Facts or rumours?

I agree wholeheartedly with you!

Where do the rumours even come from?
LEGO Factories producing new mini figure parts or boxes etc.?
Other RLFM like Brickset who get sent sets before announcements to review?
Random fans on LEGO making up or 'predicting' to try and earn likes?

I really on three things to see if a set mixes in my LEGO WORLD: rumors, reveals and reviews.

Good decision. If you really want to see what the rumors are about, head on over to Instagram.

I like your style!

Really?!?!?! Well that was already known as you usually review a lot of freshly announced sets.

don't understand those rumors: They seem to appear as those as the source = sets of previous rumors are released.
At that time I would spend my time to enjoy (or not) those sets that I can buy, build and play with.
So please: what's the use of rumors other than dragging your attention from what is currently in front of your nose?

@Star_Wars_fan12 said:
"Interesting to see Lego clamping down on this"

They wont sadly.

Interesting TLG don't like AFOL sites speculating about future sets before official release, and then place teasers on their own website to generate such debate?

I finally understand why YouTubers are so insistent on discussing leaks. Before that I didn't see why it was so important — I only saw it as blatant disrespect towards LEGO, as a lot of such discourse ends up being non-constructive, regardless of who was engaging in it.

I still think it's far more productive to focus on facts and official information than speculation, but I get it now.

A debate about "Which is better: 'facts' or 'rumours'?" Seriously? We're not talking about something that matters - state secrets, personal and or confidential information and or anything falling under the auspices of the GDPA/Regs (2013, 2015) - we're talking about "Will every Lego Marvel set ever made, or rumoured to be made, have a Venom minifigure?" (Spoiler: it will). Or something equally asinine.

The only debate here is between websites and YouTube content providers, and it's about who is, or who is perceived to have, the ability to get pre-release information first, so they can monetise it. Rumours = views & clicks = ££££.

Two thoughts strike me: (1). This is what happens when a massive corporation informally delegates too much power to individuals on social media, giving advertising, brand awareness and tertiary marketing to loosely affiliated individuals on YouTube. What did Lego think would happen when they wanted to exert more control over the product they - TLG - license (and/or own), design, manufacture and distribute, but doing so would mean less £€$£€$ for the 'tubers? (2). One day in 1999, I walked into a toy store. I wasn't a Lego collector (had been as a kid: who wasn't?) but I saw a display of the first wonderful, beautiful, affordable sets of Star Wars Lego. Real Star Wars Lego!?!! I didn't know these were coming, but my mind was blown with delight and amazement. That wonderful feeling? Never, ever going to happen again. That makes me deeply sad.

As they say in french: « lu et approuvé »

@fulcrumbop said:
"I heard that LEGO is going public and the IPO starts April 1st."

stop

@graymattr said:
"I'm never interested in leaks or rumoured sets because it doesn't help me in any way. I'm not going to immediately repost a leak or rumour just to get Instagram likes and followers. And knowing about a set a week or month before it's announced or seen in catalogs isn't going to help me purchase that set since they don't go on sale until much later than being announced. "

I suppose it might help people decide whether its worth buying an older set or figure at a silly price if they know that there is a new version of it coming out soon

@Zander said:
"While I appreciate the trustworthiness of the facts in Brickset’s reporting, the relationship between Brickset and LEGO does worry me. In reviews and opinions, I value impartiality. But there is a suspicion that Brickset is too willing to concede to the Bullies of Billund. When something stinks (I’m looking at you, Vidiyo), I want Brickset to be able to say so with impunity, not be cowed by the possible repercussions.

Sorry if the above sounds harsh, but the RLFM has the feel of a giant corporate getting what giant corporates want most: predictability. "

Might get lost within the sea of comments and articles to come, but this is a really important comment.

Agree with Zander

This looks like journalistic dependency. I don't think you need to clamp onto rules of Lego. Or maybe you cant be a database and a newsbringer?

I also think you shouldnt accept legosets from Lego directly anymore. I prefer to pay monthly than not-objective reviews with ads.

Thanks for the update... Wish we could get all the rumor news here so I don't have to keep using other sites, but oh well I guess.

