***The Official OcUK Lego Thread***
- Thread starter Rameses
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,884
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Guess you are not done.
There were pages of the mismatched green bricks last week. People discuss it plenty.
If you like to talk about Toys of another brand other than Lego, Toys without licence, feel free to start a thread, call it “Alternative Chinese Bricks Toys Thread”
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 6,968
- Location
- Surrey
Any suggestions for a complex yet engaging kit I could buy my dad for his 70th next month??
He's an architect so would enjoy the whole construction process - he's taken apart some of my old Lego technic kits to pass on to younger relations and actually enjoyed it so thought it could be a funny ironic thing to buy him something for his 70th!!
He's an architect so would enjoy the whole construction process - he's taken apart some of my old Lego technic kits to pass on to younger relations and actually enjoyed it so thought it could be a funny ironic thing to buy him something for his 70th!!
What about something from the architecture range? https://www.lego.com/en-us/themes/architecture
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 7,607
I'm still waiting for the right moment to build my Cobi Yamato 
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 9,879
- Location
- London UK
The whole Lego vs. Alt brands is always going to be touchy subject and I can see both sides of the argument. Having certain companies sell the exact same set as newly released by Lego is of course frowned upon, on the flip side you have other brands selling kits of higher quality using their own designs (or licensed from well known MOCs) which make them a more appealing product than what Lego are offering.
Then there's the question of people at home building official Lego sets using pieces from older/other sets, should this also be frowned upon as they haven't paid the additional license/R&D fee to Lego?
Unlike a fake watch I'm not trying to make others believe I have something I haven't (or can't afford) therefore I'll continue to buy both.
Then there's the question of people at home building official Lego sets using pieces from older/other sets, should this also be frowned upon as they haven't paid the additional license/R&D fee to Lego?
Unlike a fake watch I'm not trying to make others believe I have something I haven't (or can't afford) therefore I'll continue to buy both.
This looks great!This just arrived today. I'm a big fan of Bruno Jensons designs and already have a couple of his MOCs that were "reproduced" by Mould King. Such solid designs.
This is his version of the Ferarri 488 Pista produced directly in conjunction with Cada. And it's a beauty.
Working remote controlled flappy paddles behind the steering wheel? Unreal.
The box is a work of art too. It's hard to photograph but it's a deeply embossed glossy image on there. Awesome stuff. Puts Lego to shame really.
Can't wait to get started on this. Bring on the rainy days!
Consider the Piano, that's a lovely looking model and is clever in its function and design
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,059
Lego fully support using lego to create lego ideas. A lot of new sets are from fans, they even get paid royalties if their design is chosen.
Recent examples of fan created ideas sets being the Pirates of Barracuda Bay, ISS and Treehouse.
https://ideas.lego.com/
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 9,879
- Location
- London UK
I don't mean building MOCs or something new for Ideas submission, I mean using existing parts to build a new retail set available.
You'd generally have to have massive amounts of bricks already to do that to any licensed set. In which case they're already likely to have profited nicely from you.
They even have instructions available on their website.
Nothing? Why would you think otherwise? They put all the instructions on the website, all the parts are numbered and indexed, and you can buy parts individually. If they didn't want you building whatever you like, none of that would be true.
People forget that outside of the fancy sets, Lego is literally a children's toy for building whatever they dream of.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 9,879
- Location
- London UK
That was the point I was trying to make, bricks made by other companies (i.e. Megabloc in the UK) can be used to replicate Lego branded sets by utilising instructions available online. Lego is not receiving any payment for the IP or their R&D for designing that set and this is seen as perfectly legal. Now when one of these Chinese companies are seen as providing the means to do this it's treated completely differently.
I think you are missing the point completely. There is a rather substantial difference in legal and morals terms between buying some lego or other brand bricks to build your own model against stealing someone’s design and brand IP and selling it as your own for a profit.
One is clearly illegal, the other clearly isn’t and the issue comes when you start to benefit from using someone else’s intellectual property. That is what tends to be frowned upon.
If another brand wants to design their own sets and sell them, that’s fine. But coping MOCs from independent designers or sets from another brand isn’t on and is the model many (but not all) of the Chinese brands adopt. Likewise is using someone else’s IP or likeness (e.g. similar to a licensed lego set) without their permission even if it is their own design.
One is clearly illegal, the other clearly isn’t and the issue comes when you start to benefit from using someone else’s intellectual property. That is what tends to be frowned upon.
If another brand wants to design their own sets and sell them, that’s fine. But coping MOCs from independent designers or sets from another brand isn’t on and is the model many (but not all) of the Chinese brands adopt. Likewise is using someone else’s IP or likeness (e.g. similar to a licensed lego set) without their permission even if it is their own design.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 9,879
- Location
- London UK
Not missing the point in the slightest and I even acknowledged that in my earlier posts, I was commenting now that its become more complicated with Lego no longer being the sole source of bricks and designs.
I'm afraid then I don't understand your question? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just answered your question and you agreed with me so I'm not sure where the discussion is going.
There are two facets:
1. LEGO is a product designed for people to be creative and build whatever they please, including LEGO licenced designs.
2. LEGO spends inordinate amounts of money to secure licences as a way of getting customers through their door. Remember how 15 years ago LEGO was on the brink of failure because, as you say, they're just building blocks. Without those licenced sets, people lost interest.
Number 1 is a relationship with a customer, they sell those blocks to the customer understanding they are going to do whatever they want and even provide some handy tools to replicate designs they paid their very talented designers to licence and create. You can bet they, likes any other company in the world, would start to get upset if those customers then started charging money and making a business out of it.
Number 2 is a relationship with their property, and they are obviously going to protect that from other companies seeking to exploit it. LEPIN were doing exact copies of sets and even using the same logo. Mould King is probably more complex and they might not be picking that fight, idk.
What would be nice is if we could get a moderator in here to just decide if we can keep this as a LEGO only thread or if it needs to accommodate Chinese crap and and then everyone can just shut the hell up about it. It gets tiring going through the same argument every month.