Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

75827 - Ghostbusters HQ (Coming In January 2016?)

17810121317

Comments

  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,137
    Any what recourse does TLG have if someone violates a Non-Disclosure Agreement?

    They want the bad press of suing an AFOL or MOC'er because they shared a similar design idea well in advance of announcements or product reveals?  I think not.

    Controlling the information and details of sets is a tremendous competitive advantage.
    dougtsPitfall69ryjay
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    SumoLego said:
    The Ideas submission and approval system in place ought not to be tossed out because one designer is (understandibly) miffed about how TLG handled information with regard to a similar set. 
    It's not just what one designer does; it's how far the ripples travel, and how many other people create waves as well.
    INDYJONAS
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,137
    If designers don't want to submit projects because they are concerned with the financial or artistic or creative consequences, so be it.  I'm not sure there is much of a MOC market.

    I meant that if the designer was miffed that they did a meet-and-greet with him whilst in some stage of developing a similar product - that is understandible.  It is also understandible that Lego has a policy not to share 'in-development' designs.  Despite someone's willingness to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

    Anyway, these things happen.  But some sort of radical overhaul is silly.

    This system brought us a number of excellent sets that we would not otherwise have been produced.  
    dougtsBumblepantsPitfall69kiki180703VorpalRyuHangedSanchez
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    I'm not sure about "radical".

    They've a few different bites at this. Factory (or some of it), Cuusoo, Ideas. I suspect somebody, somewhere doesn't like the whole thing. Any significant row, could mean another revamp - possibly back to nothing.

    TLG don't like adverse publicity, and they like to keep their reputation firmly under their own control.
  • RobertoRoberto Imola, ItalyMember Posts: 117
    CCC said:
    Roberto said:
    From my personal point of view I would quite easily say that Lego copied the GH from the one submitted on Ideas exonerating itself from quoting the real author. I mean, just look at them, it's not so difficult to find how they resemble to each other, look at the proportions, the front facade, look at the details.
    What should LEGO have done? Made the proportions of the building different so it wasn't movie accurate, just to prove it was different? Or made it half the scale so it wasn't in keeping with minifig scale? Or double the dimensions so it cost 8x more?
    Hi CCC. Seriously, I don't want to begin a sterile polemic about this, but just look at them, look at the little details, the traffic lights, the red side lamps, the same pieces, the same size studs... They are almost identycal. We can argue how much relevant can be for an AFOL who want at any cost a set like this the fact that the legitimate author has been deprived of any sort of recognition, not the fact that they deliberately copied it. For me, even if LEGO had only taken a generic inspiration from it they should have paied the author the right tribute.
  • BrickDancerBrickDancer Dunes of TatooineMember Posts: 3,639
    I think the previous incidents (Sandcrawler, Helicarrier) were just coincidence, as the scale between the Ideas submissions and the final product were greatly different. However, for this GB HQ, it is damn near spot on. The only thing that might still point to it be a matter of coincidence is the development time necessary.

    Submitted: March 2014
    1K Vote: June 2014
    5k Vote: July 2014
    10K Vote: August 2014

    How long do you think it usually takes to for Lego to take a set from Concept, Pilot, Optimize, Release? TLG's announcement was October 2015, making it 1.5 years from Sergio's submission to their official unveiling of pics. That is sufficient time to actually see Sergio's model first and then go on to develop their own similar version. This is so borderline in timing that I'm skeptical it was only coincidence.

    Just read TLG's ironic response when he hit the 10K mark: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/60632/official_comments

    Secondly, the other argument of defense is that its based on a real life building and thus can only be represented in a certain way which will undoubtedly end up being very similar to Sergio's submission. I find this hard to accept, as why did it have to hinge open the same way (and possibly in the same position) as Sergio's instead of Modular style? Why did it have to have the same exact footprint as Sergio's? Did TLG figure the sidewalk was also intrinsic to the finished piece's accuracy as well as Sergio's? Sergio purposely made his to conform to both GB 1 & 2 movies. So I have a feeling once we see the interior pics, the similarities will be even more striking and obvious if they went the same route.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited November 2015
    I fount the 1K comments more interesting...

    "It's hard to imagine a more fitting headquarters for the new Ghostbusters LEGO Minifigures and Ecto-1."