@Huw said:
"As the Capn' says, there are no repercussions, there never has been. We can say what we like, or not bother reviewing sets offered for review at all if we think they are rubbish and of no interest to our audience. I think the last time that was the case was Unikitty.

LEGO exerts no editorial control over us, or any RLFM for that matter.

Ultimately, we are LEGO fans and therefore generally like what the company produces. We wouldn't be running a website and writing about if we didn't.

If you want to read a site which is critical of almost everything I can point you in the right direction..."

I am not seeking negativity, I am seeking objectivity. I hope you accept my and others' statements as feedback. Like Zander, I am also worried for some time about the relationship between Brickset and LEGO.

Still thinking Brickset is doing a really good job.

So we now cannot talk about ___________ or the __________? Man I was really looking forward to info on those and the summer_____________. *sigh*

Everyone will still visit legoleaks first still xD

I’ve seen bits on the lego hashtag on Instagram, but I generally don’t pay attention to petty drama like this. Complaints simply sound like a bunch of whiny brats who only care about views(yes I understand they get money that way). If you’re professionally associated with LEGO, I imagine they don’t want certain content getting out...so clamping down on rumors is to be expected I would think.

Yes, rumors are fun & definitely get us all excited about what’s to come. But when it comes at the detriment of TLG...I’d be fine without them.

I can’t see it taking long before a ‘reputable’ site gets burned by this policy change. This being the internet I’m sure some will see it as a badge of honour to create a rumour that gets circulated and it won’t be them that cops the flack for it.

I entirely support Brickset’s position on this, and I would be disappointed if they did go chasing clicks this way.

@Huw said:
"As the Capn' says, there are no repercussions, there never has been. We can say what we like, or not bother reviewing sets offered for review at all if we think they are rubbish and of no interest to our audience. I think the last time that was the case was Unikitty.

LEGO exerts no editorial control over us, or any RLFM for that matter.

Ultimately, we are LEGO fans and therefore generally like what the company produces. We wouldn't be running a website and writing about if we didn't.

If you want to read a site which is critical of almost everything I can point you in the right direction..."

That wouldn’t happen to be TBB would it? Just kidding. I really appreciate how you’ve handled this. I’m constantly impressed with the wisdom that all of you here at Brickset show on a regular basis.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @Zander said:
"While I appreciate the trustworthiness of the facts in Brickset’s reporting, the relationship between Brickset and LEGO does worry me. In reviews and opinions, I value impartiality. But there is a suspicion that Brickset is too willing to concede to the Bullies of Billund. When something stinks (I’m looking at you, Vidiyo), I want Brickset to be able to say so with impunity, not be cowed by the possible repercussions.

Sorry if the above sounds harsh, but the RLFM has the feel of a giant corporate getting what giant corporates want most: predictability. "

There are no repercussions for negativity and we state negative opinions whenever we think they are deserved. Every review discusses the positive and negative attributes of the subject and we have published numerous reviews which are predominantly negative.

With regard to VIDIYO specifically, LEGO requested feedback from Fan Media following the VIDIYO announcement, summarising my reaction and that from Brickset readers. This was my response:

Firstly, for a LEGO product, VIDIYO really does not involve many LEGO bricks! The building component is extremely limited at the moment, more so than any other modern theme which is somewhat concerning. Hopefully there will be more construction-focused sets in the future.

The cost of the BeatBoxes has been widely criticised and deservedly so, in my opinion. These remind me of the Dimensions Fun Packs which were permanently half price because nobody was willing to purchase them at full price. Perhaps that is the intent.

The app moderation requires definite improvement. The intention was apparently to ensure that people, especially children, would not appear in clips shared on the VIDIYO app but users have already reported numerous instances of children appearing in clips.

The cardboard boxes for Bandmates have not gone down well, as LEGO presumably anticipated. Without a means of identifying minifigures from the packaging, numerous AFOLs have already stated they will stop purchasing Collectable Minifigures, or the Bandmates. This decision obviously relates to LEGO's initiative surrounding recyclable packaging and should not necessarily be reversed but I do think including something subtle on the packaging to identify minifigures would be beneficial to everyone. That was the case for the early series of Collectable Minifigures, after all.

