TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Pirate Party Battles LEGO Over Copyright and Trademark Injunction

The timeless plastic bricks of LEGO can be built into predetermined items such as a car or house but can also be formed into any shape, the options limited only by the creativeness of its builder. However, turn LEGO bricks into a controversial item and the company’s lawyers could soon be breathing down your neck. The Czech Pirate Party did just that and are now calling for Internet allies in their war with the corporates behind one of the world’s most famous toys.

legopirate1Without doubt the favorite toy of many kids’ is LEGO. What’s not to like about a kit for a country house that can be smashed to bits and turned into a ridiculous 30-wheel truck with a ray-gun on top?

Of course, the makers of LEGO probably aren’t that keen on kids building space guns and other makeshift weapons out of their famous multi-colored blocks. But while there’s little the Danish company can do about that happening in private, raise your head in public doing the same thing and matters can take a turn for the worse.

Last year the Czech Pirate Party produced an animated promotional video to assist their political campaign showing a couple of ‘influential’ businessmen with government connections throwing their money into a lake.

As the video below shows, their little party had an unexpected gatecrasher intent on draining the lake of the corrupt big fish.

As you’ve probably guessed by now, LEGO are not happy that the Pirates used their product in this way. LEGO issued the Pirate Party with a takedown notice in August 2012 claiming copyright and trademark infringement, but the party refused to comply.

“Their claim is based on ‘good reputation of a corporation’,” Mikulas Ferjencik, vice-president of the Czech Pirate Party told TorrentFreak. “LEGO claims that we have damaged their reputation by linking LEGO and the Pirate Party.”

In October matters escalated when LEGO applied to a Prague court for a preliminary injunction against the party. The injunction was granted, forcing the pirates to remove the video from their official campaign media, but LEGO have additional demands.

“First they want us to not use LEGO figurines in any of our activities. Second, they want us to apologize for using LEGO figurines without their permission and to state that we did not receive any financial support from LEGO for our campaign. Third, pay the costs of the court,” Ferjencik adds.

Despite the elections being over, the party went on to file an appeal against the injunction. The complaint from LEGO had certainly pushed their buttons.

legoalien“This is exactly the kind of action against which pirates are fighting. We do not like limiting artistic creation or restrictions on human freedoms under the guise of copyright protection, or under a similar pretext of protecting the reputation of a legal person,” says Czech Pirate Party chairman Ivan Bartos.

“The clip with LEGO figures was created by our fan as his artistic work. Is it really true, that an artist may not use a figure for his own story, until it is approved in the instructions of the LEGO marketing department?”

The appeal will be heard by the High Court in Prague but in the meantime the pirates are encouraging supporters to send a clear message to LEGO. This, the party says, will be achieved by turning the Danish company’s own product against them.

“Get a Pirate flag or two and/or other Pirate merchandise you happen to own, go to your nearest LEGO-land or LEGO store and take a photo in front of it with all the flags and stuff,” the party says in their appeal.

“Finally, send us the picture and, ideally, also the GPS coordinates of the place where the picture was taken, so that we can make a map of the places in case this campaign gets appropriately big.”

Other creative options for protest are acceptable according to the pirates, as long as they depict Pirate Party imagery alongside LEGO products.

In 1996 LEGO was involved in another controversy when a Polish artist used their product to make a concentration camp. LEGO took legal action but later dropped the complaint following public outcry. The Pirate Party would welcome a similar outcome.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • guest

    Taking copyright extremism to a new level.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/V6MAVVVBC23RLJZLHBV3YA3ABY Rutherford

      I will follow this important story until the end.

    • The_Strawbear

      I think as it’s a *political party* they have a right to not have their products used. With politics or religion I think there’s more justification to say no thanks, we’d rather you didn’t.

      As I remember there was some uproar from people on the left a while back when a gay couple’s picture was used in a religious pamphlet that was homophobic, which isn’t all that different.

      Then there’s been lots of instances where parties to the Right have used music which were made by bands who have left leanings, who understandably weren’t happy.

      If you don’t agree with a political party’s stance, then why should they be allowed to use your image/music/product?

      Just imagine some political party who was really anti-sharing started using YOUR image/music/product to promote themselves.

      You’d all soon be fucking whining then.

      But as *ever* most of you don’t think past surface level.

      • Lord of the Files

        You make some valid points, The_Strawbear. The importance of protecting your image has to be weighed against others aspects though. If a company is allowed to stifle creativity and free speech simply because you used one of their products, where does it end? Is it then ok for a company to dictate what you’re allowed to create if you use their product? Between where that leads and freedom of expression, which is most important and beneficial to society? I already use an app where, as part of the license agreement when it’s purchased, you agree not to create anything the developer deems as being “evil”. Nobody takes it seriously, but what if it were actually enforced? If one business is allowed to control what people create, then it won’t be long until they’re all doing it. It doesn’t have to be legos, it can be anything. Toothpicks, paint, clay, yarn, etc. The list is endless.

        • Kevin Grech

          I Control the canned food I produce and that you buy. You shall not give it to your dog.

      • Andrew Lee

        Well if they paid for my image they could whatever they like with it. If Lego wants it so people cannot do this they should include a contract to sign with each set sold. Make the people sign it tag the Legos with their ID and if they fuck up sue them for 90 trillion dollars.

      • Somebody_Else

        Lego is not a political party, they are a company and a product.

        That product is basic components that are intended to be used to create something of the users own imagination and design.

        To censor a creative project (or uncreative for that matter) because it used a construction material from a specific company that the company itself doesn’t like when there is no claim of sponsorship from said company is a HORRIBLE precedent.
        There is very little difference from that travesty than there is from Acme Bricks blocking a Democrat (or Republican) public announcement because they filmed it at a brick house made with Acme Bricks.
        Or Levi Strauss blocking a porno flick because several of the actors worn Levi jeans. Well, as long as non-lingerie type clothing is worn in those things.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “If you don’t agree with a political party’s stance, then why should they be allowed to use your image/music/product?”

        Let me explain, in kind words, what you just said:

        If the maker of a pen disagrees with what you yourself wrote, he could, using your argument, force you to retract your slogan, book, or letter.

        The same applies to any medium – “product” used to describe a political message at all.

        “Just imagine some political party who was really anti-sharing started using YOUR image/music/product to promote themselves.”

        As long as they don’t imply the music was written by them or for them, they should certainly be allowed this. What’s your point?

        Ah, i get it. you assume that just like the media industry, pirates are inconsistent hypocrites. Sorry, but we aren’t.

  • A2in

    “LEGO took legal action but later dropped the complaint following public outcry. The Pirate Party would welcome a similar outcome.”

    Personally I’d say don’t let them drop it, they’ve already done the damage so force them to see it through to the end. When they loose they can be the ones to publicly apologise for their attempt at stifling creation and suggesting the Pirate Party’s use of their product would “taint” their company’s reputation.

  • dondilly

    The initial injunction means nothing. The lego figures are being used in animation or stills, not part of the party logo. Ive seen lego used in many animations without problem.

    As a precedent that shows how ludicrous Lego’s claim is, in all the years online, Hasbro (who obviously know there would be no case to answer) have not tried blocking all the humourous action man (Gi Joe) , ken and Barbie porn stills and vids.

    If you check youtube you will find TSA abuse at lego city airport, muggings, ATM theft and even Osama Bin Laden to name a few, all in lego. The action regarding to pirate party is about corporate bullying of a perceived threat.

    • Anon

      Nope, Hasbro are just as bad:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fensler_Films

      This guy got threatened and had to remove his videos.

      • dondilly

        Reading that hasbro thing. The key difference was that he was recutting and dubbibg. GI Joe cartoons that hasbro owned rights to. The GI Joe Barbie porn was using the dolls.

        It would be a bit like the makers of plasticine sending Aardman a cease and desist letter for bringing their product into disrepute were Morph ever to do porn.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSMRPKM1evk

        • Anon

          I concede dondilly, you are correct :)

    • The_Strawbear

      Humorous use is utterly different to political use. Youtube is full of funny Lego clips which they’ve not tried to get taken down.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        LEGO sells a product expressly for the purposes of creation.

