| |
Subject: Can I use the LUGNET name or logo in my Web page / T-shirt / product / etc.?
Topic-Level: 1
Content-Language: en
Originator: Larry Pieniazek, 1999-03-05
Comment: get Todd's official line
Comment: include not-a-lawyer disclaimer
Location: /general/
<P>NO_ANSWER</P>
|
|
| |
Sproaticus wrote:
>
> Subject: Can I use the LUGNET name or logo in my Web page / T-shirt / product / etc.?
> Topic-Level: 1
> Content-Language: en
> Originator: Larry Pieniazek, 1999-03-05
> Comment: get Todd's official line
> Comment: include not-a-lawyer disclaimer
> Location: /general/
>
> <P>NO_ANSWER</P>
A boiled down answer (and I'd refer to the thread as authoritative) is
that the word LUGNET should be followed by (tm) (or TM superscripted if
you're using a font/display combination capable of same), and is OK to
use if you're not implying endorsement or the like. For example John
Neal and I did "I read Lugnet(tm)" shirts. We checked with Todd first,
and honored his font choices, to a certain extent. We also did not put
AFOL and LUGNET on the same shirt.
The Lugnet Logo itself is trade dress and therefore subject to the usual
restrictions. Todd has made a version available for use on web pages (I
have it on mine, for example), but that's currently it. Note that this
is more generous than the TLG policy on the Lego(tm) logo, which does
not allow use, even in a "link" back to the official TLG site.
If you use the logo you should disclaim it if there is any chance that
someone would think it implied endorsement or that you were "offically
affiliated" with Lugnet. Lugnet does not endorse things nor does it
grant "official" affiliations... you will soon be able to be a member,
and there IS the Cool Lego Site of the Week, but those are different
things.
Todd and Suz are tightly controlling use of the logo on physical items,
and as of this writing (15 July 1999) have not yet authorized its use on
anything physical. They plan (low priority) to make some items available
at some point but are very concerned about quality. Since it is a
trademarkable item, it is within their rights to do so.
Everything I say above is my interpretation and subject to correction by
Todd and Suz, the trademark and copyright holders.
Note also that I am all wet on how to properly capitalize. I tend to not
like all CAPS, but that is used when first mentioning it. But there are
situations where Lugnet is allowable, I think.
I copied Todd directly on this post so he'll hopefully chime in and
correct me where I erred.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.faq, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> A boiled down answer (and I'd refer to the thread as authoritative) is
> that the word LUGNET should be followed by (tm) (or TM superscripted if
> you're using a font/display combination capable of same), and is OK to
> use if you're not implying endorsement or the like. For example John
> Neal and I did "I read Lugnet(tm)" shirts. We checked with Todd first, • ^^^^^^
> and honored his font choices, to a certain extent. We also did not put
> AFOL and LUGNET on the same shirt.
Todd also insisted that it be spelled in all caps. :-)
> The Lugnet Logo itself is trade dress and therefore subject to the usual • ^^^^^^
> restrictions. Todd has made a version available for use on web pages (I
> have it on mine, for example), but that's currently it. Note that this
> is more generous than the TLG policy on the Lego(tm) logo, which does
> not allow use, even in a "link" back to the official TLG site.
>
> If you use the logo you should disclaim it if there is any chance that
> someone would think it implied endorsement or that you were "offically
> affiliated" with Lugnet. Lugnet does not endorse things nor does it • ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
> grant "official" affiliations... you will soon be able to be a member,
> and there IS the Cool Lego Site of the Week, but those are different
> things.
I don't think a disclaimer of non-association is really necessary as long
as the ALT attribute of the <IMG> tag bearing the logo says
To www.lugnet.com
as shown here:
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/logo/buttons/
> Todd and Suz are tightly controlling use of the logo on physical items,
> and as of this writing (15 July 1999) have not yet authorized its use on
> anything physical. They plan (low priority) to make some items available
> at some point but are very concerned about quality. Since it is a
> trademarkable item, it is within their rights to do so.
>
> Everything I say above is my interpretation and subject to correction by
> Todd and Suz, the trademark and copyright holders.
>
> Note also that I am all wet on how to properly capitalize. I tend to not
> like all CAPS, but that is used when first mentioning it.
It's an acronym (well, a pseudo-acronym): [L]EGO [U]sers [G]roup [NET]work
> But there are
> situations where Lugnet is allowable, I think.
"LUGNET" (all caps) is the best way for web pages and external citations.
But no qualms if you write "Lugnet" or "lugnet" in a hurry in a newsposting.
--Todd
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> "LUGNET" (all caps) is the best way for web pages and external citations.