Lastly, it concerns me that LEGO is not necessarily learning lessons from past themes. Hidden Side has just been cancelled following poor sales performance and the app was a significant factor in that because parents were actually deterred by the app involvement, according to feedback which LEGO received. Producing an entire theme which is almost completely dedicated to an app, with essentially no LEGO brick involvement after initially scanning the characters and BeatBits, therefore seems questionable.

I think the above comments represent honesty towards LEGO."

LEGO continues to try and develop app-crossover projects, and they all continue to fail. Perhaps LEGO consumers just want bricks? Wise people often say "know your core competency"

@ALEGOMan said:
"All rumours I've seen regarding star wars Lego sets have been mostly true like 90% especially when we see images."

Indeed! However, I’m still not over the fact that we didn’t get a Resistance Transport with a TLJ Leia minifigure. It had been rumoured in many sites back in 2018, along with Snoke’s Throne Room, but eventually it apparently didn’t turn out to be true. Perhaps one day? One can hope!

I like seeing leaks and photos. Makes the hobby fun and interesting to see what's coming down the pike.

Good call

@Huw said:
"or not bother reviewing sets offered for review at all if we think they are rubbish and of no interest to our audience. "

Well, I would rather prefer a scathing review if deserved than not doing a review.

But to get back to the topic, what is a good source for these rumours?

@HOBBES:
I've been to NYTF in 2002-2004, and even then when we had free reign to take photos in the showroom, there were always sets that would come out later in the year without being revealed in the showroom. Of particularly note were retail exclusives. NYTF was primarily geared towards marketing their product line to corporate buyers who would place massive orders for big store chains. If it's a Target exclusive, there's not much reason to dangle it in front of the Walmart and TRU reps, so they probably did private showings for the corporate types where they could show off any exclusives that might be up for grabs, or which were specifically being offered to that chain. I know that back then LEGO Direct was operating out of Manhattan, and The LEGO Company maintained a permanent showroom on Broadway (which is where they would display everything during NYTF before they moved over to the Javits Center with the main NYTF event). At any time of year, they could have corporate buyers fly in to check out new products, but NYTF was really the only time fan sites got access. So if something wasn't ready to display in February (and I've seen rapid prototypes of a Snowtrooper helmet, and painted Bionicle parts), the only warning you might get before it released is if they sent something out to the press.

@guachi:
LUGs, whether RLUGs or not, are basically working for the LEGO marketing department. My LUG normally does over 20 displays per year. Do you know how many kids and parents see our displays annually? I believe it's in the mid to high five figures, and a lot of those families go right out and buy LEGO product on the way home. All over the world there are LUGs and individual builders who generate a similar response whenever they do public displays. Most of these people probably aren't members of any RLUG, so whatever they say or do, The LEGO Company has zero control over the situation.

@fakespacesquid:
The benefit of allowing bad reviews to be posted is that it's the only way that you can prove that the good reviews are worth anything.

@guachi:
At any point, Brickset is free to exit the program, forego free review copies, and publish just about anything they please, and there won't be much that The LEGO Company can do to stop them.

@Cooliocdawg:
Maybe throw an "F" in with those letters and mix them around a bit. TBB is still interested in LEGO product and what you can do with it. Others have hit the point where they really should step down and find someone else to run the show, but doggedly press on in spite of having basically lost all interest in the brick.

@Rare_White_Ape:
I find reading multiple reviews of sets I have zero interest in buying is often helpful because I can get a better look at some of the pieces that way. Almost every set comes with at least one element that is new or has been out of production for a long time, so as a MOC builder, that's always valuable information. It might turn out that a $100 set comes with a single copy of a part that I've been waiting on for a project.

LOL "everything is fake news" hahahah

I like this RLFM. Can someone list them?

Brickset is more or less my lego catalogue. You know those booklets from the toy shop? You take them all the time to look at all those great sets you want, have or loath (but that have nice parts in it). But then a catalogue for all lego sets. Go figure, if that one existed a lot of us would have that book on their nightstand.

For rumours i go elsewere.

I hate rumors (not just LEGO, all kinds), so this post really made my day.

Way to go, Huw!

I totally agree with your decision, yet I can’t express how disappointed I am that you won’t be writing anything about the upcoming Fleetwood Mac line. I was relying on Brickset for my Second Hand News.