    Apparently it's not that hard.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,985
    Roberto said:
    CCC said:
    Roberto said:
    From my personal point of view I would quite easily say that Lego copied the GH from the one submitted on Ideas exonerating itself from quoting the real author. I mean, just look at them, it's not so difficult to find how they resemble to each other, look at the proportions, the front facade, look at the details.
    What should LEGO have done? Made the proportions of the building different so it wasn't movie accurate, just to prove it was different? Or made it half the scale so it wasn't in keeping with minifig scale? Or double the dimensions so it cost 8x more?
    Hi CCC. Seriously, I don't want to begin a sterile polemic about this, but just look at them, look at the little details, the traffic lights, the red side lamps, the same pieces, the same size studs... They are almost identycal. We can argue how much relevant can be for an AFOL who want at any cost a set like this the fact that the legitimate author has been deprived of any sort of recognition, not the fact that they deliberately copied it. For me, even if LEGO had only taken a generic inspiration from it they should have paied the author the right tribute.
    Yes, they both copied it from the movie. Maybe they used it for inspiration, but then he used others' work for inspiration, and they used others'. If they paid Sergio, then would the other designers gave a right to complain as he copied some of their design? 
    VorpalRyu
  • PaperballparkPaperballpark UK / KLMember Posts: 3,797
    I would imagine a set of this size would take quite a bit longer than one and a half years from conception to unveiling. I suspect they set the wheels in motion as soon as they secured the license for the Ecto-1.
    AanchirPitfall69SumoLegokiki180703VorpalRyu
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    comparing the two, I'm seeing a considerable amount of differences actually, especially for such a nondescript subject:
    • big front windows above car door.  very different.  Sergio went with door/window frames only, while LEGO used brick-built cross beams in both directions
    • top arch above front windows
    • railing details above car door
    • inverted snot slopes around the top
    • tiling along top side of Sergio's, not on LEGOs
    • windows on side have non-trivial differences in construction
    • traffic light is almost completely different
    • everything above the inverted slopes is pretty much different
    • hinge mechanism for LEGO is in different location and include the entire roof along the hinge, as well as 1/3 of the back of the building, whereas Sergio's is one wall only and no roof included
    I think the most damning criticism that could be made is the scattered use of the brick profile bricks on the ground floor.  But that is hardly a groundbreaking or unique technique. LEGO themselves have used it in other production sets.

    Did the LEGO designer borrow some elements from Sergio's submission?  I dunno, maybe he did.  Maybe he borrowed some from the other GB HQ Mocs out online. Maybe he didn't.  But I don't see anything here that proves he did, or even makes it appear likely that he did.  Again, it's a pretty plain building and there are only so many ways to represent it in LEGO form.

    But in the end, appearances are what matters.  and if enough people believe LEGO is stealing ideas from Ideas, then it's a bad thing for LEGO, and they should fix it one way or another.
    pharmjodMattsWhatBumblepantsPitfall69kiki180703VorpalRyuHangedSanchezARo2891Sethro3
  • binaryeyebinaryeye USMember Posts: 1,734
    I think the previous incidents (Sandcrawler, Helicarrier) were just coincidence, as the scale between the Ideas submissions and the final product were greatly different. However, for this GB HQ, it is damn near spot on. The only thing that might still point to it be a matter of coincidence is the development time necessary.

    Submitted: March 2014
    1K Vote: June 2014
    5k Vote: July 2014
    10K Vote: August 2014
    One thing I'm a bit confused about is how this relates to Brent Waller's project. His submission had an HQ along with the car but only the car was produced. His project was submitted in March 2013, reached 10,000 supporters in August 2013, and was chosen for production at the end of January 2014.

    It's entirely possible (I would even say likely) LEGO started working on the HQ as soon as they knew they'd be producing the car, which was at least a month before Sergio's project was submitted.
    dougtsPitfall69kiki180703VorpalRyu
  • PaperballparkPaperballpark UK / KLMember Posts: 3,797
    ^ I guess the whole thing together would have been a huge risk. Better to do the car on its own and gauge the demand for that, whilst simultaneously starting work on the HQ. If the car was a flop, they'd have binned the HQ, with no-one other than a few designers ever having known about it.
    CCCdougtsbinaryeyekiki180703VorpalRyu
  • Rsa33Rsa33 USAMember Posts: 156
    Obv mocpages, eurobricks, etc have wonderful mocs. 