> But no qualms if you write "Lugnet" or "lugnet" in a hurry in a newsposting.
Um, i was in a hurry? :-)
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> It's an acronym (well, a pseudo-acronym): [L]EGO [U]sers [G]roup [NET]work
So how do you feel about "LUGnet"?
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.faq, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > A boiled down answer (and I'd refer to the thread as authoritative) is
> > [...]
> [...]
Thanks both Todd and Larry.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com>
http://www.io.com/~jsproat
Darth Maul Lives
|
|
| |
Why would you mention not putting AFOL and LUGNET on the same shirt? What's the
connection? Is there some kind of general rule about mixing non-trademarks with
trademarks?
In lugnet.faq, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> [...] For example John
> Neal and I did "I read Lugnet(tm)" shirts. We checked with Todd first,
> and honored his font choices, to a certain extent. We also did not put
> AFOL and LUGNET on the same shirt.
>
> (goes on to explain that the LUGNET logo can't be used on physical objects)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.faq, mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) writes:
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > It's an acronym (well, a pseudo-acronym): [L]EGO [U]sers [G]roup [NET]work
>
> So how do you feel about "LUGnet"?
It does place the syllabic emphasis correctly, but it still looks very wrong
to me, and I think it leads to people writing all sorts of other mis-
capitalizations. I've seen all of these, for example:
LUGNet
LugNet
LugNET
and I think many of those came from people seeing other people write it with
some mid-word capitalization thing and not being able to remember exactly
how it was supposed to be capitalized.
I'm not bothered much if it's written like that in a newspost, but whenever
I see it turn up on a web page like that in anything that's not all caps, I
tend to write the author of the page and ask them to correct the
capitalization. And it always appears on the lugnet.com website either in
all caps (in natural-language text) or all lowercase (in geek-stuff like
URLs and newsgroup names).
Anyway, the pronunciation of LUGNET is not:
'lug-'net (with equal emphasis on both syllables, as in "lug nut" or
"dragnet").
And it's not:
lug-'net (with emphasis on second syllable, as in "brunet").
It is:
lug'-net (with emphasis on first syllable, as in "magnet")
(Of course, the phonemes in the "net" portion of "magnet" are different,
since the "e" is a silent schwa-e in "magnet" and the "e" in LUGNET is a
short-e just like the plain word "net.")
Another problem with LUGnet is that LUGNet is actually technically closer
to the right thing: LUGNet breaks apart visually into L U G Net, while
LUGnet breaks apart visually into L U Gnet. :-(
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.faq, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> In lugnet.faq, mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) writes:
>
> > So how do you feel about "LUGnet"?
>
> It does place the syllabic emphasis correctly, [...]
Whoops, I should clarify that...
The problem with it is that although it places the syllabic emphasis on
"lug," it still gives "net" its own prominence by its being a different
type-case. That is, it greatly separates the two halves of the word, and
that's the part I don't like. It's not supposed to sound like two words
pasted together or an acronym, but rather one word that rolls nicely off the
tongue.
Hence:
LUGNET
lugnet
Lugnet
all help emphasize the fact that it is an easy-to-say name, while:
LugNet
LUGNet
LUGnet
LugNET
all sound stilted and overly emphasize the fact that it is also a
pseudo-acronym. Consider:
[LE]g [GO]dt --> LEGO --> Lego
[AL]uminum [C]ompany [O]f [A]merica --> ALCOA --> Alcoa
[N]ew [E]ngland [C]onfectionary [CO]mpany --> NECCO --> Necco
[N]orth [A]merican [BIS]cuit [CO]mpany --> NABISCO --> Nabisco
[MINNE]sota [GAS] [CO]mpany --> MINNEGASCO --> Minnegasco
[L]EGO [U]sers [G]roup [NET]work --> LUGNET --> Lugnet
So think of it as a branding issue...
You never write LeGo or AlCOA or NECCo or NABisCo or MinneGasCo because they
ruin the pronunciation by making the name look more like an acronym than a
word.
(FedEx is a different story; they want to keep the capital E there because
they're in danger of "fedex" becoming a verb by popular misuse.)
--Todd
|
|
| |
Robert Munafo wrote:
>
> Why would you mention not putting AFOL and LUGNET on the same shirt? What's the
> connection?
Because I remembered it... we had a pretty intense discussion about it
at the time, and we respected Todd's wishes. Timeframe was
February-March of this year.
This post, while neither the start or the beginning of the thread, is a
place to start reading.
http://www.lugnet.com/market/buy-sell-trade/?n=1130
> Is there some kind of general rule about mixing non-trademarks with
> trademarks?