@PurpleDave said:
" @guachi :
At any point, Brickset is free to exit the program, forego free review copies, and publish just about anything they please, and there won't be much that The LEGO Company can do to stop them."

Thank you @PurpleDave ! That's the $64,000 question. Could Brickset sever all ties to LEGO (the company, not the product) without it impacting Brickset in any significant way? Is it just free review sets that Brickset gets or does it get more than that such as set data, the right to use product images, or pre-embargo briefings? If it's more than free sets, there is potentially an asymmetric dependency relationship that compromises Brickset. The fact that 'there are no repercussions, there never has been' (to quote Huw) for writing negative reviews doesn't mean there never will be - including for reviews already written. Another RLFM could do something that attracts negative publicity causing LEGO to reconsider the RLFM programme or an ambitious exec joins LEGO HQ's marketing team and wants to make their mark. There are any number of reasons why LEGO might revise or replace the RLFM programme, doing away with those outlets it considers least desirable. As long as that possibility exists, there is an implicit threat to Brickset. Of course, if Brickset can walk away without consequence as you (PurpleDave) suggest, there is nothing to worry about. Some transparency on the RLFM programme and how Brickset and other influencers benefit from LEGO would help to allay concerns.

I’ve always liked hearing about rumoured sets, it builds the excitement. What I don’t like so much is the rubbish pictures that pop up, they have no real benefit for me as they are of such poor quality. As for the youtubers getting their knickers in a twist over it it’s laughable. They “earn” thousands, then as part of LAN get given free sets to promote and still moan they can’t report rumours! Cry me a river

I like rumors far in advance but also that this site is a center for the cold, hard facts.
Rumors need some caution which most "reporters" on the net simply don't have. This leads to rumors about ridiculous sets being repeated even after they have been overwritten like is the case right now with this years largest SW UCS set.
So while I keep reading rumors every day, I see Brickset as my hub for Lego news because in the end I only get the real news here.

@Huw said:
" @Zander said:
" Could Brickset sever all ties to LEGO (the company, not the product) without it impacting Brickset in any significant way? Is it just free review sets that Brickset gets or does it get more than that such as set data, the right to use product images, or pre-embargo briefings? "

There are two 'ties' we have with the company. Being an RLFM and being on the affiliate programmes.

If our RLFM status is removed or we relinquish it we would not receive review sets, have access to media events both online and in Billund, and not be party to press releases ahead of time. So, yes, the site and its readers would be impacted but we'd still be able to operate.

If we were removed from LEGO's affiliate programmes then Brickset would suffer monetarily but not to the extent that it would have to go offline or lay off staff, because revenue from it only accounts for about 20% of the total.

Sites have been kicked off the LAN but they still thrive, and they are still on the affiliate programme. That may be one reason why even they do not publish leaked images.

They were not removed for writing bad reviews, but for other behaviour that the company found objectionable."

Thank you for clarifying. That is reassuring. Can I suggest a statement on the 'About Brickset' page beyond the disclosures already there that outlines the above?

@Zander:
That I'm personally aware of as a regular Brickset reader who has never been part of the site's staff, review copies is certainly one of the big perks when you consider how many thousands of dollars worth of sets they receive every year. They receive press releases for upcoming sets, including D2C sets that are kept secret until shortly before release. They've been invited to events at Billund and to the various Toy Fairs (though the UK event is so pointless now that I know Huw has skipped it a few times). And Huw gets access to the LEGO database. Some of that is stuff they'd have a hard time locking him out of, but I got the impression that he needs their permission to track data on when sets are available through LEGO.com. Trying to track that manually would be a prohibitively arduous chore.

@Huw:
A C&D order isn't worth the toilet paper it's printed on if the issuing party can't or won't back it up. Usually when people have run afoul of LEGO Legal, the next step has been to contact their host and ask for the material to be removed that way. If you're running your own servers, that limits their ability to use that tactic. Obviously, they'd be able to cut you off from direct channels of info, and I suppose they could try to exert some force on your ISP, but what would be next after that? They could file lawsuits, but if there's no actionable basis, it's just going to get kicked. And if they repeatedly file bogus lawsuits, I imagine there will be consequences of some sort, even if it's just prejudicing the court against them.