    I wasnt stating lego ideas was the only one, far from it.

    those submitting to lego ideas though, are submitting with the hope of getting their project made, whereas the other sites serve to showcase more per se.

    whatevs this whole argument is pointless.  Most will buy this set, and lego will continue to profit, so in the end this really solves and does nothing.

    and yah those blue round stars are awful in the front, and dark orange >>> dark red for this particular bldg.
  • binaryeyebinaryeye USMember Posts: 1,734
    Rsa33 said:
    those submitting to lego ideas though, are submitting with the hope of getting their project made, whereas the other sites serve to showcase more per se.
    In this case, though, it was known for at least a month before the project was submitted that LEGO had procured the license to, and would be producing, a Ghostbusters set. There was very little hope to begin with.
    Pitfall69BumblepantsVorpalRyu
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    The masonry bricks are a little odd, they've been used I guess to represent the dirt on those walls but it's only dirt not masonry under cracked render, they help break up the wall but for them both to have the same non-accurate feature is a little odd.
  • BrickDancerBrickDancer Dunes of TatooineMember Posts: 3,639
    binaryeye said:
    I think the previous incidents (Sandcrawler, Helicarrier) were just coincidence, as the scale between the Ideas submissions and the final product were greatly different. However, for this GB HQ, it is damn near spot on. The only thing that might still point to it be a matter of coincidence is the development time necessary.

    Submitted: March 2014
    1K Vote: June 2014
    5k Vote: July 2014
    10K Vote: August 2014
    One thing I'm a bit confused about is how this relates to Brent Waller's project. His submission had an HQ along with the car but only the car was produced. His project was submitted in March 2013, reached 10,000 supporters in August 2013, and was chosen for production at the end of January 2014.

    It's entirely possible (I would even say likely) LEGO started working on the HQ as soon as they knew they'd be producing the car, which was at least a month before Sergio's project was submitted.
    I didn't want to bring up Brent because the topic was specifically about Sergio's model. But this would even further conflict against Lego (not help it's case here) due to the additional 1 year earlier time point making 2.5 years from seeing this first version of Brent's and subsequently approving of the car but not the HQ. Plenty of sufficient time for development, well ahead of getting the license, convoluted by approving the cheap part of the submission and omitting the larger part.

    But looking at the situation from multiple angles of 'What if?", TLG was basically screwed the minute they decided to go forward with the HQ while deciding not to issue credit or acknowledgement to both Brent & Sergio as an Ideas set. The similarities are just to close to easily explain away that it was wholly original by TLG. This situation was nearly unavoidable without massive changes to their own version.

    All good details you're pointing out @dougts, but those fine differences are muted compared to overwhelming similarities on first glance by non-experts just as you say.
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,137
    None of us have any idea when TLG secured licensing to the GB franchise.  It may have been years ago that Sony and TLG optioned the rights.

    Considering Sony co-financed the Lego Movie a number of years ago with Warner Bros., such licensing may have been part of that agreement.

    Because Lego isn't a publicly traded company, it is very difficult to figure out what agreements are out there and when licenses expire.

    Again, if the designer of the rejected Ideas Project believes his design was copied, he has the ability to persue it and seek appropriate redress.

    Complaining about it is a bit petty from my standpoint.  However, it is sad that he would consider not designing future MOCs as a result.

    Frankly, I probably wouldn't have done the photo op if I had a similar project - for just this reason.  It looks untoward even though there are no legal ramifications.
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,137
    And I think the Ideas comments are just to encourage viewers of the site to stay engaged or otherwise vote for projects they many not normally be interested in.
    VorpalRyu
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited November 2015
    Let's be honest, we're really more discussing than complaining here.  Me, I have the perception that a decent member of the MOC community was dissed when he didn't have to be dissed, and I don't think it's bad to hash that out.
  • BrickDancerBrickDancer Dunes of TatooineMember Posts: 3,639
    What I find interesting about this topic and discussion is the single individual artist versus large corporation on a questionable situation. We usually tout our principals of care and concern for the little guy versus Goliath. But in this case with not much or enough known about the truth of the matter or behind the curtains of TLG, the shadow of a doubt is falling on TLG's side. With the individual's disagreement being casually dismissed and even derided.