        In other words we can take your statement to mean that pen makers should be allowed to restrict the showing the product of their pens?

        Or any video in which case a man is shown to be holding the pen?

        • joespivey

          Are you an idiot? Unless you the brand of the pen is immediately obvious from the colour of the ink (which it won’t be), then there is no analogy. I would imagine that Bic would be pissed off if the Pirate Party made their slogan out of easily identifiable Bic pens.

  • Zera

    I generaly support most of the stories here but using a product to make your own comercial (which is basicly what they did) isn’t right. If you don’t have the aproval before you start maybe you shouldn’t use another companys product to promote your own. This isn’t even the general but hey we didn’t steal this is like making a comercial for your game using another companys games.
    Overall I feel sueing them is over the top but they should just have taken down the video to begin with.

    Imo this is a good example of when copyright is actually warranted unlike the use in media

    • Liam Jh

      In general I don’t agree, as the ‘ad’ does not use any infringing trademarks ie showing the LEGO trademark, and a quick check of youtube shows a lot more contentious and infringing material.

      I don’t agree with using a childrens toy to promote a political message either though. (even if I agree with the message)

      • But

        Game of Thrones…Filmed in Northern Ireland. Shows Northern Ireland landscape.
        RIHANNA – WE FOUND LOVE…Filmed in Northern Ireland. Shows Northern Ireland landscape.

        Fuckers using our country. Copyright infringement.

        • Who

          copyright a country? please don’t give them any BS ideas. they will say you are infringing on copyrights for just steeping in to the country.

        • Whatever

          @Who

          There was once (on TF) a story on buildings being copyrighted so you can’t make any photos of those, so it isn’t too far to copyright a country.

        • Who

          @Whatever: thanks for the info man but Shhhhh don’t remind them. LOL
          it really don’t matter as it WILL all end for the people trying to remove freedom for the world.

        • The_Strawbear

          This section of these comments is literally the stupidest thing I’ve seen posted on TF.

          Congrats to you all.

          Wilful ignorance and stupidity at its finest!

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @The_Strawbear

          “Wilful ignorance and stupidity at its finest!”

          …says the man whose leading explanation on why LEGO was right meant the manufacturer of the physical medium had full control over what you were allowed to express with that medium.

          Better ask Intel and ATI whether they agree with that statement first.

      • Maldoror

        Since they haven’t “protected” their trademark in the examples you cite, this case should be thrown out.

    • MadAsASnake

      I had lots of Lego as a kid. I always assumed the fact that I bought the damned stuff (or my parents did) entitled me to do whatever I wanted with it. That it’s it’s point, after all.

      Now, the Pirate Party have done nothing here that detracts from the value of Lego, have done nothing that could be construed as an endorsement by Lego. They even bought some of it.

      If you go down this route, any manufacturer will be able to object to pretty much any media representation, no matter how trivial, simply because their products appear in a movie. Car manufacturers could object to most stuff thats been released. It just gets really stupid.

      • Liam Jh

        Well – I had Meccano and Tonka toys, proper toys. :P

        • MadAsASnake

          Had those too. Lego was much better. Meccano was Lego what machine code is to Java, The matchbox stuff was preferable to Tonks due to scaling issues.

      • Who

        “If you go down this route, any manufacturer will be able to object to pretty much any media representation, no matter how trivial, simply because their products appear in a movie. Car manufacturers could object to most stuff thats been released. It just gets really stupid”

        yep this IS Y the US government changed the trademarking law BUT seams that no one in the US seams to acknowledge it. reason Y some think you can still trademark names. Y do you think in some shows and movies they placed tape over the tv’s name brand…it was trademarked and by showing it you could get sued. now this has changed and they don’t do this and the name is displayed.

        • MadAsASnake

          It’s only a problem where a Trademark is used by someone to make claims that are untrue. If they have a Sony TV in a Movie scene, so what? There is no misrepresentation.

        • Who

          @MadAsASnake: “If they have a Sony TV in a Movie scene, so what? There is no misrepresentation” yes that is correct BUT do you really think SONY would over look it? come on man its SONY, a member of the MPAA.

        • UraPhake

          Lawyers are the problem, I believe.
          Without them, I doubt that shit like this would happen — but then, that’s their job — trying to pry money out of any available crevice (insert your own dirty joke here).

          http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/17/commentary/mediabiz/index.htm

    • Starts here…

      so no ads with a car/plane/door/wall/carpet in the background as they’re “products” of other companies? where does it end? phillips tv in the background on an air freshener ad! ohoh! sue em!

    • or not

      Disagree.
      Can’t make a car commercial with a person wearing clothes then.
      Or have the person drinking coffee or being in France ……….etc

      Lego characters have been seen in lots of things. From TV to movies.
      FAIR USE.

      • Bumgest

        Silly as it sounds, a lot of that sort of thing does have to get cleared by the legal department.

        Laws and approaches differ around the world, but watch an hour of mainstream factual American TV and count the number of things they blur out.

        And films too – John Hillcoat had to battle Coca-Cola to get a can of Coke into his adaptation of The Road. They nearly didn’t let him use it, even though the scene is pretty important in the book.

        • http://geekhideout.net/ The G33K

          The blurring of logo’s etc on USA TV has no justification under law, the reason they blur is is that they are mitigating the possibility that some company somewhere might get butthurt and take action against them. The action has no basis though they still would have to spend time, money, effort in challenging it.

          It has become so widespread that it is now ubiquitous across MSM within the USA leading to people thinking that it is actually the law and that companies have the right to say where and how their bought products (even publicly viewed street advertising) are used. Nothing could be further from the truth.

          There is a simple solution if a company, whether LEGO or otherwise do not want their products used, shown, or anything else that they think might give them butthurt. DO NOT SELL THE PRODUCT

        • SoundnuoS

          @G33k

          “Don’t sell it” isn’t really that brilliant a solution, for anyone.

        • Guest321

          “Don’t sell it” is just about the only solution, brilliant or not, if they don’t want their products to be used by public in any way the public deems fit. Once you sell something to me, you have no right to tell me how I should use it.

        • MadAsASnake

          @SoundnouS

          That is the choice you have always had. Maintain “creative control, context, etc… whatever you want to call it”, or put in the public domain and accept all the things that naturally happen there. It’s a lot harder to make money with the former so most artists choose the latter. Your choice.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Guest321

          This isn’t exactly use by the public, it’s use by a political party in their propaganda.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @SoundnuoS

          “This isn’t exactly use by the public, it’s use by a political party in their propaganda.”

          So the public can have an opinion…but not to form it into politics?

          Please investigate your sentence again. There is a monumental oxymoron chewing it’s cud placidly right between the beginning and the end of it.

          You realize that by the same argument you couldn’t sit at a table made by IKEA, using an Intel laptop, or having a Sony TV in the background while filming a political statement either?

          Taken to the extreme, like someone here said, you couldn’t even make a movie of a man sitting in a pair of Levi’s.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          >You realize that by the same argument you couldn’t sit at a table made by IKEA, using an Intel laptop, or having a Sony TV in the background while filming a political statement either?

          If taken to the extreme, yes, and I don’t think anyone would be for that.

          What makes this case slightly complicated and the likely reason why Lego have reacted is that this isn’t some incidental showing of a Lego box somewhere in the background. In this video the mini figures are the main figures.

          This raises the question of trademark dilution and compensation and consent for copyrighted material used in a commercial.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another’s trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of the trademark owner.

          However there is no product here. Are the Pirate Party selling these lego sets?

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @SoundnuoS

          “What makes this case slightly complicated and the likely reason why Lego have reacted is that this isn’t some incidental showing of a Lego box somewhere in the background. In this video the mini figures are the main figures.

          This raises the question of trademark dilution and compensation and consent for copyrighted material used in a commercial.”

          In other words, anyone making a film using lego-like miniatures and putting it on youtube is subject to legal censure, as long as anyone can interpret the film as “political” or “containing an actual message”

          I’m afraid we’re right back to where I’m questioning your use of the word “political”. I don’t think it means what you think it means. Apparently this is the case for many of the words you use.

          Fine, the message to the world, as far as LEGO is concerned is – don’t use our toys for fun stuff. If they win it’s akin to shooting themselves in the market niche.

