantis branded. "Compatible with other brands" Lol. What gets me is how expensive EVERYTHING is at Atlantis. And they went with a knockoff brand. ...And charge $50 for these POSs!
To be fair, the interlocking brick system is not LEGO's own building system either. There were at least one, and I think possibly more, brands that had almost the same configuration of interlocking plastic bricks prior to LEGO's System being released. LEGO does differ in a couple of ways (higher clutch power was a major one, I believe) but the base system is still extremely similar.
(Also, I am NOT saying that I would ever purchase one of these knockoffs :P )
Like it or not LEGO’s patent on the interlocking brick system expired so there’s nothing wrong with other companies making compatible sets.
frankly if this stuff annoys you so much, I can’t imagine you could walk out of a toy shop without getting furious at the Mega-blox/construx sets!
sets in it!
Those sets look pretty city to me!