    Honestly, we're not able to come to any real conclusion of the facts unless TLG somehow comes clean and is fully transparent. And I'm not holding my breath for that to happen in this day and age of corporate maneuvering.
  • MattsWhatMattsWhat Studley, UKMember Posts: 1,643
    ^this is true except for one thing. Lego paid their contractual  dues without screwing a little guy. They quite clearly state you don't get anything ongoing from more sets and that similarities between sets including ones they are developing happen and there is nothing you can do about it.
    You can't submit something and check the "I read the terms" box then moan about. If this was a post on his blog and lego had just come along and pinched then I would be in the furious camp, but that isn't what happened. 
    oldtodd33SumoLego
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    BrickDancer said:

    All good details you're pointing out @dougts, but those fine differences are muted compared to overwhelming similarities on first glance by non-experts just as you say.

    Would you also say there are overwhelming similarities on first glance between the model and the real building?

    No? It's not very good then, is it?

    Yes? Oh! I didn't specify which model I meant. That's the whole point, isn't it? We could all build on own MOC and, hopefully, they would all have overwhelming similarities on first glance to the real building - and each other.

    They would all be the same scale - minifig scale - and be arranged for the Ecto-1 to fit, but adjusted if necessary to fit on conveniently a sized baseplates. If it's going to be megaset, it'll have to have an interior, which needs to be seen - Haunted House or Simpsons style. The modulars don't open to show the interiors (Cafe Corner didn't have one) but so they could be extended in a modular fashion. So it's hinged on the blind side.

    All those MOCs would still be different - in the fine detail. And so it is here.
    dougtsSethro3
  • BrickDancerBrickDancer Dunes of TatooineMember Posts: 3,639
    MattsWhat said:
    ^this is true except for one thing. Lego paid their contractual  dues without screwing a little guy. They quite clearly state you don't get anything ongoing from more sets and that similarities between sets including ones they are developing happen and there is nothing you can do about it.
    You can't submit something and check the "I read the terms" box then moan about. If this was a post on his blog and lego had just come along and pinched then I would be in the furious camp, but that isn't what happened. 
    The car and the HQ was submitted as a single project. By picking and choosing only part of the submission, TLG is the one in the wrong by not acknowledging that fact.

    If you want to go the "T&C" route in defense of TLG, then the individual should do as recommended and go full lawyer on TLG. Then let the court go behind the curtain and straighten it all out. That is the only way we'll know how clean TLG really is on this issue.
  • binaryeyebinaryeye USMember Posts: 1,734
    But in this case with not much or enough known about the truth of the matter or behind the curtains of TLG, the shadow of a doubt is falling on TLG's side. With the individual's disagreement being casually dismissed and even derided.
    The complaint is being dismissed because the Ideas guidelines state the following:

    "If the LEGO Group introduces a product similar to an idea submitted on LEGO Ideas you understand and acknowledge that any coincidence is unintentional and release the LEGO Group against any claims of infringement."

    I'm not a lawyer and have no experience in law. I don't know if this would hold up in court. But regardless, by submitting a project to ideas, the project's creator is indicating they agree to this. To then be upset when it happens seems unreasonable to me.

    That said, I agree the perception is beginning to turn against LEGO. First the Sandcrawler, then the Helicarrier, now the HQ. Personally, I don't have a problem with these because they're based on IPs LEGO had the license for before the Ideas projects were submitted. But a lot of people aren't going to see it this way, especially non-AFOLs and in turn the media.

    A more interesting issue, to me, are the more generic projects such as the seasonal log cabin (submitted mid-2012) that are seemingly copied by LEGO (released mid-2015). I think this is something LEGO should be very careful with, not from a legal standpoint but from a customer relations perspective.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,985
    ^ Presumably Brent Waller agreed to the car being made by itself.
  • BrickDancerBrickDancer Dunes of TatooineMember Posts: 3,639
    edited November 2015
    @binaryeye The fine print will always be in favor of the Corp., does the artist have any choice other than clicking 'yes I comply'? Do any of us have a choice with Apple when we agree to their T&C if we want to use their product? The default leverage is always going to be with the Corp. as it has lawyers readily available on their side should any dispute arise. The individual would have to absorb mighty amounts of cost upfront to even raise the issue on the legal front.