          Because there are few statements of any substance which can be made in this world which does not in some way or other indicate politics or political stance.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          No, my question was about the Pirate party’s opinion that use in commercials should be compensated. You’ve already stated that this does not mean “non-commercial” commercials, like campaign videos.

          Using your last argument on the other hand makes any commercial excempt as long as the maker is claiming a political message.

    • Who

      “but using a product to make your own comercial (which is basicly what they did) isn’t right.”

      ok so IF I had some lego’s, it would be wrong for me to use them in a home video that I am shooting? try telling that to a kid.

      *”little johnny”….so its wrong for me to play with my lego’s and use my phone to record my adventures mommy? yes that’s right johnny dear its unlawful and it could lead to mommy and daddy getting sued and you will go to a foster home.*

      give me a FUCKING BREAK! this “YOUR INFRINGING ON” others rights to there works is just getting STUPID.

    • IHaveNoBalls

      This story reminds me of that south park episode “Free Hat”
      Its abit different because in that episode Lucas wanted to change a film, not use a registered trademark to remove content of the internet. but still…

      GEORGE LUCAS:
      M-that’s different. These are My movies.
      I made them, and I have the right to
      do whatever I want with them

      STAN:
      You’re wrong, Mr. Lucas. They’re not
      your movies. They’re ours. All of ours.
      We paid to go see them, and they’re
      just as much a part of our lives as
      they are of yours.

      KYLE:
      When an artist creates, whatever they
      create belongs to society

      Point is lego has become more than just a brand (to society) and this also makes you wonder what else can be removed off the net by other companies.

    • Guest321

      Are you kidding me? LEGO is a generic product. What artistic creations people come up with it are their own prerogative and LEGO has no right over those artistic creations.

      If I buy bricks to build a house, do I have to take permission from the makers of the brick? Can the brick makers force me to demolish my house on account of copyright just because they don’t like the fact that I am a pirate and I built my house with their brick?

      This copyright BS has gone too far and needs to be abolished because its benefiting nobody except those untalented non-creative fat cats that run corporations.

    • Maldoror

      Except they didn’t use Lego at all. It’s entirely done with CGI. They are using the Lego figurines imagery, which arguably has become part of pop culture (that’s the reason they use the imagery in the first place).

      • SoundnuoS

        Lego has made animated movies that precede this and will probably claim copyright based on that as well.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Then that in itself is yet one more reason why Copyright has to go. If I show a movie on how to do something, the idea that any of a fifty-odd brand manufacturers being displayed on materials in the background could cause a legal conflict is absurd in and unto itself.

        • SoundnuoS

          It’s not that a brand is being displayed in the background, it’s that they’ve made actual animated movies with the mini figures as characters and will therefore claim copyright on animated use of them.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “…and will therefore claim copyright on animated use of them.”

          And now you are claiming the concept of animation is copyrightable?
          So let me get this straight – not able to make footage, using own software and camera, of physical items I own, without a third party saying “I don’t want you displaying our stuff“.

          We have officially, as “Guest” put it once, exceeded Poe’s law.

          Remind me again on how the privilege of copyright does not abolish property right?

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. If Lego has copyrighted the mini figures for use in animated films then this will be like using Mickey Mouse in an animated film.

    • Somebody_Else

      “…but using a product to make your own comercial (which is basicly what they did) isn’t right…”

      Are you saying they should use non-products? If so, WTH would that be?
      Should they go and grow lumber, as well as mine and smelt their own metal and then machine the components they need themselves? Why, nobody else does, that’s one of the big cornerstones of a commercial economy. Everything you pay for that is not a service is a product.

      Have you ever heard of the Doctrine of First Sale?
      Basically, once you sell something, so long as the purchaser isn’t making false claims about your product or doing something illegal with it, there isn’t jack you can do about. And even if they are, you usually can’t do anything about it either, though the possible slander/libel or illegal activities can result in them being taken to court.

      ianal

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Not really. You realize that this sets precedence for a pen maker restricting what people may publicly show written if what is displayed has been made by the use of the trademarked pen and paper?

      • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

        I see how you’ve slightly modified your argument to include display of the trademark. Thank you. On consideration I saw that flaw and was going to mention it, but I’m glad I don’t have to.

  • OneEyedWillie

    It is amazing to me that these companies think they can do this and win. Do they really have their heads that far up their own asses?

  • http://twitter.com/BelfastGonzo Belfast Gonzo

    Wouldn’t it be funny if the Pirate Bay’s “physibles” section – containing recipes for 3D printing – suddenly included plans for churning out your own Lego bricks…

    • Whatever

      Don’t tell Lego about this.

      http://www.thingiverse.com/search?q=lego&sa=

      (hope the link works as intended, a search for Lego)

    • MadAsASnake

      There are plenty of Lego-compatible bricks on the market. In fact, creating your own bricks would be the ultimate Lego toy… wow

      • Liam Jh

        Yeah – Lego went to war in the 80′s over copyright shit about Duplo bricks (I think I remember). They lost that one and suddenly a load of companies caught on to the idea, and started producing compatible bricks.

        • MadAsASnake

          Pretty difficult to claim IP on a brick, but then Apple tried that with a rectangle…

  • Andrew me

    This proves beyond any doubt that copyright laws need to be changed, seriously i am disturbed that there was even any doubt that this was allowed, Lego need to understand that if someone buys their product they can use it as they like, even if it is to create a business and use lego to describe it. On a side note could they not just claim it is not lego they are using but one of the other manufacturers of lego bricks. This would force lego to back down but would not resolve the underlying problem with LEGO, but i think that is for others to resolve and not a small entity.

    • http://geekhideout.net/ The G33K

      This is not about copyright, it’s about LEGO thinking they have some right to how there product is used after sale. They don’t

      In fact the copyright of the film resides with the actual cinematographer not LEGO. As for the trademark claim, it’s bullshit with no basis in law.

  • SoundnuoS

    Zera already pointed it out, but I’d be curious to see where this falls with those pirates who feel that copyright is ok if it’s limited to a creator having say over what contexts his/her product is used in?

    • MadAsASnake

      The creator looses that contextual right the moment he puts his material in the public domain. Anyone is free to rework, critique, extend and so on. It may appear in forums you don’t approve of (the living rooms of paedophiles for instance). If an artist wishes to maintain that “contextual integrity”, then the artist must produce that context – ie galleries, concerts and so on.

      The key point about Lego blocks, the reason people buy them is they are free to construct whatever they want from them. This is an extension and interpretaion of the Lego Blocks, not an unauthorised copy of them.

      Carry on down this road, and we’ll be unable to walk down the road or fear of infringing someone elses “expression”…. basically, get a life.

      • Guest

        “The creator looses that contextual right the moment he puts his material in the public domain”.

        You’re a lawyer?

        http://losenotloose.com/

        • MadAsASnake

          No. It is common sense. Sell a CD, and you have almost no ability to control the context in which it is played, or who plays it. Anything else is utterly absurd. The usual exception is commercial gain, but we are not talking about that here.

      • SoundnuoS

        If this was pure art I’d agree that it’s silly, but this is clearly in the context of a political campaign, and for a cause Lego don’t seem to want to support.
        This is something many on this forum, especially the political pirates, have stated is an acceptable use of copyright.

        • MadAsASnake

          Who?

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          Nope, can’t find an exact quote. It’s possible I’m interpreting the statements that creators should have the right to financial compensation if their work appears in a commercial context to mean that.
          Are you in fact of the opinion that no one should have any say as to what political context their products appear in? Does this mean only products like Lego or also songs, movies and books?

        • MadAsASnake

          @SoundnouS

          Not “many”, then, how about one. Just one.

        • MadAsASnake

          @SoundnouS

          My question isn’t facetious. I read TF a lot and have never heard this idea expressed. Politics is by it’s nature a public domain punch up here everything goes. That’s it’s point. From that we work out the workable ideas. Public life is public domain. Obviously.

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          Despite the fact that it can be (and is likely to be) interpreted as support to the cause from whoever made the product?