The general rule is that you have to get concurrance from all the
trademark holders on what you want to do. I once husbanded the creation
of a shirt with 7 different company logos on it and it was a bit of work
to get full alignment.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.faq, "Robert Munafo" <munafo@gcctech.com> writes:
> Why would you mention not putting AFOL and LUGNET on the same shirt? What's the
> connection? Is there some kind of general rule about mixing non-trademarks with
> trademarks?
Probably not worth mentioning. It's a personal thing. I cringe every time
I see term AFOL because it looks like AOL and, as the person who coined it
several years ago pointed out, it looks like "a fool." It also reminds me
of at least two army acronyms. I can't help thinking all of those every
time I see it. It's too bad that ALF (Adult LEGO Fan) conjurs up visions of
the 80's sitcom of the same name.
Another reason was that, although LUGNET currently is most appealing to
adults (and this is by design at this stage in its development), it's really
not an adult-only thing. We don't want people to get the wrong impression
that it's only for adults, because it's really for everyone regardless of
age.
--Todd
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> Anyway, the pronunciation of LUGNET is not:
> 'lug-'net (with equal emphasis on both syllables, as in "lug nut" or
> "dragnet").
Hmm. That certainly seems to be the most natural pronunciation.
But then again, I'd pronounc Lehman "Layman". :)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
| |
Thanks Todd, I get it now. It's good to hear from you since it's your trademark
we're talking about (-:
I happen to dislike "AFOL" personally because it reminds me of "SMOF", "secret
masters of fandom", (which is a card in the Illuminati trading card game), a
reference to sci-fi fans, and that reminds me of sci-fi conventions.
However, I do want to point out that I have used the acronym just once, in one
of my FAQ answer submissions, this one:
http://www.lugnet.com/faq/?n=557
because the phenomenon I was describing is, as far as I can tell, universal to
adults and fairly rare among children. That is to say, children seem to be a
lot more creative and flexible, and undemanding, regarding the appearance of
their LEGO creations than adults. I think it's because adults are too picky.
- Robert Munafo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.faq, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> Robert Munafo wrote:
> > Why would you mention not putting AFOL and LUGNET on the same shirt? What's the
> > connection?
>
> Because I remembered it... we had a pretty intense discussion about it
> at the time, and we respected Todd's wishes. Timeframe was
> February-March of this year.
Hey, you almost make it sound like there was some kind of heated discussion/
argument/debate or something. I thought it was all very civilized, with
mostly just questions and answers and things. (Were you holding back anger
or frustration?? What causes you to say "intense" (above), or am I reading
into what you wrote too much?)
> This post, while neither the start or the beginning of the thread, is a
> place to start reading.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/market/buy-sell-trade/?n=1130
I think you used the word "prohibit" in some form there. I think what we
really said was...
"We'd rather not see AFOL or 'Adult Fan of LEGO' associated with LUGNET in
any way. While it is true that LUGNET currently happens to be frequented
primarily by adults, this will not always be the case, and we don't want
to build that association.
"By design, the site currently appeals to adults much more than to
children, and this is a necessary seeding stage, to set the tone and
minimize the overhead of tech-support (kids have no end to questions).
Later, we'll focus more on the younger crowd. 3-5 years down the road,
we'll be looking at very large number of users aged 12 and under. Of
course, kids won't participate much in commerce or newsgroup discussions
or many of the things that adults do, but there are infinite
possibilities later for fun things to do that will appeal to kids of
all ages."
because I don't think we could actually "prohibit" the use of AFOL and
LUGNET on the same shirt, at least not in the context of a declarative
informational sentence such as "I read LUGNET." OTOH, I think we can
prohibit, say, the use of the AFOL directly beneath the LUGNET logo in place
of the name "LUGNET" (not that anyone would ever do that or want to do that,
but that's something I'd really come down hard against).
Anyway, inasmuch as you respect (which I appreciate) the wishes that AFOL
not being put on the same shirt, I think it sends the wrong message to
people when the wish ("we'd rather not") is rewritten as a strict
prohibition ("Based on Todd's answers prohibiting AFOL and LUGNET on the
same shirt..."). It's a perception thing...d'ya know what I mean? It's
fuzzy. There was also another paragraph about cards...
"I don't see a problem with AFOL or 'Adult Fan of LEGO' appearing on the
same card as 'I read LUGNET' so long as there is lots of other stuff on
the card. In other words, so long as someone doesn't read the card and
think that LUGNET is for adults, then I don't see a problem with it."
So in the case of the shirts, it's not really "You can't do it, period" but
rather "Please don't; it would bum me out majorly, and here's why so that it
doesn't sound like a crazy irrational dictum..." Zat sound more rational?
