Please refrain from posting animated GIFs, memes, joke videos and so on in discussions other than those in the off topic area.
Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.
LEGO Photography Esty Shop
Recent discussions • Categories
• Privacy Policy
Comments
"Use a Disclaimer
A disclaimer should be used when the LEGO trademark appears on a Web page. An appropriate disclaimer would be "LEGO®is a trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this site"." They have lots of other guidelines to follow that I'm sticking to as well.
I think the fact that LEGO offers this disclaimer shows they are cooperative with their products being used in certain situations as long as you are not claiming to be an official site or anything like that. I'm definitely trying to stay comply with all their IP guidelines. I know a lot of POD sites or stock photography sites just won't go near anything trademarked, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not legal.
I'll let you know if I get a cease and desist notice because there's lots of LEGO photographers that would benefit from more specific guidelines in this area.
Thanks!
You are using their copyright figures to make your products. I doubt anyone would buy them if they were not images of genuine lego.
Read page 10 of the fair play brochure in this link ... http://www.lego.com/en-gb/legal/legal-notice/fair-play
This is not the same at all.. incidental inclusion of other objects such as clothes, cars or buildings is not even close to what is happening here. And any pictures of specific objects such as cars (or Lego) are very much protected by copyright when the image is being sold. If you want to look at examples where it is a bit more obvious (but no different) then consider selling images of a painting.
That disclaimer has nothing to do with products - it quite clearly states it is about use of the trademarked brand name (Lego). And not only that, it states for use on a website, which is not what you are doing. Selling images for profit is a long way beyond me putting the Lego logo on my blog and adding a disclaimer. A long way.
Whether you get a cease and desist or not, what you are doing is an infringement of copyright and therefore by law it is illegal. You are not the only person doing it on RedBubble or similar sites, nor do I particularly care whether you carry on or not. But you can't pretend that it is OK because you have done a bit of reading - it really isn't.
The fair play brohure referenced above demonstrates why even the banner at the top of your store is probably not allowed, but the products you have for sale takes it far beyond simply a fair play issue. (Using Lego minifigures in an advert such as the banner could damage their brand, selling pictures of their copyrighted minifigures for profit is worse that that)
http://www.redbubble.com/people/snappybrick/collections/506465-legos
As a photographer, I understand what you're trying to say, but it really is not the same as if you photographed a row of shoes or a stack of books because you are not going to put those shoes on merchandise, and that merchandise could not be construed as being from the company itself. In this case, I would look at your products more like the knock-offs coming out of Asia instead of art prints that a photographer has made of say, shoes in a shop's window.
So, really, it's apparently a moral quandary, but I do not see it as such. If you were to take a photo of Coke products, slap it on a notepad, and sell it, you would be infringing Coca Cola Co's rights. If you were to paint a likeness of that can, you would not be. If you take a photo and slightly digitally alter it, you might still be infringing. See: Shepard Fairey and his Obama Hope poster for a case related to this. At least in your case you're probably so low on their radar you'll never get that cease and desist and you can go on justifying your shop.
I applaud the OP on trying to do something creative and make (some sort) a living off it.
There are are so many people doing Lego photography - if you don't believe me, sign up for Instagram - but it's not hurting anyone.
Lego got the sale. They are not losing money.
Where did all the encouragement go from Brickset memebrs?
As for just doing LEGO photography, that's very different than photographing LEGO and then selling the photograph. I'm not saying I know much about IP, trademark, copyright laws (as a marketing/brand professional, I actually do, but only a little as it concerns my own organization's trademarks)...I'm merely saying having an Instagram account where you post pictures you took of LEGO is very different than producing products to sell which include pictures you took of LEGO.
As for comparing selling a used set and selling a copyrighted image, there is not only no comparison, there is quite a lot of precedent from law to make that argument redundant. If you own something, a set or an original image, you are entitled to sell it. If you don't own something, like Big Ben or a copyrighted image, unsurprisingly you are not allowed to sell it.
Now Lego photography - or ANY photography for that matter - is the ownership of the photographer. This person is spending their time and energy to create something. Often times this means production costs, lighting, time, processing, materials and marketing. More importantly, this person is spending their mental efforts on setting up neat scenes that will resonate with the viewer. As such, the material is their's.
If you couldn't sell photos... we wouldn't have paparazzi.
Now if someone was blatantly ripping off images from the internet, say, directly from Lego, I would have a serious problem with that as I suspect TLG would as well.
But ultimately the point is this: the OP was simply sharing his/her work, not asking for a breakdown of the business model. A select few forum members seem to make it their point to post on every thread telling OPs what they should / should not be doing.
Every. Single. Day.
And I am 100% not OK with that.
But if I take a photo of the exact same intellectual property and then print that onto an item it's OK to sell and everyone should be happy?
I'd like to point out that there are legitimate mechanisms for doing this (so the books such as this can exist) and that there is also using a minifigure in an image such that it isn't the main focus or at least is in a situation of your own construction or selling just an image rather than merchandise - let's call these legal and at least ambiguous situations. This is neither of those, it is nothing but the minifigure on items that Lego themselves sell (such as pads). It is exactly the same as the copied minifigures, infringing on the same IP, and people therefore came to voice disapproval and warning. Rightly so.
I agree that people slating others opinions on thread gets old, but this isn't that. The OP advertised something here that as close as you can get to being illegal so people said something - not quite the same, in my mind at least.