@just2good said:
"Well, many of you might know my involvement with this issue. I just wish for you to consider my perspective on one thing:
Not every move to make a video is reliant on making money. I really don’t care about the money aspect of YouTube when it comes to making videos. It lets me down a bit to see that many people consider a lot of our insistence to fix this rumor problem and discussing rumors and leaks as a monetary move. In the LAN, I was restricted to make the content I wanted to under their rules, so I left. I genuinely love discussing rumors and leaks. I love LEGO. It isn’t a monetary move to make a leak video for the most part. It’s as much as a monetary move as Brickset publishing a news article. We publish what we want as our own media outlets. And we’re all different, providing a different perspective. I’m a LEGO fan at the end of the day. Speaking for myself, the money is a compliment to doing what I love.

Instead, I actually see LEGO as abusing the copyright system in removing content discussing leaks. If you are not the original source of a leak, and your video falls under fair use, the law is not on LEGO’s side. It’s a surpression of speech in a way which I’m totally against. I feared making videos I wanted to (leak and rumor discussions) after I saw many channels striked. That’s bullying on a corporate level, using fear and intimidation to make sure the company gets their way when they are legally and morally wrong.

Sorry for mispellings and all, I’m about to go to sleep but was reading up on this thread before. Genuinely tired but will check back when I wake up.

Just my two cents though, would love to here what you guys think! :)"

How is LEGO abusing anything when they don’t want leaks getting out & farther circulating? That’s not bullying...that’s keeping your product under wraps until the time they wanted it be revealed. Having rules for people who represent a company is nothing new. Of course they’re going to insist you act a certain way when public viewings are happening.

As to the monetary issue, that’s how I see it. Whining that you(generally speaking) can’t talk about leaks seems like you’re just in it for clicks. We all know leaks have a small window before they blow up, so people need to be quick to get said views. There’s always something legit to discuss with LEGO, so just do that. Talking about rumors is a bit of a different story. Bootleggers can sorta work off written descriptions of sets, but pictures are obviously much easier.

@stlux:
That brings up an interesting distinction. Restaurant reviewers usually go to restaurants that are established businesses, so they have the option of acting like normal paying customers. Entertainment works differently, where movie, music, and book reviews are published before the general public has access to those works. Nobody to my knowledge ever accused Siskel & Ebert of being corporate stooges just because they got to watch all those movies for free.

@just2good said:
" @Legoguy29 said:
" @just2good said:
"Well, many of you might know my involvement with this issue. I just wish for you to consider my perspective on one thing:
Not every move to make a video is reliant on making money. I really don’t care about the money aspect of YouTube when it comes to making videos. It lets me down a bit to see that many people consider a lot of our insistence to fix this rumor problem and discussing rumors and leaks as a monetary move. In the LAN, I was restricted to make the content I wanted to under their rules, so I left. I genuinely love discussing rumors and leaks. I love LEGO. It isn’t a monetary move to make a leak video for the most part. It’s as much as a monetary move as Brickset publishing a news article. We publish what we want as our own media outlets. And we’re all different, providing a different perspective. I’m a LEGO fan at the end of the day. Speaking for myself, the money is a compliment to doing what I love.

Instead, I actually see LEGO as abusing the copyright system in removing content discussing leaks. If you are not the original source of a leak, and your video falls under fair use, the law is not on LEGO’s side. It’s a surpression of speech in a way which I’m totally against. I feared making videos I wanted to (leak and rumor discussions) after I saw many channels striked. That’s bullying on a corporate level, using fear and intimidation to make sure the company gets their way when they are legally and morally wrong.

Sorry for mispellings and all, I’m about to go to sleep but was reading up on this thread before. Genuinely tired but will check back when I wake up.

Just my two cents though, would love to here what you guys think! :)"

How is LEGO abusing anything when they don’t want leaks getting out & farther circulating? That’s not bullying...that’s keeping your product under wraps until the time they wanted it be revealed. Having rules for people who represent a company is nothing new. Of course they’re going to insist you act a certain way when public viewings are happening.