    That's why it's unlikely this situation will ever escalate beyond what it is now, a fuzzy ball of mystery and intrigue. Who gets/got screwed will not be important in 1 year time from now as all the owners will be fawning over their GB HQ with nary a concern for it's providence.

    Thus the best course of action for TLG is to stay mum and deny any such problem in the first place. Evident in the way they dealt with Sergio when he visited for the photo op "Yea we sorta wanted to tell you but nahh".

    Now that you bring it up, I think the "Seasonal" set is a very damning example of the same situation reoccurring now with the HQ.
  • BrickDancerBrickDancer Dunes of TatooineMember Posts: 3,639
    @TigerMoth the similarities for exterior of the buildings is debatable. But there have been other Ideas submissions for the HQ that were of completely different scale also. Plus, the footprint is really bothering me as why didn't TLG build it out all the way and omit the sidewalks? The building would have become bigger and more suitable for interior detailing, while comfortably fitting Ecto-1. By locking into the same footprint, they were bound to be even closer in similarity to the 2 Ideas (Brent's & Sergio's). On the point of exterior, it would be debatable.

    But the interior will be the deciding factor considering Sergio's choices. Similarities on the interior will be much harder to explain away. Thus I'm very much looking forward to seeing pics of the inside to get a better feeling for comparison.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Are any of those people who think that TLG are wrong, but genuinely want the set, going to put their principles first, refuse to buy it, and write and tell them what they've done and why?
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    edited November 2015
    ^ I have no interest in the set and won't be buying it.  I just find this conversation interesting, particularly so because I've been pretty much saying since day 1 of Cuusoo that LEGO should avoid situations like this by being tighter and more forthcoming about their guidelines and criteria, particularly when it comes to third party IPs
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    Is tge footprint identical? The Swiss one has a sidewalk at the rear, I thought the TLG one didn't. A minor difference for sure, if I am remembering rightly.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,985
    They are fairly clear there, if they buy the license then they decide what future sets they make, independent of ideas. Even for non licensed models, Lego can make sets from the same genre independent of the original.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    CCC said:
    They are fairly clear there, if they buy the license then they decide what future sets they make, independent of ideas. Even for non licensed models, Lego can make sets from the same genre independent of the original.
    I meant that they should just come out and say right from the start that they won't consider submissions for IPs they already own.  
    SumoLego
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,137
    dougts said:
    CCC said:
    They are fairly clear there, if they buy the license then they decide what future sets they make, independent of ideas. Even for non licensed models, Lego can make sets from the same genre independent of the original.
    I meant that they should just come out and say right from the start that they won't consider submissions for IPs they already own.  
    I didn't mean that this discussion was complaining.  I don't think the designer's comments were particularly constructive given the circumstances.

    I don't think Lego is interested in publicizing their list of licensed IP.
    dougts
  • DedgeckoDedgecko Seattle, WAMember Posts: 800
    They don't have to specify details, a simple: "Sorry, we can't accept this submission at this time."

    They don't have to specify squat.  Be it size, IP issues, existing WIP, etc.  The guidelines should be just that, guidelines, but there should be a human reviewing every submission, to A.) minimize the crap that gets posted, and B.) put the kibosh on projects that have no chance in getting through review.
    dougtsAdeelZubair
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,137
    I think that defeats the purpose of the initiative.  Peoplease post their creations, others vote, then they are reviewed if they get enough votes.
  • CM4SCM4S United StatesMember Posts: 1,363
  • matticus_bricksmatticus_bricks Member Posts: 651
    edited November 2015
    ^This means official Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig minigures. That's great news indeed!

    As an aside, I would really like to have a Melissa McCarthy minifigure at some point. 
  • monkyby87monkyby87 Member Posts: 315
    dougts said:
    ^ I have no interest in the set and won't be buying it.  I just find this conversation interesting, particularly so because I've been pretty much saying since day 1 of Cuusoo that LEGO should avoid situations like this by being tighter and more forthcoming about their guidelines and criteria, particularly when it comes to third party IPs

    I agree, and this will always be the problem with the LEGO Ideas situation; if they don't make a set now for whatever reason, but later on acquire the license, do they have to go back and give credit to the person after the fact?  Especially if, at the time of the Ideas submission, they had no intention of making a set, but only later on in the future did they then decide to, for whatever reason.  It becomes very easy for people to say that LEGO took someone's Ideas submission to make their own set later.  This isn't really the case here, but I could see it becoming a problem later in the future.  If, for example, later on Nintendo finally decides to work with LEGO and wants Zelda sets, does this mean they have to acknowledge any of the previous submissions that were denied? 