        • MadAsASnake

          @SoundnouS

          LEGO have made a bazillion blocks. DO you think these two represent the opinions of LEGO? Do you think any significant percentage of the population would think this is an endorsement by LEGO? Do you think this is an endorsement by LEGO?

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          No, I don’t, but Lego clearly wish to make sure no one thinks so. Personally I’m more interested in what the opinion would be on using someone’s song in a campaign video? Isn’t that like a commercial?

        • MadAsASnake

          … right, and others would find that evaluation difficult? This is LEGO blocks, not music.

          Now if something can reasonably be construed as supporting a position, then you have a point as that would be misrepresentation. As long as such misrepresentation does not occur, I see no problem. If you wish wish to claim that here, then I ask why… you don’t believe it, why do you think others would? It’s LEGO for gods sake, you are supposed to be able to make anything with it.

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          Just because I don’t think so doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t draw that mistaken conclusion.
          When I look at the video the only thing that comes to mind is Lego. It’s probably that way for a lot of people.

          Lego apparently feels that way too, since they are doing what they are doing. Their reasoning must be that their trademark risks being tarnished if they are associated with a cause they don’t support.
          And since´trademark is definitely one of the few things about IP supported by the pirate party :

          http://falkvinge.net/2012/10/13/what-the-swedish-pirate-party-wants-with-patents-trademarks-and-copyright/

          shouldn’t they have the right to protect it?

          And isn’t a campaign video quite like a commercial?

        • MadAsASnake

          Would you show me a single frame of that video that contains Lego’s trademark please

        • MadAsASnake

          Hint: It’s a black bordered red square with the word LEGO prominent in white with a black/yellow border in a soft italic font.

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          Apparently the minifigures themselves are trademarked.

        • MadAsASnake

          Nope. ECJ says they are not (and explicitly to LEGO as it happens). The functional shape of a product is not (usually) a trademark. Is the shape of a Ford Focus a trademark? Nope. The shape of a big mac? nope. A Boeing 747? Nope. Ford has a blue oval with white italic script, MacDonald has it’s “golden arches”, and so on The fact that something is recognisable by it’s shape does not make that shape a trademark.

          The attempt to claim trademark infringement where trademark is not evident is pretty disingenuous. Lego’s trademark is well known and nowhere to be seen.

          BTW, I noticed that these characters are digital, and not in the proportions of Lego’s characters – especially the hands…

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          If I read it right it’s just the small red lego brick that they previously had trademarked that was ruled against.

          According to the small grey text at the very bottom of this page, that also describes Legos general attitude to piracy, they still claim trademark and/or copyright on other things, among them the minifigure:
          http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/legal-notice/fair-play/

          If that’s correct then Lego’s case will probably be something along the line of them being very anti-pirate and now their trademark (or copyright, or both) has been used in a pro-piracy context. (They’ll probably think of loads more, but that will probably be mentioned)

        • MadAsASnake

          @SoundnouS

          Lego are welcome to their own view. The ECJ ruling was explicit on an isometric view of a red 8 stud brick. It was a functional description of the product, not a trademark. LEGO will lose any further cases on that point, whatever they say on their website. OR do you think that any recognisable product should have trademark protection? By all means, show me an example of Lego promotional material where the said figure is used as the trademark. Again, just one will do.

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          Every box Lego makes seems to have those little guys on it. Shapes of goods are trademarkeable if they’re distinct enough (Coke-bottle, Toblerone bar)
          This figure is pretty iconic so it’s a good chance they have some sort of trademark on it.

          The ruling against Lego was for the square blocks based on the fact that it’s a general design element. The mini-figures aren’t that general and a quick googling shows no sign of anyone successfully challenging Lego’s trademark there.

          If they do in fact have trademark on it, isn’t this a fairly clear case of trademark defense, especially as they appear in a commercial for a party whose ideas Lego clearly don’t support?

        • MadAsASnake

          @SoundnouS

          Stretching a bit? Box packaging might meet the requirements of copyright (it can be considered “art”, but a box design is not a Trademark.

          The trademark identifies the product as being from a particular manufacturer. These toys are the product, not the trademark.

          With Coke, the bottle is packaging, not the product, same with the chocolate bar…

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          Not stretching it. From wikipedia:

          “Trademark”, however, also includes any device, brand, label, name, signature, word, letter, numerical, shape of goods, packaging, colour or combination of colours, smell, sound, movement or any combination thereof which is capable of distinguishing goods and services of one business from those of others.

          Lego is very likely to have trademarked the figures. (And copyrighted animated use of them based on the prior existance of animated Lego films)

        • MadAsASnake

          @SoundnouS

          You cannot copyright the ability to make a work, or the ability to animate something.

          Its extension arguments like these that need to be firmly and thoroughly rejected by our society. What PP has one violates neither Lego trademark, nor copyright.

          Unfortunately, extending legal concepts is one that the media industry is no stranger to: sharing by Bittorrent does not make you a “distributor”, Megaupload was taken down by conflating civil tort with criminal (frogetting that they can’t even find the civil tort..), and so on. This is so far from the intent of trademark it’s a joke.

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          No, but you can copyright the characters in an animation (like Mickey Mouse) which is probably what Lego has done with the minifigures.
          In that case the PP has used someone elses work in a commercial which is one thing the PP was supposed to be against.

          And as it’s possible to trademark shapes of products, then Lego has probably done that with the minifigures as well.
          If so, then Lego’s case will probably be about dilution, that the image they’re trying to uphold as a law-abiding, anti-piracy toymaker will get “tarnished” through association with the PP, since they are pro-piracy.
          And since trademarks are ok, according to the PP, then it stands to reason that they should be defendable as well.

          Or are you saying that the PP doesn’t read up on trademark law before making their statements and just make it up as they go along? Or that everyone else should follow the guidelines laid out by the PP except the PP themselves?

        • MadAsASnake

          @SoundnouS

          Good luck getting a judge to agree with you.

          You have already made your opinion known on this – you believe that a “creator” maintains infinite rights over any expression of “work”, even after having placed it in the public domain.

          If we all follow your copyright maximalist ideas then it would be quite literally impossible to release anything that was vaguely similar to anything that e=wen before.

          There is no trademark issue here. That is a silly argument. There is no copyright issue. There may be a trivial claim on characterisation, I think you would have to the actual LEGO characters, not a generic one. Unlikely, they look made up by PP themselves.

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          Well, it’s Lego’s or the PP’s business to get judges to agree with them, Since the injunction was granted in the first place, the judge at the time must have thought there was something of a case.

          Me, I’m just trying to determine how consistent the PP are in their opinions.
          Seems a bit shaky to me. That, or then it just shows that they haven’t really thought things through in their statements.

          I’m all for the right to not have their work exploited against their will, yes. As in commercials for political parties and such.

          Anyway, Lego seems pretty tolerant of fan art in general. It’s in this particular case, when it’s being used in a campaign for a party whose opinions they don’t share, that they react.

          >then it would be quite literally impossible to release anything that was vaguely similar to anything that e=wen before.

          If the sole purpose of copyright is to encourge new art then that should be a good thing. How does it “promote” the arts to just reuse the same characters all the time? (No, I know what you mean, collages, parody, etc. That’s fair use. This however is a commercial and shouldn’t be considered that, even according to the PP themselves)

          Your point isn’t really relevant anyway, because despite the existance of copyright we get music, films, books and even toys that are vaguely similar to what’s been done before.
          Ideas aren’t copyrightable, just their specific implementations. (In this case a little toy figure is the idea, how it looks is copyrighted and trademarked by Lego)

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “This is something many on this forum, especially the political pirates, have stated is an acceptable use of copyright.”

          I’d like to read THAT part of our political platform.

          “It’s possible I’m interpreting the statements that creators should have the right to financial compensation if their work appears in a commercial context to mean that.”

          That would be it.

          Political campaigns are in essence the ultimate outcome of free speech. And we politically active pirates would be rather daft if we insisted that wearing Levi’s jeans while making a political statement could be grounds for pulling that video.

