FANDOM

 
32,909 Pages

  • Hello all. I recently learned that the Minecraft, Spongebob and Simpsons logos (the latter has been removed) are unofficial...they were made by putting the LEGO logo and that of the subject together in photoshop (or a program like it). Personally, I don't like this. Even if they look like what LEGO might do, it doesn't feel right to me to have an unofficial logo there. So do you, the community, think it should be alright or not?

      Loading editor
    • No. Wait until theres a press release or the site goes up.

        Loading editor
    • That's taking it a bit far, especially for big names like those. I personally don't agree with this either, sounds like LEGO should step in there and use their copyright laywers unless some action against this unofficial logo idea.

        Loading editor
    • If the logo is as close to the actual one on the site/catalogs/etc... and you're not allowed to, for some reason or another, get that logo, it makes sense to me.

      Otherwise (if the official logo has not yet been revealed/does not exist/can be used legally on this site) then I agree with Jeyo.

        Loading editor
    • Wikipedia uses self-made logos all the time, as long as they properly reflect the article in question. The Mixels logo I put together using Photoshop, stripping the background from another image and restoring borders and colour to the logo, thus under US Fair Use Copyright law, it's not the official copyrighted logo, and is an adaptation of the original work. Under US Fair Use Copyright law, the LEGO Simpsons logo is considered an official copyrighted work by both the LEGO Group and FOX Entertainment due to the usage of copyrighted official works. With the logos, they do not misrepresent, tarnish, or mislead the viewer when looking at the subject matter on the article. It properly identifies the article content when a viewer enters the page, catching the reader's attention and assuring them they have reached the page they are looking for, which is the entire point of an infobox on any wiki. Being the fact that the logo is, legally under copyright law, considered official, I think it would be rather pointless to remove them, as it would be removing good content from the article.

        Loading editor
    • We aren't Wikipedia, and I'd oppose it even if we were.

        Loading editor
    • Jeyo wrote: We aren't Wikipedia, and I'd oppose it even if we were.

      Okay, but we are a website under an organization hosted by a US company, thus US law still applies to this. As US law would identify these logos as official copyrighted works, they're acceptable on the wiki under Fair Use. Additionally, with the Minecraft Logo, it's identical to that of the logo used in official releases such as instructions by the LEGO Group sans a 30px difference between the LEGO and Minecraft logos at 11k px full-width, which at 200px width in an infobox is unnoticeable.

        Loading editor
    • ToaMeiko wrote:

      Jeyo wrote: We aren't Wikipedia, and I'd oppose it even if we were.

      Okay, but we are a website under an organization hosted by a US company, thus US law still applies to this. As US law would identify these logos as official copyrighted works, they're acceptable on the wiki under Fair Use. Additionally, with the Minecraft Logo, it's identical to that of the logo used in official releases such as instructions by the LEGO Group sans a 30px difference between the LEGO and Minecraft logos at 11k px full-width, which at 200px width in an infobox is unnoticeable.

      The individual logos may be recognized, but put together they make something different; unofficial. And it doesn't feel right to use unofficial logos, no matter how close they are to what LEGO might make.

        Loading editor
    • Jeyo wrote:

      ToaMeiko wrote:

      Jeyo wrote: We aren't Wikipedia, and I'd oppose it even if we were.

      Okay, but we are a website under an organization hosted by a US company, thus US law still applies to this. As US law would identify these logos as official copyrighted works, they're acceptable on the wiki under Fair Use. Additionally, with the Minecraft Logo, it's identical to that of the logo used in official releases such as instructions by the LEGO Group sans a 30px difference between the LEGO and Minecraft logos at 11k px full-width, which at 200px width in an infobox is unnoticeable.

      The individual logos may be recognized, but put together they make something different; unofficial. And it doesn't feel right to use unofficial logos, no matter how close they are to what LEGO might make.

      Okay, then how about you go find a PDF with the logos on it, take the official logos out of it, and upload the file that's an exact duplicate to the one that's already uploaded. Why remove something that positively contributes to the article? If it does end up being a drastic difference when LEGO releases it (which it won't, because they can't alter a work that has been copyrighted by another group and then publish it under their own Intellectual Property, thus being a violation of copyright law), then the file can be uploaded with a new version. The most that can legally change is if it's a recolourization or if they use a different logo that is copyrighted by the property holder (so in The Simpsons' case, FOX Entertainment), but I'd doubt they'd do that, since the logo I uploaded uses the current Simpsons logo. For now, leave the files in its place.

        Loading editor
    • I'd do that, had I not stopped editing this wiki. You;re welcome to, though; shouldn't be that difficult.

        Loading editor
    • Jeyo wrote: I'd do that, had I not stopped editing this wiki. You;re welcome to, though; shouldn't be that difficult.