As to the monetary issue, that’s how I see it. Whining that you(generally speaking) can’t talk about leaks seems like you’re just in it for clicks. We all know leaks have a small window before they blow up, so people need to be quick to get said views. There’s always something legit to discuss with LEGO, so just do that. Talking about rumors is a bit of a different story. Bootleggers can sorta work off written descriptions of sets, but pictures are obviously much easier. "

1) if the leak doesn’t originate from the person doing the news video or news article, under fair use, it is perfectly acceptable to reporr on such leaks. Check out the Pentagon Papers. If we are not the source of the leak, the leak is in the public, and we are not part of the company, we have no obligation to keep a secret a secret. It’s no longer a secret. LEGO should find a solution internally so leaks don’t get out in the first place. But to remove discussion of something publicly available is censorship, which LEGO does. It’s not morally or legally right. If this was personal information about an actual person (medical or sexual info, etc) then it’s a different case. This is a corporation blaming others and abusing its power to silence its mistakes.
2) The bootleg argument doesn’t make sense if the leak is already available. I don’t think bootleggers first find out about the sets the copy from the people reporting on it. With your argument on “leaks have a small window to blow up,” this can be applied to Brickset covering news that comes out as well. Or reviews. Timeliness doesn’t mean ill intent.

"

A leak is still a leak though. LEGO doesn’t it want it circulating so they’re going to attempt to stem the flow. If you have numerous leaks in your boat are you going to just look for the first leak & stop it? Who says they aren’t tryi

But what they're doing is legally wrong. So they're using fear to keep leaks down. That's what bullies do. That analogy makes sense to me. But your analogy of boat leaks doesn't make sense to me - so to solve a boat leak, we have to tell people not to talk about the boat leak?

You know that quote you have is about being the source of the leak of an unpublished work, which I already said is legally and morally wrong. To reveal a secret. But if the company secret is out in the public that is not the same case. Just letting you know.

Why is redistributing product images that exist on the internet already that fans genuinely want to see and discuss when none are the source of the leak a jerk move though? Explain this to me. Explain why it’s morally wrong. Maybe my opinion will change if someone explained this to me instead of pulling facts that I already discussed.

Another case to check out, Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001). Again, to say that I’ve lost sight of reality because of LEGO is such a jump, and rude. Using personal attacks isn’t convincing me.

Yeah, this agreement with the fan community is something that I don't agree to any more. I have no legal binding or obligation to them as a company. I'm a LEGO fan first and foremost. Not an employee for LEGO.

Here's the thing - you and I both acknowledge that these could be released on mistake, right? All humans make mistakes. We all learn and grow. If I was the LEGO Group, why would a mistake be a reason to fire somebody? Or even reprimand - tell them politely, and people will learn from their mistakes. That's on the LEGO Group for being cruel about a mistake. This is how I see their actions with the fan community with leaks. So we're supposed to take their reprimand and abuse because internally, something was easy enough to leak? We're people. We all mess up. And the people talking about it are fans. LEGO just needs to change this perspective in the day of the internet. If somebody deliberately reveals a secret, even they can learn that's not morally right. But the measures LEGO goes to prevent this is drastic. Fire the person. Remove the video. Prevent discussion. This creates fear. Fear is a horrible feeling.

I appreciate your polite reply and insight, @PurpleDave :)

Thank you Brickset, accurate news will always be the best news for me.

With so many good sets on shelves, it's insane to be tracking rumours all over the place.

No rumours here, just the facts, that's cool. I will still be a regular reader/user.

So where do people recommend for reliable rumours for those that are interested ?

@just2good said:
"Why is redistributing product images that exist on the internet already that fans genuinely want to see and discuss when none are the source of the leak a jerk move though? Explain this to me. Explain why it’s morally wrong. Maybe my opinion will change if someone explained this to me instead of pulling facts that I already discussed. "

Firstly, fans wanting to see and discuss them has no legal or moral bearing.

Second, as Dave beat me to the punch, being the second person to have an illegal photo doesn't make it not illegal. If your neighbor hacked into someone's account and stole a bunch of their photos, would you have the legal and moral standing to publish the photos? *You* didn't steal them, after all. Should they be fair game to publish and talk about, even though your neighbor could face jail for what he did?

Also, as Dave beat me to, there is no adult who isn't aware that leaking things isn't ok. I would imagine that they say it at least once during orientation at Lego, and I would put money on the fact that they say it more than once annually. There isn't a "I didn't know, it was a mistake" excuse.