    I don't know how to avoid these situations, aside from tightening the Ideas submissions or ending it all together.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited November 2015
    Looking again at the BrentWaller Ideas submission, or was it CUUSOO back then?, it looks a lot like a combination of it and Sergio's Swiss GB.


  • MattsWhatMattsWhat Studley, UKMember Posts: 1,643
    edited November 2015
    monkyby87 said:
    dougts said:
    ^ I have no interest in the set and won't be buying it.  I just find this conversation interesting, particularly so because I've been pretty much saying since day 1 of Cuusoo that LEGO should avoid situations like this by being tighter and more forthcoming about their guidelines and criteria, particularly when it comes to third party IPs

    I agree, and this will always be the problem with the LEGO Ideas situation; if they don't make a set now for whatever reason, but later on acquire the license, do they have to go back and give credit to the person after the fact?  Especially if, at the time of the Ideas submission, they had no intention of making a set, but only later on in the future did they then decide to, for whatever reason.  It becomes very easy for people to say that LEGO took someone's Ideas submission to make their own set later.  This isn't really the case here, but I could see it becoming a problem later in the future.  If, for example, later on Nintendo finally decides to work with LEGO and wants Zelda sets, does this mean they have to acknowledge any of the previous submissions that were denied? 

    I don't know how to avoid these situations, aside from tightening the Ideas submissions or ending it all together.
    But the point is that this happens all the time time and not just in LEGO.  Music has had several high profile cases recently where someone thinks all or part of tune belongs to them, and many more settle or end outside of court.  There are entire law firms based on the accidental infringment of IP.  In actual fact LEGO is covered to steal what they want from the ideas submissions and people have signed a disclaimer, they are more likely to get in trouble if they accidently created something similar to work on a person's blog.  In fact it is amazing this hasn't happened yet, or maybe it has and was settled out of court with an NDA.
    Either way, all LEGO would have to show is their own design process, and the differences between the sets.  For an accidental situation, judging from music and other IPs, the amount of difference needed is far less than the differences involved here.  AND we havent even seen inside where the differences should show far more due to the nature of not having a building to match.  Assuming (the worst case) it wasn't accidental infringement, all LEGO would need to show in their design process that they weren't influenced (lying if they have to), which is easy for them to do (assuming they had thought this might have come up - and they will have done, for every set they have ever made) and would be almost impossible to prove they had, given they are using the same reference materials.  Either way we would be back to square one - a disgruntled MOCer and a happy corporation.
    And I want to say that square one is also an awesome, massive, aimed squarely at AFOLs, new set.  Which until about a week a go was all most of us had ever dreamed of.
  • HangedSanchezHangedSanchez United KingdomMember Posts: 310
    binaryeye said:
    I think the previous incidents (Sandcrawler, Helicarrier) were just coincidence, as the scale between the Ideas submissions and the final product were greatly different. However, for this GB HQ, it is damn near spot on. The only thing that might still point to it be a matter of coincidence is the development time necessary.

    Submitted: March 2014
    1K Vote: June 2014
    5k Vote: July 2014
    10K Vote: August 2014
    One thing I'm a bit confused about is how this relates to Brent Waller's project. His submission had an HQ along with the car but only the car was produced. His project was submitted in March 2013, reached 10,000 supporters in August 2013, and was chosen for production at the end of January 2014.

    It's entirely possible (I would even say likely) LEGO started working on the HQ as soon as they knew they'd be producing the car, which was at least a month before Sergio's project was submitted.

    Brent Waller's project was only for the car. The headquarters was in the background, and is commented on in the Lego comments, but was not part of the submission.