      I'm not sure I understand. You "stopped editing this wiki", yet you are still an active administrator and have the ability to remove the image from the article, but can't re-add it to the article? I can add it back, it's just that what you said doesn't seem to make sense.

        Loading editor
    • Can't say I'm a fan of self-made logos either, to me it should either be from an official source (box art, official shop site, etc) or not at all.

        Loading editor
    • NovaFlare wrote: Can't say I'm a fan of self-made logos either, to me it should either be from an official source (box art, official shop site, etc) or not at all.

      There's a difference between self-made and produced in this case. I didn't make the logo, I added the complete logo from the LEGO group and The Simpsons to correctly identify the branding using the official copyrighted matter without tarnishing the brand or either copyright holder.

        Loading editor
    • ToaMeiko wrote:

      Jeyo wrote: I'd do that, had I not stopped editing this wiki. You;re welcome to, though; shouldn't be that difficult.

      I'm not sure I understand. You "stopped editing this wiki", yet you are still an active administrator and have the ability to remove the image from the article, but can't re-add it to the article? I can add it back, it's just that what you said doesn't seem to make sense.

      I'll rephrase: I prefer not to edit the Wikia Bricki, but still make the occasional necessary change when no one else has, participate in forums and am active in dealings with other users. For the most part, my will to make mainspace edits has been killed.

        Loading editor
    • ToaMeiko wrote:

      NovaFlare wrote: Can't say I'm a fan of self-made logos either, to me it should either be from an official source (box art, official shop site, etc) or not at all.

      There's a difference between self-made and produced in this case. I didn't make the logo, I added the complete logo from the LEGO group and The Simpsons to correctly identify the branding using the official copyrighted matter without tarnishing the brand or either copyright holder.

      Sorry, probably badly worded then :P But my point still stands- I just don't like it if it's not an actual logo that LEGO's using in an official capacity.

        Loading editor
    • I see no problem with just sticking a Simpsons logo into The Simpsons box if it has no logo, as otherwise it would just be empty. Obviously as soon as an official logo comes along it should be replaced.

        Loading editor
    • oke its good x3

        Loading editor
    • Per CJC. For the reasons that Meiko described, the "unofficial" ones are good enough for now, though we should replace them later if possible.

        Loading editor
    • Personally I prefer a well photoshopped version that could not be told apart from the original logos over the badly scanned/cropped (The Lone Ranger), horrible looking (Mickey Mouse & Friends), inconsistent (Galaxy Squad) or even wrong (Star Wars) versions that are in use quite regularly now.

        Loading editor
    • Minecraft has a self made logo by the company Majang. I don't see where you are going here.

        Loading editor
    • BlewJay wrote: Minecraft has a self made logo by the company Majang. I don't see where you are going here.

      I mean Mojang (I had misspelled it)

        Loading editor
    • BlewJay wrote: Minecraft has a self made logo by the company Majang. I don't see where you are going here.

      We're talking about the LEGO Minecraft Logo, not the Minecraft Logo itself.

        Loading editor
    • Hey guys! I have updated a lot of logos. Not all of them could simply replace the old ones, due to different file types. Therefore they also don't appear on the front page yet. Maybe someone with the proper authority could update that. Namely for Architecture, Creator, Jake and the Neverland Pirates, Mickey Mouse and Friends, Power Functions, and The Lone Ranger. Maybe while being at it said someone could also take a look at that http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:LEGO_Wiki#Icons. Oh and a question: why aren't there retired themes on the landing page? Cheers! :)

        Loading editor
    • I think it makes sense to use the LEGO logo with the other logo as a placeholder thumbnail, since it's basically LEGO's M.O. for theme logos. However I do feel that if possible we should use the official logos, just for the sake of looking professional.

        Loading editor
    • Another problem I see is that some DUPLO themes just have the LEGO logo to accompany them and not LEGO + DUPLO.
      FYI: DUPLO has a new logo and new as well as old logo are always in combination with the LEGO logo.

        Loading editor
    • RodimusPhil wrote: I think it makes sense to use the LEGO logo with the other logo as a placeholder thumbnail, since it's basically LEGO's M.O. for theme logos. However I do feel that if possible we should use the official logos, just for the sake of looking professional.

      It seems kind of sad, that looking professional is the only option and not actually being (or at least trying to be) professional. :)

        Loading editor
    • Hello there,

      I am doing some research about customer participation for my Master thesis. Some of you have already taken their time to complete the short questionnaire – thank you! I need roughly 40 additional participants. Would you be so kind as to fill in this survey about being a member of the Lego Cuusoo site? It only takes 4 minutes and you would do me a great favour!!!

      https://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_2hNBmjPUMS7NzuJ

      Thank you so much for your help!

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message