And there's no preventing discussion or fear about any information that's legitimately released.

Edit: this sounded harsh but it's meant to be more matter-of-fact, no ill will intended

@purpledave @fakespacesquid
I appreciate both of your input!

A lot of what big company telling me leaking is wrong and the justifying that leaking is wrong because big companies make lots of money and will lose money because of their own mistakes still doesn’t make sense to me. If a watermarked product image is confidential, found all throughout online, it’s no longer confidential. If a company tells me not to share or distribute the imate when I have no legal binding to the company, I have no obligation to not share the said image. I don’t listen to what corporations and companies I’m not under contract for tell me what to do, I’m my own person. Also, these aren’t illegal images. Very few images are illegal once out in the public. The ones illegal are related to personal details about people, completely understandable. A corporation is not a person. The only way it could be illegal is if you breach a contract or lie about where you got it from. If LEGO was to take posting a video about a leaked image to court, they would have to prove how this damages their company beyond the initial leak - but what’s out is out.

To me, the idea that an image of a product is illegal that can easily be accessed on the internet doesn’t make sense beyond these big companies claiming they’re an illegal image. These contracts shouldn’t restrict sharing images online in the first place, this is a problem between LEGO and their license partners - because the internet exists, we can discuss just about anything in a video produced before the set comes out.

How are these product images an illegal image once public? How is the image of something a stolen tangible good? How is including a leaked product image in a video from a company morally wrong? You say all adults know this. I never worked for a corporation, I never plan to unless we count LAN as a job (which I quit). I don’t understand how it is wrong. I can understand not being the source of the leak, which is morally wrong because you lied on an agreement to keep an image secret. It’s not stealing an image when you cover it under fair use when it’s publicly available. It’s transforming it into something else. That’s the definition of fair use. Is every meme featuring a popular character stealing a popular character? A corporation is not a person. I don’t care if a company is higher up in the food chain than a schmuck like me (as if money is all that matters in life to be bigger than something), I don’t see how that has any standing on my life aside from them having the power to sue me with their massive amount of money. Then that’s just fear and intimidation, and if it goes through, abusing the copyright system and ignoring fair use and creative content. This is where I’m not grasping onto your points, but thank you for sharing your opinions, even if I don’t agree!

This is one of the many reasons Brickset is a site above the rest.

Legality aside, corporations are responsible for protecting their brand. The burden of proof regarding a copy strike issued by the rights holder falls upon the accused.

Let us allow the man to learn in hindsight what we all know is true. We have his best interests in mind. Our unpopular points of view may feel like attempts to limit his choices regarding content, but they are actually notes written out of concern for what we see as self destructive behavior.

I know this is old news now, but I’ve noticed another site that did go charging down the reporting rumours path has quietly removed them all. Well done Brickset in being transparent about this news.

@coenstegeman said:
"This sounds so weird. As if there's going to be a conscious effort to leak false rumors on Lego's part... Just to, why...? Keep our lives interesting or something? Or so TLG can say 'Psych!' a couple of times? "

OMG you got the mail on the head!!! Making it sound like there was some sort of effort to have everyone report false rumors as well as true rumors, lol. Then staying that this would be a problem since reporting a false rumor would contradict factual knowledge that they have. Um and saying that by not publishing false rumors you would be confirming which ones are true and that would raise additional difficulties. SERIOUSLY WHAT THE HECK !!!! What mind altering substance was used that initiated this post!?!?! And really you could have just said" Since we feel left out of the discussion we want you to be aware that we will continue to not report rumors but want you to know that we know which ones are true and which ones are not.

@just2good it's all about respecting intellectual property whether that belongs to a company or individual (btw corps and companies are made up of individual persons), doing what's right, and showing you're capable of making adult decisions based on expected adult behavior. Your posts here aren't giving us that impression.