          What little remained of Youtube might then be rather interesting to watch since no one would dare wear clothes on camera while expressing an opinion.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          In this case it’s likely that the figures themselves are the trademark.
          This is slightly more complicated since this is a campaign video, a commercial for the pirate party.
          It’s not quite the same as showing a debate where someone happens to wear a pair of Levis. Which by the way might cause the same reaction from Levis if most of the camera time was dedicated to the Levis logo on the pants. (Again depending on if they thought it was good pr or bad of course)

          But you’re saying that a campaign commercial is ok because it’s political and therefore different from other commercials and compensation to the copyright holder is therefore not needed?

          What about the issue of trademark dilution?

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Trademark dilution is so much bullshit in this instance, nobody is going to confuse the Pirate Party with Lego. They aren’t selling lego or anything similar. Now if they were mass producing plastic hobby bricks using this ad to sell sets they had made, that would be a case for trademark infringement. Trademark protection is only necessary to protect against fraud. that’s it.

          As far as it being okay, it’s not for profit. No compensation is needed or warranted. In addition, a very strong case can be made for fair use. In fact, artistic works are pretty much the purpose behind fair use.

        • SoundnuoS

          If this case becomes about trademark dilution, then it will be about “tarnishment”. That Lego’s trademark is harmed by becoming associated with a cause they are actively against.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          I guess that would depend on whether the Czech Republik allows for tarnishment under dilution protection laws. Many countries don’t. I’ve done a rudimentary search and cannot find anything about the Czechs apart from some mentions about patents. Suffice to say that is by no means a slam dunk argument.

        • SoundnuoS

          Yepyep, Im really just speculating here. (And pointing out what I feel is some slight inconsistency in the Pirate Party’s position on things)

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Alright, I’ll bite: what’s the inconsistency?

        • SoundnuoS

          The things I’ve been asking about in my posts. The PP are usually saying that commercial use should be compensated. Imo this is moving very close to copyrighted material being used in a commercial without compensation. That it’s a commercial for a political party isn’t really an excuse.
          And since the PP claim to be ok with trademarks, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to them that shapes of goods can be trademarked and that Lego would defend theirs.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          I think you’re (possibly deliberately) obfuscating the definition of “commercial”

          http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commercial

          Noun

          commercial (plural commercials)

          An advertisement in a common media format, usually radio or television.

          – This is pertaining to the Pirate Party’s advertisement utilizing lego figures. While it is a “commercial” (advertisement), it is not “commercial in nature:

          Adjective

          commercial (comparative more commercial, superlative most commercial)

          Of or pertaining to commerce.  [quotations ▼]

          The Pirate Party commercial you are referring to is not presented as “for profit”, in that they are not trying to sell you anything. It is a non-commercial commercial. This is one of the prongs of the four-pronged fair use doctrine, and I think you would find that this advertisement would fall very easily within the other 3 prongs as well.

          As far as trademarks go, the PP indeed support trademarks, because their use is specifically to protect a consumer from fraud, from buying a product with the same name that isn’t the same product. To use SDM’s analogy, a consumer buying “evian” bottled water expects to be drinking “mineral water coming from several sources near Évian-les-Bains, on the south shore of Lake Geneva.”

          What the consumer does not expect is to be drinking tapwater that has been bottled by Bob Evian, who is piggybacking off the name to sell his product. This is the purpose of trademarks.

          However, as previously illustrated to you, the PP are not infringing a trademark by using Lego’s products. They bought the product and made a video utilizing them. As they are not selling plastic bricks for hobby building, they are not in danger of infringing on Lego’s trademark. No consumer is going to see the product and buy the Pirate Party’s “Lego Pirate Kit”, thinking they were buying official Lego merchandise, because no such product exists.

          there is no conflict of interest, whatsoever.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Gene Poole

          The arguments for fair use would be stronger if the clip wouldn’t be built entirely around the figures.

          For trademarks the PP should have been aware that dilution isn’t necessarily just about a competing product using someone elses trademark.
          In this case imo it becomes stronger through Lego’s stated anti-piracy position.

          Anyway, as I said I’m just speculating. Lego thinks they have a case, but I’m fine with letting the czech court decide.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          Hey, listen, let me ask you something…separate from this pirate party schleck that I don’t really care about anyway.

          You’re at least somewhat in the court of copyright maximalisation, at the very least you support the existence and use of copyright.

          Now, given previous conversations with you I’m led to believe that you’re a musician yourself. Question: do you have a blog that you sell your music privately out of? and can one see the link?

          I can see an artist disagreeing with piracy if they feel that they’re getting ripped off as a result, but I can not see an artist actively pushing for copyright unless they personally stand to profit from it, it doesn’t stand to reason. So, do you have a place that one can see your music and possibly purchase it? I’m more than happy to take a chance on your product, and always on the lookout for new music. Despite what some seem to want to believe, pirates are perfectly willing to put their money where their mouth is.

          Consider it an olive branch.

        • SoundnuoS

          Thanks, but I’m almost 100% doing teaching atm. I’ll hopefully get something out there at some point, but nothing at the moment.
          You could say I’m writing to protect the market for my future work :)
          Mostly it’s out of some sense of loyalty with current and future musicians. Copyright really is needed in order for musicians to make money from the music they put out.
          I’m not saying no fair use ever, but the protection it gives is the only thing there is.

          I’m also thinking about what this will do one or two generations out. You say pirates are willing to pay for what they appreciate, and I’m sure this is true for many. I’m also sure that equally many are going “cool, free stuff!”
          You already hear a lot of people saying records should be considered some kind of promotion. Imo it’s a slightly absurd idea. There’s no other line of work where it’s suggested that people should put out their main product for free in order to be able to do some other work. (It has worked for some people doing software, but that really is a different set of conditions and possibilities)

          My concern is that if piracy becomes even more mainstream this will within a generation be the default attitude. No one will even think of a record as something that should cost money.
          That will mean future musicians would lose one important source of income making their job even harder.

          I’m also concerned purely as a fan of pop culture. I feel the reluctance to pay for entertainment will lead to less profitable (read: no mass appeal) products being unable to find support.
          This will lead to less diversity and choice for people looking for options and I think we’re already seeing some of this happening.

          Thanks for the olive branch.

        • MadAsASnake

          @Scary

          SoundnouS has made quite a few assertions as to the opinions of TF posters and PP members, but has incredible difficulty backing any of them up. He is quite clearly wilfully misrepresenting both groups. For someone asserting the rights of trademark (identity), this is just not on. The other thing I am finding is the random selectiveness of things he declares are OK, and things not. Clearly, he has the engrained maximalist attitude of anon and bobmail, but is much better at articulation. I happen to support trademark – it is much more important than copyright. There is no trademark in the video. Not even the name.

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          >SoundnouS has made quite a few assertions as to the opinions of TF posters and PP members, but has incredible difficulty backing any of them up.

          This we discussed, and I withdraw all claims as to any forum member ever having said that anyone should ever have a right to say what context their work appears in what so ever. It’s likely to be a misinterpretation on my part.

          The claim that the Pirate party finds trademarks acceptable comes directly from Falkvinge’s page and I won’t withdraw that.

          I am not in this thread declaring things ok or not. Lego however clearly think they have a case and so does the judge granting the first injunction.
          Since this case involves trademark and copyright, and everything I can find on the net indicates that the mini figures are in fact a trademark in themselves, I’m wondering where this leaves the pirate party.

          If the mini figures are a trademark shouldn’t Lego be allowed to defend that trademark, since trademarks are acceptable according to the PP?

          And if the mini figures are copyrighted for use in animated films, shouldn’t the pirate party have compensated or at least asked consent from the rights holders for use in what is essentially a commercial? Another thing I believe the PP thinks is acceptable use of copyright.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “And if the mini figures are copyrighted for use in animated films, shouldn’t the pirate party have compensated or at least asked consent from the rights holders for use in what is essentially a commercial?”

          Assuming the figures were indeed intended to be LEGO instead of parodied knockoffs, then yes.

          As the commercial aspect of a political statement is 0, the copyright holder would be entitled to a percentage of that number. This is the core and gist of what “not-for-profit” means.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Ok, so according to the pirate party political commercials are excempt from asking consent and paying compensation, but “real” commercials should pay.

          So how about the trademark dilution?

      • Guest

        Having “almost no ability” to prevent infringement is not the same as losing a contextual (or any other) right.