I would like to point out that the OP could have contacted Lego and asked if it was OK, or for permission. I assume this wasn't done as they would have said no and no money could be made - why else would you not ask for clarification when he actually said he only thought it was probably OK.
@mattswhat - if you have a professional background in IP, please state your credentials. You state that you're allowed to post because it's illegal. Is it? Prove it.
If this is the case the I will happily join the side that's aiming to restrict creativity and restricting new ideas.
Otherwise it's simply your opinion, one of many that the OP was not soliciting in his/her post. if anything, your posts are restricting the potential sales and thus could be consider defamation.
As for my credentials - thats irrelevant, it's the internet - I can be a IP lawyer for all it's worth stating it here.
As for proving it is illegal - I only said it was close (most likely to get a cease and desist on such a small scale) but the point is you appear to be well aware that minifigures, and the printed designs on minifigures, are copyrighted (you even claim to be annoyed when they are copied). Photographs using the copyrighted material require permission of the copyright holder to be sold (and you can check that out however you like to see if it is made up). This, however, applies to selling photographs and photographs only. I'm fairly sure that Lego would give permission for that, they have in the past hence the example I gave. But Lego themselves sell merchandise with images of their copyrighted material, such as pads, pens, frames, waterbottles, clothing etc. It would seem very unlikely that Lego would give permission for this kind of item to be sold without receiving royalties, what with them losing sales and such - and no permission was even sought in this case. Without that permission the OP is indeed breaking copyright law.
You claim that I am restricting creativity and new ideas but I think you might have missed my point - I never said that people shouldn't take photos of their Lego sets (this is being creative). I simply said that someone shouldn't sell something that infringes copyright - if you think that infringing copyright is creative then I'm not really sure if you understand what IP actually is. By definition, it is using an idea that isn't yours, not having one of your own.
Posting a photograph of LEGO, selling a photograph of LEGO, and putting a photograph on LEGO on a mug or notepad to sell it are all DIFFERENT THINGS.
If I create a t-shirt with a sports team's logo on it and try to sell it without permission, that's an issue. I'm taking a trademarked item that isn't mine, slapping it on something, and selling it for personal gain. Now, if I take a photo of that logo and do the same thing, it doesn't suddenly make it okay.
Here in the states, there are issues that pop up from time to time when high schools take professional sports team's logo (or other company logos) and change the colors and use them as their own logos. There are plenty of situations where the high school received permission first and it's okay. But there are many more where they didn't and the professional team sent a cease and desist. It occurred just a few years ago where a high school was the Rams and used the Dodge Ram logo for their sports team. Dodge told them to stop. Plenty of people were up in arms because of the big, bad corporation picking on the little, friendly high school. I, on the other hand, agree with what Dodge did. That logo is their trademarked property. They had it created for them and own its rights. Regardless of who it is, people can't just use it for themselves. Companies should be able to protect their interests in cases like this without the general public immediately shouting "LEAVE THE LITTLE GUY ALONE!" Many companies are perfectly willing to play ball with the "little guy" if he were to just talk to them first.
not to be negative...but I think most (or all) of the people on brickset would rather buy a minifig than a picture of a minifig...
and as a suggestion to the OP...if your gonna take pictures of minifigs...at least get the pictures of rare ones...
I am not an IP lawyer, so I cannot comment exactly on what laws, if any, are being violated here, but I do not think the comments are negative. I feel that any post that anyone makes in this forum is subject to scrutiny. If one doesn't want ANY feedback, positive or negative, then one should not post. I feel the same way about Facebook and Twitter. If you are going to post something, be prepared to get feedback, whether you want it or not :)
SnappyBrickPhotos, I took a look at your sites, and you do have some nice looking products. But you don't have the LEGO disclaimer on the etsy main page, and it is way down at the bottom of the other site, easily overlooked. If you decide not to contact LEGO, you might want to make that disclaimer a bit more prominent, and lose the "s" on LEGO.
You are entirely trading on the brand awareness and customer base that Lego have built up. I very much doubt anyone will buy any of your products because they are lovely sticky notes or mugs, but more because they are Lego branded. Unless you have some original IP, which isn't owned by someone else I think you're on dodgy ground.
There have been a LOT of well meaning suggestions on BRICKSET about his endeavor... and no one has been rude or unkind. They're not a bunch of dream crushers here.
He's only basing his belief on what he's doing on a NARROW interpretation of IP and what constitutes that. If he spends $20,000 of his money and gets that knock at the door telling him he cannot sell those items.... perhaps you can pay him for his troubles....
I am 100% OK with that!
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hdready/the-qlib-your-ikea-shelves-get-a-beautiful-lego-ma
I think this is a great idea, does not go against LEGO policy, and I wish them well.
P.S. I am no expert on IP.... but I have had interaction with LEGO Legal on my LEGO Collectors Guide, and will so again very soon on an even larger project.
No matter how much you try to bend the truth to fit, you can't sell photos of somebody else's IP for a profit.
I am a photographer and am under no illusion that it's not OK to do this, the rules are very clear.
As for photos of brands, nobody said it was illegal to photograph them, just that you have no right to sell those photos for profit. Why do you think stock photography websites insist no brand names and trademarks be visible.
As someone else has pointed out: it's the LEGO content that carries any sort of value for your product - you have no right to sell that.
You might sell a few bits and pieces (if you haven't already) but there is no long-term future to this, regardless of how you choose to interpret the rules.
Phonebooth: regardless of what YOU are and are not OK with, you can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts.
The fact is nobody is allowed to sell photos of LEGO for profit - what don't you get about this?