No brand names but a branded theme?
forum.rebrickable.com
I do understand the idea, but this doesn’t make any sense, does it? For “opensource” MOCers like me, who do not want to earn money with their instruction, this is pretty much censorship by the way. If you earn money with Star Wars content, pay for the license, fine. If you just painted a picture from Han Solo and upload that, well that has to be free. Because when do you stop? I just used Star Wars and Han Solo in a sentence…should my post be blocked now? It would be also great to know what...

Users should be within their rights to use trademarked/copyrighted terms in the names of their MOCs with free instructions. It sounds like Rebrickable is being bullied by an unjust copyright holder. According to an admin, this copyright holder also “most definitely went through and visually identified a lot of MOCs too” — this may mean in the future you cannot have builds which are too well-made in resembling their source material.

I’ve yet to receive takedown notices for any of my MOCs, but it sounds like this situation is developing so we’ll see if existing names can remain going forward.

  • threelonmusketeersEnglish
    2·
    3 hours ago

    It sounds like Rebrickable is being bullied by an unjust copyright holder.

    So… Disney?

    According to an admin, this copyright holder also “most definitely went through and visually identified a lot of MOCs too” — this may mean in the future you cannot have builds which are too well-made in resembling their source material.

    I’m not entirely clear why they would do this. Is there any copyright aspect to this? It seems almost entirely like a trademark issue.

    Are they just concerned about losing their trademark, or do they think that people purchasing Lego pieces and Rebrickable MOC instructions will cut into the market for official Star Wars sets?

    What would be the best solution?