        • MadAsASnake

          When it comes to law, there is a simple principle that is often disregarded in this area – laws should only be struck if they can be enforced.

          As to rights, what rights does anyone lose? If you want to keep that “artistic context” you can. Don’t put it in the public domain. The public domain is of its very nature not subject to strict contextualisation.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Doctrine of first sale?

      If you buy a physical product the manufacturer and the vendor neither can nor will accept any responsibility for how you use it.

      And neither do they get any say in how they are used.

      Now if the nazi party wants to use a jingle you wrote, fine. If they try to imply that you wrote it for them or for their use it’s not.

      But it’s a non-issue to begin with, SoundnuoS. If the nazi party were to usea jingle you wrote and someone asks all you do is tell them “Just so you know, I loathe everything they stand for – possibly except for their taste in music”.

      In the end that generates more positive exposure for the artist and more bad exposure for the people trying to ride coat tails.

  • David

    I will think it twice before buying anything else from Lego and depending on how this ends I could end not buying anything from them. Do film makers get permission from each company of each product that can appear on motion picture just in case they don’t like how the product is shown? Really?

    • MadAsASnake

      The mind boggles at the expense, stupidity and sheer impossibility of this mindset. The “permissions” necessary would gaurantee nothing was ever released.

    • Guest

      Yes, they do actually. It’s called “product placement”.

      • MadAsASnake

        Product placement is something a little different. It is a commercial agreement in which a media operator agrees to place product in a work as a form of promotion. Lack of a product placement scheme does not prevent you from showing stuff. Otherwise, we’d need to remove all motorway scenes from the movies.

        • Guest

          Are motorways a “brand”? No.

          Lack of a product placement scheme may not prevent you from showing stuff but it can leave you open to litigation if the rights holder feels so inclined.

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/filmblog/2012/nov/06/product-placement-film-cases

        • MadAsASnake

          No, but Ford could object to a Movie simply because one of their cars appeared in a motorway scene.

        • Iam Ralph

          @guest reply (can’t reply directly for whatever reason)

          no not motorways, the cars on the motorways not to mention stores etc

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @Guest

          “Lack of a product placement scheme may not prevent you from showing stuff but it can leave you open to litigation if the rights holder feels so inclined.”

          In that case anyone who feels compelled to put up a Youtube video showing anything other than their own, naked selves in a nondescript room devoid of anything which could be construed as a “trademark”.

          You may just have invented the most roundabout justification for pornography which ever existed.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          What he is arguing is for nothing less than the very reason we have such chilling effects. Doesn’t matter whether there’s fair use allowable or not, what matters is if you have the money or legal knowledge necessary to defend yourself against litigation by someone who might disagree with your stance. We need more Anti-SLAPP laws in this world.

    • MadAsASnake

      Most of the target market are too young to understand… When you are 7 and a bit geeky, Lego is cool…

  • Guest

    This article should be the ultimate answer to MAFIAA trolls that say “HERP DERP COPYRIGHT DOESN’T AFFECT FREEDOM OF SPEECH”.

    Well, here we have a corporation that wants to use copyright(and trademark) law to censor art. What do you say about that, anon/nejtillpirater/bobfail? Silence?

    • SoundnuoS

      It’s actually a corporation using copyright (and trademark) law to restrict the context in which their product appears. In this case a political campaign.
      This is something a lot of people on this forum have said is an acceptable use of copyright.

      • MadAsASnake

        Who?

      • Guest

        “It’s actually a corporation using copyright (and trademark) law to restrict the context in which their product appears”

        It’s the censorship of art and free speech. You’re making a pathetic attempt to rephrase it so it sounds better.

        “This is something a lot of people on this forum have said is an acceptable use of copyright.”

        That’s a straight-up lie. Not even the trolls here say that censorship is an acceptable use of copyright.

        • SoundnuoS

          I notice you left out the bit about this being a political campaign video to make your response sound better. Context does matter.

        • Guest

          Okay, so it’s the censorship of art and speech as well as political censorship.

          Is that good enough for you?

        • SoundnuoS

          @Guest

          Just pointing out that a party that says trademark is one of the few acceptable things within IP shouldn’t get all worked up if someone tries to defend that trademark.
          Especially as the trademark holder’s views are completely opposite to that of the party in question.

          And wouldn’t stopping the owners of Lego from expressing their views be political censorship? But I guess everything is ok as long as it’s the pirate party doing it.

        • MadAsASnake

          @SoundnouS

          The Lego Trademark is a red square with Lego written in white with a border.

          Attempting to extend trademark to cover the entire product is an abuse of the trademark concept. And it does not work.

        • SoundnuoS

          @MadAsASnake

          Reply to the nature of trademark made in my other post.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Just pointing out that a party that says trademark is one of the few acceptable things within IP shouldn’t get all worked up if someone tries to defend that trademark.”

          We certainly should when someone gets confused as to what a “trademark” is.

          A trademark is something you use to identify you or your product. The reason the pirate party is holding it as the one valid part of IP is simple – because it identifies is used as the NAME of your brand. And who stands behind it.

          When a trademark is abused commercially the case is clear – you are actually lying about who you are and where the product comes from. The sale in itself, falls under the direct definition of fraud.

          The use of a trademark or “brand” is what allows Evian to sell bottled water. People want to give Evian their money. And get pissed as hell if it turns out the bottle of “Evian” they bought was actually tap water of the same quality bottled by someone other than the Evian corporation. It doesn’t matter that product A and B are identical because at the end that gets decided by the consumer’s view on status when that consumer spends his money.

          Should a trademark be shown in a political sense then no harm, no foul. Which is why you can show a picture of any politician with an iPhone without Apple immediately screaming about it.

          And the pirate party is very clear about this.

          Riding someone’s coat tails is usually very hard to do in this way – because the backlash of publicly trying to use someone elses trademark to prop up your politics will do you more harm than good.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          See the definition of trademark in the thread below. Shapes of goods are trademarkeable.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @SoundnuoS

          “See the definition of trademark in the thread below. Shapes of goods are trademarkeable.”

          And has to be VERY strictly defined. In an earlier reply I made the suggestion that if this is the case, then no youtube-video expressing the political opinion – or any opinion at all – of the maker of the video can be conducted in anything other than a featureless room with his or her own naked self in it.

          Because even a pair of jeans is so generic that the similarities between a pair of levi’s and any other pair of jeans are often so close as to be completely indistinguishable. Same goes for sweaters, shoes and underwear.

          By extension no politician running a campaign would be able to run a video clothed, if the makers of his clothes objected to his message.

          Now the ramifications of that are the most roundabout justification of pornography I have ever heard of. It is, however, the unavoidable conclusion of your argument. Try again.

          And this is what makes a depiction of the actual trademark itself in the form of a logo a “must-have” if even trademark should pass.

          Indeed, a trademark must be limited to a definite unique, just as your name, in order to gain the merits needed to pass. There can be no ambiguity. And this has been the traditional past rulings of most courts as well.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          And that is why Lego lost trademark on the block. It was far to general. The mini figures on the other hand are fairly unique and iconic as their use in this video shows.
          Is the Pirate party going to challenge Lego’s right to trademark them?

      • MadAsASnake

        “Who?” has you flummoxed huh… like to withdraw your claim?

        • SoundnuoS

          Yep, as I can’t find an exact quote I withdraw the claim. The questions I made in the other post I’d still like to know the “official” viewpoint on. Not so much in regards to Lego, but when it comes to using someone’s songs in a campaign video for instance. Isn’t that like a commercial?

        • MadAsASnake

          @SoundnouS

          Fair play.

          The answer here is straightforward. Can the use be reasonably and generally construed as an endorsement?

          I would posit that in this day and age of commercial bombardment, that most people will listen to the message of the advertiser, and make few if any assumptions on the backing track, and a hefty grain of salt with the rest.

          Let me say this another way… if an advert used music by Bach, would you take that as an endorsement by Bach? If it was played by the Berlin Phil, would you take that as endorsement by the Berlin Phil?

          Often times, music is used because the sentiment of a piece is a good match, or a good play on words, for the concept being put across. Its a big stretch from that to “endorsement”. Should an artist have rights over that – in as much as it’s commercial exploitation of the work, yes, absolutely.

