So grow up, shut up, and just build.

:-]

Also, this editorial reminds me of this post on twee affect:

http://tweeaffect.blogspot.com/2009/11/bawksy.html

except more straightforward and less sarcastic.

That doesn’t mean, however, that I feel I should be getting credit every single time somebody else does something similar. IMO somebody using an idea they picked up elsewhere without attributing it to whoever came up with it (if it is at all clear who did) isn’t a big deal, although it’s certainly a nice thing to give credit where credit is due, quite simply because it’s also a nice thing to get credit. Fortunately that does seem to be the norm.

What I don’t like is people explicitly claiming that something is their idea when it clearly isn’t (and you can tell at times) or building an outright copy of somebody elses MOC. Dishonesty pisses me off, even if it isn’t technically illegal.

We can talk about the legality and copyright law, but it comes down to decency and honesty.

Which is not to harp on TBB (my favorite Lego Blog), because it’s a problem everywhere, and I’m just as guilty of sometimes recognizing and rating echnique over the complete MOC.

Interestingly this does bring up another issue which I think is part and parcel. Where does technique end and the MOC begin?

1. That is a nice technique Mike used to make the bars on his Fooglider. I haven’t seen it before and it deserves to be noticed.

2. That is a nice technique Mike used to make the bars on his Fooglider. It is his and he deserves credit for inventing it.

I see a lot of 1) on TBB. I cannot recall seeing 2) outside of random comments on Flickr.

There is no contradiction between regularly calling attention to a nice technique you haven’t seen before on the one hand, and decrying the need to attribute ownership of a given technique on the other.

If the IP owners are so inclined, I am fairly sure they could send a cease and desist (it certainly happens to fan fic writers). In order to really get an answer, we’d have to have a court case. However, most of these issues never get that far.

Anyway, I think there may be a gray area we’re ignoring in between the obvious plagiarism (bad) and simply becoming inspired by each other (good, and quite inevitable).

When building in someone else’s subtheme for instance, I think to do that subtheme justice you should aspire to a similar vision and quality (broadly speaking) of that theme as the subtheme creator. I remember Nick Dean’s RAMM theme became very popular for a while, and not all the people building in it were really seriously trying to follow the building style or the idea behind it. There were some younger builders who just weren’t using the right colors – they weren’t even making a serious attempt to build in Nick’s style. And a few of the veteran builders decided it would be fun to poke fun at this in various ways (some more clever than others). Of course, a bit of good natured humor is one thing, but it went a little far as I recall.

Naturally it doesn’t come down to legal rights so much as simply doing the right thing. (And these things often get confused these days.)

If someone wants to build a RAMM MOC in red and yellow instead of in dark blay, or perhaps a RAMM MOC that basically mocks the whole RAMM phenonemon, there is nothing Nick can do to stop them. But that doesn’t mean that every last MOC like this should be encouraged either.

It’s a bit like when artists cover each others’ songs – you try to add something of your own without the disrespecting integrity of the original. We may not be artists, but we’re creators. Let’s see a little common sense and “good creativity”.

Were this not the case, pretty much every single Lego creation ever created of a subject from, say, The Matrix or Halo would be infringement. Moreover, the fact that all of these IP holders–particularly the more litigious ones like Microsoft and Lucasfilm–do not aggressively pursue infringement claims for MOCs weakens any case they might eventually decide to bring, and strongly suggests to me that they have no case and recognize the enormous PR blowback that would come from suing the kid who built the 3,972nd Lego Warthog on the net.

To this end, I’ll have to agree mostly with Starwars4J and others who share his sentiment, but also expand the idea. Consider how many times you (and by ‘you’ I mean everyone) leave a comment on a MOC about nice techniques. Consider how many MOCs get blogged here or elsewhere precisely because of the technique being used.

It would seem that on some subconscious (or maybe conscious) level, that inventing a technique is a rite of passage for FOL regardless of age; the doorway to fame in our little community, precisely because you get noticed for it. The result is a race to reinvent the wheel each and every time, which of course creates a sense of pride and then ownership.

Personally, I don’t like it when someone tries to take credit for technique, but I also don’t like it when someone is given credit for a technique. The street goes both ways my friends.

To your first question: A great number of famous paintings are in the public domain, so you’d be in the clear there. However, for work that is not in the public domain, a reproduction in LEGO might be a violation. On the other hand, U.S. copyright law allows for fair use under certain conditions. I don’t have an answer for this would affect a LEGO builder who wanted to make a mosaic of a current painting or a build a model of a copyrighted building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_(law)

I agree with many other commenters here. It’s nice to note specific builders who have influenced you, but not entirely necessary. The AFOL community cannot get mired in a who-did-what-first mentality. And as some others have pointed out, if you don’t want other people to learn from your MOCs, then don’t post your pics to the Internet. Personally, I’d be flattered to see the one technique I think I came up with (for window corbels) used in other MOCs. :D

As for picture copyright, wow, I wasn’t aware that kids were stealing pictures of MOCs and entering them in contests as their own work. That’s absolutely awful. Mind you, I’m accustomed to having my pictures lifted and posted elsewhere without proper credit. Usually I can track down the posters, explain that the images are mine, and they’ll apologize and add a link back to my flickr account. Unfortunately, there are still a few people out there who claim my images are their own, and who steadfastly refuse to either remove them or provide proper credit…

As for techniques, I think if you got the idea from someone’s picture or work, you should note that somewhere. That person might not have even come up with the ides, but you’re acknowledging that work as an influence.

For those disheartened with the community for this sort of thing, I can provide some hope. I was working on a corner that was difficult. Well, I’m a mosaic guy mostly, so I need all the help I can get. I posted a pic on Flickr of what I was trying to do, and had a lot of help and ideas suggested as to how to solve. That’s the community part!