--Todd
p.s. While (AFAIK) it's anyone's right to put "AFOL" on anything they want,
it should be noted that if they spelled it out in full, i.e. "Adult Fan of
LEGO®" that they might be run into trouble with TLG for using their mark
without permission, especially if they were selling the items. I am not a
lawyer, so this is just something for people to keep in mind. Anyone who
wants to put "LEGO" on a t-shirt probably needs to contact TLG attorneys for
permission.
|
|
| |
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.faq, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
>
> > Robert Munafo wrote:
> > > Why would you mention not putting AFOL and LUGNET on the same shirt? What's the
> > > connection?
> >
> > Because I remembered it... we had a pretty intense discussion about it
> > at the time, and we respected Todd's wishes. Timeframe was
> > February-March of this year.
>
> Hey, you almost make it sound like there was some kind of heated discussion/
> argument/debate or something. I thought it was all very civilized, with
> mostly just questions and answers and things. (Were you holding back anger
> or frustration?? What causes you to say "intense" (above), or am I reading
> into what you wrote too much?)
prolly. I said intense because it was nuanced, not because there were
hard feelings. I DID get a little frustrated at myself because every
time I thought I had the nuances grokked and I restated what I thought I
understood, I didn't quite have it yet, and we were under severe time
pressure to get the shirts finalized and produced, and sometimes I had
to prod you to get another go-round (you were terribly busy dealing with
non L stuff like helping Suzanne's family get through a rocky patch)...
<snip>
> because I don't think we could actually "prohibit" the use of AFOL and
> LUGNET on the same shirt, at least not in the context of a declarative
> informational sentence such as "I read LUGNET." OTOH, I think we can
> prohibit, say, the use of the AFOL directly beneath the LUGNET logo in place
> of the name "LUGNET" (not that anyone would ever do that or want to do that,
> but that's something I'd really come down hard against).
>
> Anyway, inasmuch as you respect (which I appreciate) the wishes that AFOL
> not being put on the same shirt, I think it sends the wrong message to
> people when the wish ("we'd rather not") is rewritten as a strict
> prohibition ("Based on Todd's answers prohibiting AFOL and LUGNET on the
> same shirt..."). It's a perception thing...d'ya know what I mean? It's
> fuzzy. There was also another paragraph about cards...
Yes, you're right. Like I said, it's nuanced. Prohibit is too strong of
a word, prefer is better, I suppose.
> p.s. While (AFAIK) it's anyone's right to put "AFOL" on anything they want,
> it should be noted that if they spelled it out in full, i.e. "Adult Fan of
> LEGO®" that they might be run into trouble with TLG for using their mark
> without permission, especially if they were selling the items. I am not a
> lawyer, so this is just something for people to keep in mind. Anyone who
> wants to put "LEGO" on a t-shirt probably needs to contact TLG attorneys for
> permission.
Thought about that. Decided NOT to ask TLG permission to create a T
shirt that said "My dad has more LEGO(R) than your dad" despite that.
Call it internal inconsistency, but I'm more concerned about YOUR trade
dress and trademarks than theirs.
Reason being that it was a declarative statement, it didn't use TLG
trade dress, and it did acknowledge that LEGO is a registered trademark.
Perhaps you might want to take a crack at rewriting the whole FAQ the
way you want it to read and then we won't have to go around and around
trying to get it right. Might be faster.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Perhaps you might want to take a crack at rewriting the whole FAQ the
> way you want it to read and then we won't have to go around and around
> trying to get it right. Might be faster.
Er, ah... I mean THIS QUESTION, which deals with Todd's property
rights... NOT the ENTIRE FAQ, although that's the way it read to me when
I re-read it...
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.faq, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.faq, mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) writes:
> > Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > > It's an acronym (well, a pseudo-acronym): [L]EGO [U]sers [G]roup
> > > [NET]work
> > So how do you feel about "LUGnet"?
> It does place the syllabic emphasis correctly, but it still looks very
> wrong to me, and I think it leads to people writing all sorts of other
> mis-capitalizations. I've seen all of these, for example:
>
> LUGNet
> LugNet
> LugNET
> [...]
I just saw "KPNQwest" in the headlines and it reminded me... Another reason
the capitalization "LUGNet" is icky is because it has a higher chance of
being mispronounced similar to "PSINet" and other similar names.
If you remember those PSINet commercials going around about a year ago,
PSINet is pronounced "pee-ess-EYE-net," not "SIGH-net" or "PSI-net."
I'd hate for someone to see "LUGNet" and read that as "ell-you-GEE-net."
--Todd
p.s. This is making me start to rethink the capitalization of AucZILLA
(which, actually, has the u and c in small caps, not lowercase :)
|
|
|