          Note, that LEGO blocks don’t fit that model at all. The Lego characters work beyond anything LEGO gave them.

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        “This is something a lot of people on this forum have said is an acceptable use of copyright.”

        I’ve been around a lot on these forums and I’ve never heard any known pro- pirate (or anyone inclined to discuss politics, irrespective of actual stance) pull such blistering nonsense.

        And that, obviously is because any political movement making a film or podcast of, say, a public protest would then have to cut away every trademark shown in the film. Imagine how much of a city you would legally be able to show? Of the average street? Of your own living room?

        • MadAsASnake

          We could ban company logos in public spaces. That would stop this rampant “violation”

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          @MadAsASnake

          Yes. According to SoundnuoS it would be considered a form of “entrapment” as a great many wannabe youtube filmmakers are committing trademark violation routinely, not knowing better.

          As I said earlier, youtube video makers would have to appear in nondescript rooms wearing nothing at all. That would no doubt make for “interesting” footage of the few clips remaining.

          However, the logical effect of what SoundnuoS is saying appears to escape him.

        • SoundnuoS

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          And as I’ve already pointed out, this is far from incidental use, the mini figures are the main characters here.

  • billxdoor

    I really don’t see what lego have done wrong here.
    If I was an artist and I created or made something and people were sharing it about for free and watching/listening/reading it, then that’s great! As long as it isn’t taking anything physical away from me then that’s a great way to share any medium.

    If however I made something and some political party I don’t support or even one I do support used my images or music without permission then I would be furious.

    Ask yourselves whos side you would be on if it was the other way round and some anti file sharing propaganda video funded by the MAFIAA used Radioheads music without permission and then Thom York decided to take legal action against them over it.

    • MadAsASnake

      It’s different. The Pirate Party ad does not simply repeat Lego blocks. It uses them and adds context, narrative , etc., all things that are largley missing in the ubiquitous Lego block.

    • Anyone

      it’s the same as if the manufacturer of paint claims copyright on a painting

      • MadAsASnake

        Or on a particular color, of course. I’ll copyright black. Oh, and white for good measure.

    • Your keyboard manufacturer

      Please remove that comment. We manufactured your keyboard and you didn’t get permission to use it to express that opinion.

      • No name necessary

        Exactly. Well said.

    • Whatever

      The MAFIAA should do that. Then they are again publicly exposed for being hypocritical again.

      And the Sarkozy Mafiaa party in France already did that. (The czech pirate party could always give the Lego company a symbolic euro).

      In the Netherlands a composers song was abused for an anti piracy campain on millions of DVDs in the world for which he did not give permission.

      In Canada they owe the artists billions.

      More than enough examples where the MAFIAA uses unauthorized music.

      The video was not made by Lego, only images of non-existing figurines were used. So if the MAFIAA were to make their own images based on Radioheads music (not using the music itself) and someone sued them then you might be right. However any musician is already directly involved in the issue and actually might harm their good name. Lego has no such connections to the Pirate party campaign and nobody would actually mistake Lego for supporting the Pirate party.

      Lego was meant to create things but there is obviously some unwritten condition that it is not allowed to create something not approved by Lego ?

      No Lego figures were harmed in the production of this comment.

      • MadAsASnake

        Maybe a stronger response would be:

        “Drop the complaint or the LEGO men are for it”

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      “Ask yourselves whos side you would be on if it was the other way round and some anti file sharing propaganda video funded by the MAFIAA used Radioheads music without permission…”

      Is that even a serious question? Let me describe the following…

      1) I write a humdinger of a hit, played on any station, topping every chart. Hollywood dedicates a boulevard to me and Reznor-style, I rake in the cash which keeps falling on my head.

      2) RIAA uses my music in an anti-pirate ad, everyone listens to the ad and the great music playing. Free advertising for me, sponsored by the RIAA.

      3) When asked and on my blog, I simply say “Although I do thank the RIAA for the free and unasked for publicity, it does not in any way alter my opinion – which is that the RIAA are a passel of bollocks with whose message I do NOT agree, as music should be free”.

      4) The RIAA self-destruct in a storm of withering scorn, to assorted pundits who state “And here we see the copyright supporters, so unable to shake out a piece of music all their own they had to resort to PIRATE music. Or were they just too cheap to buy a copyrighted song for the job?”

      See, that’s the difference between a pro-pirate and a copyright maximalist. You people believe in information control to the point where it physically hurts when someone plays music you composed where you can hear it.

      Pirates know that information is either kept secret – or released into the wild. There are no states between in the real world. We also know the biggest mistake a dumb-as-nuts fuck is to imply he was the one creating something magnificent while the real inventor still lives.

      • MadAsASnake

        Wasn’t their a case very close to that in Holland? Brien tried to carge a massive fee for collecting royalties off themselves…

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          There was indeed. the particulars escape me but I do know that copyright enforcement outfits have very odd practices when it comes to determining who should pay.

          The gist seems to be “Everyone. For everything. We just need to find a good argument to present to a judge”.

  • Liam Jh

    Well Seth Green and Robot Chicken would be seriously screwed.

  • Gildeddevil

    I’ve wonders if Lego have seen the Lego porn and Lego rave videos

    • MadAsASnake

      It is hardly unreasonable that a product that is designed to let the imagination run free be used to let the imagination run free. LEGO sell simple blocks, not an ideology.

    • Shilka

      TBH i dont think they care, as long as it’s not political…

      • MadAsASnake

        Everything is political

  • Ray186

    After all the bad press this receives, you just know that the lawyer who thought this up is going to regret it.

  • mustangx

    god forbid all the manufacturers whether it be an auto manufacturer a soft drink or snack food product all decide to follow suit with this theory and demand takedowns due to what they see as an unauthorized exhibition of their products in any video created they feel they don’t like. it’s pandora’s box in theory.

  • Silly-Lego

    Lego even sell Lego Pirate ships! The whole thing is a load of nonsense. Hope Lego get slapped down like they should.

  • jj

    OK. Does no one else find it ironic that Lego is complaining of copyright infringement when they weren’t even the first to create these building blocks? They got some of Kiddiecraft’s product and just copied it right down to the color of the bricks. Funny huh?

    • MadAsASnake

      Copyright is a law for the enfranchised, not the disenfranchised.

  • Anon

    Yawn.

    This will end the same way all pirate battles do: a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Watch as the pirates are forced to back down and accept LEGO’s terms in a few weeks. Lol.

    • MadAsASnake

      So are LEGO now going to include a set of “conditions for use” with each set of blocks. I used to love making model planes – especially FW190′s (I just love 3rd Reich tech – ideology sucks). Now LEGO may not like that… No, I can assure you that my models in no way represented LEGO’s persona, why would it? maybe LEGO would like everyone to submit schematics of every single model for approval?

      Anyway, you have clearly got bored with TF, why don’t you bugger off?

      • ScrewEwe2

        Speaking of Reich’s, I finally got around to watching Iron Sky last night, where the Moon Nazi’s try to go to war against the United States of the America’s. It was pretty funny. Maybe Bob could bugger Anon to break his boredom.

    • Christopher Kidwell

      I seriously doubt that they are going to back down this time. This is protected by SOOOO many laws worldwide that Lego is asking for a smackdown here.

    • Guest

      “This will end the same way all pirate battles do”

      With zero impact on piracy? =D

  • Campaign Slogan Generator 3.0

    LEGO, let go!

  • frozar
    • ScrewEwe2

      Dear Lego;

      Du
      du hast
      du hast mich
      du hast mich gefragt
      du hast mich gefragt, und ich hab nichts gesagt

  • oldbear

    MadAsASnake is clearly daft. Since when has common sense had anything to do with interpretations of law?

    Your comment “Sell a CD, and you have almost no ability to control the context in which it is played, or who plays it.” clearly demonstrates your lack of real world awareness.

    Dream on :)

    • MadAsASnake

      Since every time it goes in front of a reasonable judge? Principled, maybe, daft, no :) What I stated is plain fact. I buy a CD, there is nothing anyone can do to stop me playing it:
      - in my car
      - on a Sony DVD player
      - through a Samsung TV
      - In a bedroom
      - In front of a group of friends
      - in a beige colored room
      - with the sound turned down
      There are people on this forum that think they should control that “context”. Right. They don’t. More importantly, they can’t. Write all the silly laws you want.