@just2good:
When you get hired by a company, there's usually an employee handbook, or something of a similar nature, involved. It tells you what rights you have as an employee (outside of, and not in contradiction with, those guaranteed by law), and it tells you what rules you have to abide by as an employee. The latter could involve dress codes (no shirts endorsing use of drugs/alcohol, no flip-flops in a construction site, etc.), no media interviews unless that's part of your defined role, and no leaking info to the public. If you willfully violate those rules, punitive action will probably start with a note to your employee file, but could escalate to a combination of terminating your employment (possibly "for cause", which means they'll go to court to deny you unemployment benefits), having you arrested, and suing you for monetary damages (like if you'd been smuggling molds to a competitor, or you helped someone hack into the company servers, you can fully expect them to throw the book at you).

So, if the image is watermarked, you can assume one of two things happened. Either someone made an honest mistake and released an image that was never meant to be released, or someone intentionally violated company policy. If it's the latter, they can absolutely claim that the image was stolen, and they can pursue legal action against anyone found to be distributing copies. If you're a PR hack and you accidentally fire off a press release a couple weeks early, they don't really have a lot of legal grounds to undo that, and by the time they could actually get a court case resolved the intended publication date would probably have already passed.

And maybe don't bring "fair use" into it unless you actually know what it involves. They have a published "fair play" policy on their website. While it doesn't address the distribution of watermarked images (indicating that the image is considered confidential, and not for public distribution), it does clearly state that any image that comes out of their company is copyrighted by the company, and that they have a legal right to defend those copyrights. If they give it to you in a press release, that's legal proof that they've given permission to post those images. And if it's watermarked, that can be argued as legal proof that they did not give permission, and are prepared to exercise their rights as the copyright holder.

The "once it's on the internet" thing is more a cautionary tale for sexting, particularly for teens who haven't really thought about what it'd be like for some random stranger on the street to recognize them from what they believed were going to be private photos. You can't unscramble an egg, but that doesn't mean everyone can freely sample your omelet. If you didn't sign a legal model release form, and someone publishes those photos without your permission, you can sue them back to the stone age, plus they may be hit with criminal charges if you were underage. You just can't realistically expect to track down and destroy every copy of that photo once it's posted in a publicly accessible form.

@darkstonegrey - I don't see how discussing a leak that is out in the public is disrespectful to intellectual property, unless you tried to pass it off as your own, lie and say it's a final copy, etc. If you're showing the pictures in a news video or article, acknowledging this is a LEGO set and not final, and the original source of the leak, I don't see how that's disrespecting intellectual property? Yes, corporations are owned by people but the corporation is not a person. The corporation has a bottom line - to make money.

@purpledave - LEGO's fair play policy is not under fair use. These is The LEGO Company's own rules, I am not under the LEGO Company's contract in any way. I am not a part of LAN so I do not receive press releases anymore. If I got a press release I would not reveal it before embargo. That's morally wrong, going back on an agreement without discussing it with The LEGO Group (lying).

And maybe they have the power to take anyone to court but that doesn't mean they're in the right for doing so. I don't think they are in the right legally and morally for taking people to court for discussing something that has already leaked, showing what has already leaked as long as it's shown under fair use. When you start illegally taking things down that fall under fair use, creativity is being shunned.

If your arguments for why it's morally right seem to lie on "the company said so" and "it's the professional thing," what it means to be professional is to comply to a company's standards. I'm my own person, I have no legal affiliation with the LEGO Group at this point aside from loving the brand. I don't want to work for a big company. Being respectful is a different thing from being professional. I know what's right and wrong and treat people with respect.

Also, suing people as a way to get them to stop something when what they're doing is legal is immoral. It's a bully tactic using fear and intimidation. The LEGO Group doesn't do this - oh wait, they did, check out the LEGO v Mega case (which LEGO lost btw). They do the same when they take down YouTube videos falling under fair use covering an image that is publicly available (The Brick Show).

But at this point, I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this issue. That's okay though, we all have different opinions and that's cool!

@just2good:
So you're talking about the legal doctrine where, if I post an image where it's publicly viewable on the internet, anyone can legally copy that image? That entirely relies on the original poster having legally obtained that image. It also doesn't confer legal right to repost that image if it's under copyright. For that, you always need the explicit permission of the copyright holder, which you are never going to get if they're claiming the image was stolen. If it has a watermark, and you can't prove that it was posted to a LEGO site, or by a LEGO social media account, you should assume they will claim that it's stolen content, and will exercise their legal rights to have every copy they find removed from the websites where it was posted.