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.
So to sidestep a debate on legality, if I wanted to make my own custom stickers for my personal Lego village and space port, does anyone know what type of adhesive paper I might need to purchase, etc?
Normally eBay will flag the word "copy" in listings, so I'm a little surprised they snuck through. There is a community of corporations that participate in something called the VERO program on eBay. Verified Rights Owners program (or something like that). They patrol eBay as well and flag copies / questionable copyrighted issue listings.
I won't even get into the copied adhesive stickered minifigs (i.e. Batman joker, etc) that are not original. That's a ripoff.
For personal use - it would be helpful for all retired sets, to know how to recreate these stickers.
Do keep in mind that the law is on Lego's side. It is within TLGs right to keep copyright on the stickers and not sell them. Not making something for sale doesn't give everyone the right to copy it.
They're also introducing uncertainty of authenticity into the second hand market.
I won't speak to the legality of it but I think he is providing a fantastic service and alternative to fans like me who unfortunately had their original stickers damaged and are forced to pay very high amounts for an original. It's not like he is asking for that much as well. I believe I paid $6 for mine.
The sticker itself is pretty decent quality, although it can smudge easily so if you do happen to purchase one from this seller please handle carefully.
now, if someone could make duplicate light bluish grey levers...
When I got back into collecting in 1999, one of my highest priority sets to obtain was 375 Yellow Castle. I bought several versions before I finally had a copy in a condition with which I was content: minimal scratching on the surface of the bricks (yellow shows easily), and an unapplied sticker sheet.
A year or two later, someone started selling reproduced stickers that marginalized the rarity of the stickers. Obviously the flip side is that had I not embarked on the previous quest, I would be quite content with the reproduction.
One thing to mention though is that the stickers are printed on a white backing so those sets requiring a clear backing such as 7191 or 10129 for instance will have to settle for a completely 'white' windscreen.
^^ Available direct they may be, but not through Ebay.
Or did we all just forget that copyright theft is a crime?
You could argue that $120 is "the going rate" for an official UCS sticker on Bricklink, but I suspect that few would have any sympathy with a Bricklink seller missing out on a sale when they're effectively holding the collector to ransom with prices like that.
From a copyright perspective, while LEGO would be unlikely to condone such a practice (particularly in the case of licensed sets) I'd bet it's really not high on the list of things that they are looking to crack down on....
I don't condone the sale of the counterfeit sticker sets, but I'd have to concede that even a stand-up guy such as myself would have trouble turning my nose up at them if they were 'as-good-as' quality.
The only real victims of this 'crime' are of course Bricklink sellers, but if they're really selling genuine UCS sticker sheets at $120 a pop then it's hard to feel too sorry for them in the light of such 'opportunistic' pricing.....
Disney regularly puts DVDs in the "vault" for 7 years... Take a look at the current price for Cinderella:
Does that make pirating it "ok" since Disney chooses not to sell it?
The fact that TLG chooses not to offer sticker sheets for sale in no way invalidates their claim to copyright on those sticker sheets, and it is just as illegal.
Now am I going to report you, the seller, or anyone else? No, of course not. If TLG cares, they can complain, if they don't, that is their right.
I'm just making the legal point, you're welcome to your own moral opinion. :)
I just suspect that LEGO, and indeed George Lucas, would rank this very low in their list of priorities as it's not damaging the brand nor denying them revenue.
I agree with you Doc, what difference does it make? Star Wars has built itself up on merchansdise and getting the brand 'out there'. Why throttle it?
This leads to bricklink sellers using lack of supply to hike the price of a sticker to over $100 at times. This does not seem right to me.
Perhaps if the copied stickers did not carry the lego reference number and lego logo at the side the copies could not be confused with originals.
The copies then allow retired sets where the stickers have flaked off to be completed and look great again.
I think there is a need to restore lego sets, so there is a need for re-issued stickers, we all love lego. So i dont think this is the worst breach of copyright for lego or lucas, lets face it they make billions already. I think the copies help all parties.
The stickers are no longer on sale.
What would your solution be? Force sellers to only sell at a government approved price? None of that matters, it is still a crime. If enough of them are sold and Lucasfilm, LTD and TLG decide to go after the sellers, they can and will do real jail time.
For what it is worth, I don't think it is the worst breach of copyright either, nor do I see either company going after these sellers unless it becomes very common.
I'm just pointing out that trying to rationalize it away is pointless, just call a spade a spade, it is illegal and you don't care.
BTW, not caring, is not a crime. :)
Of course there is a gap in the market, the owner of the item is choosing not to sell it. If I write a book, sell it for a year, then decide to stop selling it, that doesn't make it ok for you to make copies and sell them yourself.
Look, I get that many people simply don't care. That's fine, if you don't care, go right ahead, I'm not your father/law enforcement/god, you don't answer to me. My only point is that you shouldn't try and justify it. Just say "I don't care that I'm breaking copyright laws" and be done with it.
I personally rarely if ever apply stickers and if I do decide to in the future, I plan to make a copy and use the copy while saving the original. I don't plan on sharing any, or making copies, especially copies for sale so if I do make copies I'll be fine under personal 'Fair use' doctrine.
Are they easy to make then the lego stickers I always thing youd have to desgin them all yourself based off pictures
We do not condone, encourage or endorse such behaviour. OK?
they look great, professionally printed.
lots of people are producing custom minifigure decals.......
With all due respect, I think that's a little unfair given there have been numerous posts already detailing such practice - starting with the OP requesting details of how to go about doing it. Over the past two weeks, we have debated the morality of it, learnt details of where to buy illegal copies as well as learnt what paper is best used when printing them out. I think everybody here is in agreement that replicating material subject to copyright is illegal, yet over the past two weeks details of how to break the law have been allowed to be discussed freely. Should the thread not have been closed sooner?
I have made it clear that I won't be buying or replicating licensed material due to their imperfect quality/design and would/could only accept originals for my models - I'm one of the plonkers who has spent $100 plus on sticker sheets (plural)! Can I suggest closing the thread since the OP's question has already been answered and can no longer be discussed? Or at minimum remove any detail or links within the thread relating to licensed material leaving only information relating to 'custom'.
My "bzzzt" has not activated. :o)
Frankly it's a matter of liability for Brickset; if we do not take action against it, then we are potentially liable in the (admittedly very unlikely) event that legal action results.
But you're right, this thread had probably run it's useful life. Happy to take it to PM.