    People are saying that the Lego comments show that they were aware of the HQ Ideas submission long before Sergio's projects, and this influenced their design, but it depends on how much contact/overlap there is between the customer service team commenting on Ideas projects and the set development team. I suspect not much....
  • monkyby87monkyby87 Member Posts: 315
    MattsWhat said:
    But the point is that this happens all the time time and not just in LEGO.  Music has had several high profile cases recently where someone thinks all or part of tune belongs to them, and many more settle or end outside of court.  There are entire law firms based on the accidental infringment of IP.  In actual fact LEGO is covered to steal what they want from the ideas submissions and people have signed a disclaimer, they are more likely to get in trouble if they accidently created something similar to work on a person's blog.  In fact it is amazing this hasn't happened yet, or maybe it has and was settled out of court with an NDA.
    Either way, all LEGO would have to show is their own design process, and the differences between the sets.  For an accidental situation, judging from music and other IPs, the amount of difference needed is far less than the differences involved here.  AND we havent even seen inside where the differences should show far more due to the nature of not having a building to match.  Assuming (the worst case) it wasn't accidental infringement, all LEGO would need to show in their design process that they weren't influenced (lying if they have to), which is easy for them to do (assuming they had thought this might have come up - and they will have done, for every set they have ever made) and would be almost impossible to prove they had, given they are using the same reference materials.  Either way we would be back to square one - a disgruntled MOCer and a happy corporation.
    And I want to say that square one is also an awesome, massive, aimed squarely at AFOLs, new set.  Which until about a week a go was all most of us had ever dreamed of.
    I'm not really defending one party over another, just agreeing with the fact that the Ideas project lends itself to things like this happening.
  • MattsWhatMattsWhat Studley, UKMember Posts: 1,643
    ^I'm saying it prevents it happening as you have a T&C saying so, presumably they wrote this in as it will stand up in court.  I don't have one on my blog so if they produce something like a MOC I made (which they won't because I suck, but that's not the point) then I can take them to court over it, and if it looks similar then I could, in theory at least, win.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    What happens in court is irrelevant, if it ever got that far (and it wouldn't) Lego have already lost.
    Brickaholic
  • BrickaholicBrickaholic UKMember Posts: 342
    Come on, forget the legalities, this just feels wrong.
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 1,573
    Sergio actually thanked Brentwaller in his ideas submission. He submitted his HQ a year after the Ecto-1 was submitted. Sergio obviously put a lot of effort into his MOC and it looks great, but the final product looks a lot more like the one in the background on Brent's submission that Sergio's.
  • PaperballparkPaperballpark UK / KLMember Posts: 3,797
    God I'm getting tired of this. Can we not just go back to discussing the actual model itself?
    Pitfall69madforLEGOAdeelZubairShibkiki180703Jern92
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,410
    MattsWhat said:
    ^I'm saying it prevents it happening as you have a T&C saying so, presumably they wrote this in as it will stand up in court.  I don't have one on my blog so if they produce something like a MOC I made (which they won't because I suck, but that's not the point) then I can take them to court over it, and if it looks similar then I could, in theory at least, win.
    God forbid if LEGO decided to make one of my MOC's; I would have to pay them not to make it to dpare me the embarrassment :)
    MattsWhatVorpalRyubobabricksbgl_84hkcrazy88
  • LukeSkywalkerLukeSkywalker IrelandMember Posts: 231
    edited November 2015
    I've just posted this in the most recent ghostbusters Ideas article, but I'll say it here again. At the end of the day, LEGO reserves the right to produce and sell any and all sets, they own the copyright, so I don't understand the bad blood and bitterness that seems to have developed. LEGO Ideas is a great opportunity for the community to input projects and ideas for sets, but the LEGO Group holds the ultimate copyright to the brand and what exactly is sold, regardless of licences and regardless to whether someone designed a similar set concept already. Coincidences of likenesses in MOCs posted online and to officially-submitted Ideas will always exist due to the very nature of LEGO as a construction toy with a limited range of available types of pieces to build the set with (which I believe is covered in their Ts and Cs for Ideas submitters). Especially for something that is based on a location from a movie. It's not like he came up with the design of the building by himself, he based his idea off a real life building. If anyone is owed royalties, it should be the designer/Architect of the existing firehouse building in New York getting a slice of the action and not Sergio, haha. But that's my two cents. 
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,985
    Pitfall69 said:
    God forbid if LEGO decided to make one of my MOC's; I would have to pay them not to make it to dpare me the embarrassment :)
    An official pink HH rehash would be nice.
    JenniSumoLegoSirBenAdeelZubairtamamahmbgl_84hkcrazy88
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

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.