←back to thread

263 points foxtacles | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.226s | source
Show context
ranger_danger ◴[] No.44352308[source]
How is this legal? Specifically, distributing copyrighted assets and using their name/logo without permission.
replies(2): >>44352607 #>>44353700 #
ktkaufman ◴[] No.44352607[source]
TL;DR: it's in a gray area, but nobody with power actually cares (at least for now), so it's effectively fine.

As I understand it, Lego is aware of the project (there's been a significant increase in interest in Lego Island in the past few years, with attempts to obtain the original source code) and simply does not care. It's an ancient IP and can't realistically compete with anything new, at least not in a way that would significantly affect Lego's revenue. This is not unlike the way several other companies have acted when their respective older games have been given the same treatment; if a fan project is not actively causing problems (reputational, financial, etc.), most companies will just leave it alone. For companies that actually seem to care about public opinion (as opposed to, say, Nintendo), I think it's fair to assume that the bad optics of taking legal action against a random fan project, however legally justified it might be, far outweigh any possible benefits.

replies(6): >>44352661 #>>44352769 #>>44353053 #>>44353286 #>>44353750 #>>44359517 #
1. rincebrain ◴[] No.44352661[source]
Specifically, I would assume the calculus is about "how much damage does this do by existing" versus "how much risk is there that we attempt to shut it down and sue and set a precedent by losing", and because for most projects the first value is tiny and the second value is potentially enormous, companies leave them alone.

When either value changes drastically in scale (e.g. a project does something making it very cut and dry which side of legal precedent it falls on, or to massively increase the damage to The Brand(tm)), that's when you get worried.