      Yeah, I get the Irony. BTW, you could have responded to me… :)

  • chris_p_bacon(R.O.L.L)

    a nice lego dick up their arses, ribbed and attached to a giant lego man from the village people, in the navy, dah de dah de de dha

  • ScrewEwe2

    I don’t know diddly squat about Danish or Czech law, but I think in the United States of the America’s this w(c)ould be legal under fair use parody laws, but I’m not sure.

    Wiki article on fair use and parody:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody

    Factsheet on fair use of copyrighted works:
    http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

    ???

    • ItsTheSasquatch

      Corporations don’t care about fair use laws. Or any laws at all, for that matter–as far as they’re concerned, laws only apply to the poor. They know most people can’t afford to fight a bogus DMCA takedown, and they also know they have the finances to bankrupt anyone who tries by dragging out the court case.

      • Stranger

        So if the CPP starts using the Google corprate trade dresses as its political symbol, does that mean Google can’t defend themselves?

        • Anyone

          can you see any LEGO logo in the video?

        • Wally

          Take a good look at the pirate in the video…..look familiar??? Seems awfully close to a Lego figurine holding a Pirate Party flag to me.

    • Wally

      Lego’s trade dress was being used as a promotional scheme by the Czeck Pirate Party…normally I would support this but it is Lego…they are not copyright trolling and were only posturing in defense of their brand.

  • Truelies

    lego deez nuts!

  • Who

    YEP all this SHIT is just WAY out of control. dictatorship much?

  • marxmarv

    So they want to monetize a cultural rent without offering anything in return.

    The entitlement culture among corporations is unsettling.

  • MadAsASnake

    Seems ripe for a healthy serving of the Streisand effect…

  • ItsTheSasquatch

    It really shouldn’t surprise anyone that the people running the company are trash; it’s been increasingly reflected in their products for at least the last decade. Looking at my old sets from the late 80′s-early 90′s (intricate pirate ships and castles such) and comparing them to what they’re churning out now (movie tie-ins composed of significantly fewer and larger pieces, leaving little to no room for creativity) is depressing to say the least. Right in the childhood, etc.

    • Wally

      As far as I know, you’re allowed to do pretty much any damn thing you want with Legos. You can make videos, you can be as creative as you want…but under no circumstance is it remotely ethical to use any of their designs as a means of representing a political party’s trademark.

      Lego has every right to breathe down their necks. The picture of the chestburster is an example of the use of Lego products in fan fiction and Lego has ALWAYS supported that. What the Czeck Pirate Party has done is use a Lego product as a party trademark which is neither unique nor generic enough (the latter citing US Republican Elephant and US DNC Mule).

      • BuddhaFacePalmed

        Is like saying that IKEA have every right to pull down videos whenever a political party uses its furniture in its ad campaigns because it objects to that political party, or Syria pulling down videos of the government bombing its own citizens because it featured the Syrian flag in a undesirable political campaign to bring down a tyrannical government.

        Your logic is impaired. Please seek medical attention immediately

        • Wally

          But in the videos with IKEA furniture…the furniture does not symbolize the political party…the Czech Pirate Party used Lego’s trade dress as their symbol. There is a big difference.

        • BuddhaFacePalmed

          @Stranger

          “the Czech Pirate Party used Lego’s trade dress as their symbol.”

          Your statement confuses me. Fictional Lego toys in an ad campaign does not represent the ideology and political platform of the Piratpartei. Lego is merely the medium, not the message. If a political party said in an ad video that Lego hates fags, then yes Lego has cause to block and sue their asses.

          Now watch the video.

          Nowhere in that 1.03min video did the word LEGO or the logo LEGO popped up in the ad. Only children and big babies would feel insulted that ad had poor animators

  • billy bob

    I love LEGOs !

    That being said – this means that all of the back to the future – unofficial Star Wars mockups – space shuttles – statue of liberty – super mario brothers – and dozens and dozens of other examples ALL need the express written consent of LEGO Corp.

    This also means that any video or picture taken of any creative contraption by anyone using LEGOs would then also need the written consent of the Company.

    Good luck LEGO !

  • Wizzerking

    I agree we need to make sure that Lego, recognizes our right to use their product in any way see fit. Once we have purchased their Lego block they Cease to be their property.

  • http://twitter.com/CarlosBrigant ♚ Carlos Brigante ♚

    Taking copyright extremism to a new level.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Unfortunately there’s nothing “new” about copyright extremism.

      And this is why the existence of copyright enables an industry of gatekeepers who feel entitled to allow or disallow – in this case – even dissenting opinion.

  • JohnnyWhatsHisName

    I have to agree with ItsTheSasquatch

    LEGO isn’t what it used to be. Many of the parts are just fabbed shapes, not bricks, and lend themselves to many less building options..and are often just based on the latest movies or intricate stories created by LEGO, instead of the end-user (the kiddos)

    • Guest

      And the traditional(read, fun) Lego sets without all the prefabs they sell now are hard to find and expensive as FUCK.

      Yet they wonder why business isn’t as good anymore…

      Bastards. Me and the ghost of TENTE curse you.

  • http://twitter.com/TPBGirl2 TPBGirl™ Backup acct

    Dear Lego, please do a Google image search and type in “Lego Porn”. If you want to go after people using Legos in a way that insults you or your brand, THIS is where you need to start.

    Jus one example… http://femaleimagination.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/lego.jpg

    Not a harmless Pirate Party video that did not hurt anyone. If my child had found these lego porn pics, I would be suing your sorry asses for everything you have! Oh your laughing? Well so are we over your takedown notice of this innocent and RATED G video.

  • Seemone

    Run for the hills the company will collaps
    What sales still happening sell millions no end of the world.
    Wow gee only a corporate idiot sees it as it is

  • townie2

    tell them you didn’t make it with LEGO, you made it with blocks from a Chinese company.

  • Dlovin132

    You are not renting the use to the legos… you own them. You are free to do with them what you want. I am free to even go sell my used legos on ebay. I am free to make funny youtube videos with legos. (I have seen plenty of perverted lego videos on youtube).

    With them claiming their company is being damaged by using them in a pirate party video, thats like saying the maker of my clothes can sue me for being filmed doing something controversial.

    It’s silly…. This is just a bully tactic.

  • Ironic

    LEGO ITSELF STOLE THE IDEA. Lego block were invented by Kiddicraft. Lego stole the idea and STOLE THEIR COPYRIGHT. The whole Lego empire is built on copyright theft. For them to accuse others of it is incredible hypocrisy! Can someone tell TPB about this?

    http://www.cracked.com/article_20025_5-world-famous-products-that-are-shameless-rip-offs.html

    • Wally

      Ummm Lego was invented, and the company was started, by a Dutcman in 1949….it has always been a thing of Legos to have interconnecting building blocks.

      Kiddikraft was a US company who started in 1968. Kiddikraft is associated with children’s Harley Davison toys and Thomas The Tank Engine…They are also known for making doll houses and doll house accessories.

      It’s amazing what little research one has to due to find out the truth :-)

      • Ironic

        @Stranger, Lego was started in 1949 but they were building other toys before they ripped off Kiddicraft.

  • The_Strawbear

    Replace the pirate party in this story with another party/corporation that you don’t like and reread it and then see how you feel.

  • Asdf

    Here comes the fun police…….again.

    Tossers

  • quawonk

    Don’t you see? They’re not your Legos to do with as you see fit, they still belong to Lego and they decide what you can do with them. I never saw anything like that on the box, but it must be in the small print somewhere.

  • KrakOrJak

    I can see why LEGO would be upset by the concentration camp product–it’s a little over the top…

    but what I see in LEGO vs. Pirate Party is just the latest company to jump on the copyright bandwagon for some free media exposure, and maybe a few bucks to boot.

  • Thealien

    I make c4 explosive out of Play-doh, and bombs out of Dominoes pizza boxes, oops please don’t tell them…

  • LEGOLAS

    Next time use Minecraft.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.