This week's top news articles
Posted by Huwbot,
These are the most read articles that we've posted over the last couple of weeks:
| Article | Date posted | Views | Likes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Images of 2016 Star Wars sets and minifigs | 07 Nov | 54904 | 49 |
| Ghostbusters: response by LEGO to project creator | 06 Nov | 26612 | 31 |
| 75827 Ghostbusters Firehouse Headquarters official images | 11 Nov | 23053 | 71 |
| 2016 images discovered on Italian shopping website | 07 Nov | 20520 | 47 |
| Review: 5003084 The Hulk | 03 Nov | 10099 | 26 |
| The Ultimate Guide to Collectable LEGO sets | 11 Nov | 8906 | 24 |
| LEGO 2015 holiday ornament revealed | 03 Nov | 8784 | 10 |
| Who can do what in Dimensions? | 09 Nov | 7896 | 21 |
| More animated families to join LEGO Dimensions? | 05 Nov | 7773 | 16 |
| Review: 40123 Thanksgiving Feast | 10 Nov | 7734 | 27 |
Images of next year's Star Wars sets took the Internet by storm last weekend: our most read article by some margin.
Rather than circulate a press release, LEGO chose to reveal more details of the the Ghostbusters Firehouse Headquarters via social media, which I guess is going to become the norm in future.
The 'controversy' surrounding the set and its relationship to the Ideas submission continues to rumble and in fact just yesterday Sergio posted more correspondence between him and LEGO following similarities spotted between the two models' internal layouts. I guess we'll never know whether LEGO was influenced by Ideas versions of the building or whether it was designed entirely independently. Of course being based on a real building you'd expect the exteriors to look much the same, but given the placement of the internal details is entirely fictional but similar in LEGO and Sergio's version you have to wonder...
3 likes
7 comments on this article
I still don't agree with Sergio's affirmations that he should be entitled to credit for the design. Even if Lego designers were influenced by his Ideas submission, that still doesn't mean they should be giving him credit. Countless designs and MOCs are posted on sites like Eurobricks and Ideas all the time, and if people happen to have similar designs to official Lego sets, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, LEGO own the copyright to their brand and anything they sell. I'm certain there's a clause in the Ideas submission area that states LEGO's rights to their property and clarifies their rights to set design, that Ideas submitters have to click to agree to before the submission is sent (the kind of licence agreement that's usually long and most people don't bother reading). Maybe an Ideas submitter here can verify this? It'd be there in place to cover LEGO legally to avoid situations like Sergio's claim.
I have a feeling this story will run and run. I do feel that Lego should have been up front with the guy from the start and disclosed that they were already designing a similar set. They could have first insisted on the signing a confidentiality agreement perhaps, or offered a future reward should he have proven capable of keeping quiet.
He sites as a similarity: "The big kitchen, pool table on the 3th and not 2th floor as in the movie". I don't think he's realised that what's known as the 3rd floor in America is actually the 2nd floor in Europe, due to Americans calling the ground floor the first floor.
Lego have stated that "Our LEGO designers planned and created the set solely by referencing the Ghostbusters film and through collaboration with the studio". I think most people would accept that (even if they may not agree) and move on with their life.
Unfortunately, he dosn't seem to be able to accept their explanation, and is starting to come across like a spoilt child, throwing his toys out of the pram. We've reached the point where his original concerns are now just coming across as him moaning. That's not a good look.
^ I tend to agree.
Anyone submitting Ideas projects based on IPs that LEGO has already acquired runs this risk, and I think it's true to say that such projects are wasting their time and will never be approved. At least, that's been the case so far.
This guy just sounds salty now. He wants credit for something that had no input from him. I don't understand his position at all. He says he's not suggesting that his ideas were copied but still wants a credit? That's a clear contradiction. He should just drop it now unless he wants to make himself look foolish.
^ He already has. ;)
I don't know...
If two isolated individuals were both told to build their personal rendition of a the firehouse without consulting one another or looking at any other model, I doubt they'd end up looking that close. I mean, I really doubt that both would have used the EXACT same techiques for so many parts of the building. There's way too many similiar techniques and structures and ideas employed that give it away that it cannot possibly be mere coincidence. If there was one or two, I could go for that. But it's exactly the same dimensions, the sidewalk is exactly the same dimensions, the brick techniques on the side of the windows are EXACTLY the same brick by brick, the lights on either side of the garage door are made by the same exact type of light piece, the yellow pieces next to the garage door are virtually the same, the ridge around the base, the slight jutting ridge around the top. However, considering this is an IP -- I believe that technically, he legally doesn't have a right to promote someone else's IP -- so, even if LEGO did copy his idea, the IP holder is above that -- and if LEGO purchased IP rights, then there's nothing he can really do about it, since LEGO owns the IP.