.
Is this a real minifig? If so, can someone submit an actual picture so we don't
have a weird photoshopped image.
I've added it to the catalog. Hope you don't mind.
I don't think we can use this image here.
What is the source of this image?
A competitor's website. And someone who isn't allowed to post here anymore.
Where did you find the credit for the photo? I am just curious. One of the reasons
I don't contribute to that site is that all the catalog and image credit
appears to be hidden.
Also, I have found some of my images there that were scraped from here...
.
Is this a real minifig? If so, can someone submit an actual picture so we don't
have a weird photoshopped image.
I've added it to the catalog. Hope you don't mind.
I don't think we can use this image here.
What is the source of this image?
A competitor's website. And someone who isn't allowed to post here anymore.
Where did you find the credit for the photo? I am just curious.
You are right, there is no credit information. But it is possible to see who
has uploaded an image while it is in pending status. So there is no doubt about
the source.
And in addition to that, there is only one person on earth who can take so fantastic
images of LEGO parts and figures.
One of the reasons
I don't contribute to that site is that all the catalog and image credit
appears to be hidden.
.
Is this a real minifig? If so, can someone submit an actual picture so we don't
have a weird photoshopped image.
I've added it to the catalog. Hope you don't mind.
I don't think we can use this image here.
What is the source of this image?
A competitor's website. And someone who isn't allowed to post here anymore.
Where did you find the credit for the photo? I am just curious.
You are right, there is no credit information. But it is possible to see who
has uploaded an image while it is in pending status. So there is no doubt about
the source.
And in addition to that, there is only one person on earth who can take so fantastic images of LEGO parts and figures.
That's right!
One of the reasons
I don't contribute to that site is that all the catalog and image credit
appears to be hidden.
Guess we have something in common here.
BTW, that other website says: If your submission needs a little explanation,
or there isn't a suitable field for it, leave us a note. By submitting this
form you agree for your submission to be made available under the terms of the
open database license
.
Is this a real minifig? If so, can someone submit an actual picture so we don't
have a weird photoshopped image.
I've added it to the catalog. Hope you don't mind.
I don't think we can use this image here.
What is the source of this image?
A competitor's website. And someone who isn't allowed to post here anymore.
Where did you find the credit for the photo? I am just curious.
You are right, there is no credit information. But it is possible to see who
has uploaded an image while it is in pending status. So there is no doubt about
the source.
And in addition to that, there is only one person on earth who can take so fantastic images of LEGO parts and figures.
That's right!
One of the reasons
I don't contribute to that site is that all the catalog and image credit
appears to be hidden.
Guess we have something in common here.
BTW, that other website says: If your submission needs a little explanation,
or there isn't a suitable field for it, leave us a note. By submitting this
form you agree for your submission to be made available under the terms of the
open database license
a. Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents;
But then there is the point 4.0 CONDITIONS OF USE that BL may not meet...
Oh, my issue with credit is not with fair use or anything like that. It just
makes the catalog data opaque. We can't see who contributed what and what
region they might be from, trace changes, or acknowledge sources (like who was
reposting my images there) Imagine Wikipedia without any attributions. It's
the same reason I objected so strongly to BrickLink changing user names to BLUSERS.
It anonymizes the data and anonymous data just isn't good.
I'm sorry, but that's laughable in practice on this platform.
Images from the Lego website are used all the time to add new catalog items (especially
items that aren't officially released yet - see catalog for pending items).
I don not believe for a second that the contributor asked permission to Lego
to use their images.
It should not matter where someone is getting the images from, it is an IPR violation
in any case.
So I agree with you in theory, but in reality if you should oblige any catalog
addition to show pictures taken by the contributor himself you'd have to
wait weeks if not months before someone parts out a set and feel like doing the
effort of taking pictures of all the new items and adding them to the catalog.
If I take a look at the main catalog contributors I don't see a lot of big
sellers among them (as they probably don't have the time for this).
I mean to say that I understand the practice of using a random image of a Lego
item as they are usually readily available in bulk on the Internet, most of them
without clear mention of the copyright holder.
Side discussion: in how far can someone be a copyright holder of a picture of
an item on which he has no copyright, like a Lego item? You might laugh at this,
but such has cases have already been tried at court.
Anyhoo, such poorly rendered and basically ugly pictures should never be a part
of our catalog. I dare say that by today's standards our catmins wouldn't
allow such an image to be used in the first place.
Erikk
In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
Yeah, not cool to grab other's images without permission...
I'm sorry, but that's laughable in practice on this platform.
Images from the Lego website are used all the time to add new catalog items (especially
items that aren't officially released yet - see catalog for pending items).
I don not believe for a second that the contributor asked permission to Lego
to use their images.
It should not matter where someone is getting the images from, it is an IPR violation
in any case.
So I agree with you in theory, but in reality if you should oblige any catalog
addition to show pictures taken by the contributor himself you'd have to
wait weeks if not months before someone parts out a set and feel like doing the
effort of taking pictures of all the new items and adding them to the catalog.
If I take a look at the main catalog contributors I don't see a lot of big
sellers among them (as they probably don't have the time for this).
I mean to say that I understand the practice of using a random image of a Lego
item as they are usually readily available in bulk on the Internet, most of them
without clear mention of the copyright holder.
Side discussion: in how far can someone be a copyright holder of a picture of
an item on which he has no copyright, like a Lego item? You might laugh at this,
but such has cases have already been tried at court.
Anyhoo, such poorly rendered and basically ugly pictures should never be a part
of our catalog. I dare say that by today's standards our catmins wouldn't
allow such an image to be used in the first place.
Erikk
In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
Yeah, not cool to grab other's images without permission...
Jen
There are plenty of fan sites who get advanced copies of sets for reviews and
promotions. Maybe someone from Bricklink should reach out to them and see if
they would be accomidating to submit pictures for catalog use.
I'm sorry, but that's laughable in practice on this platform.
Images from the Lego website are used all the time to add new catalog items (especially
items that aren't officially released yet - see catalog for pending items).
I don not believe for a second that the contributor asked permission to Lego
to use their images.
It should not matter where someone is getting the images from, it is an IPR violation
in any case.
So I agree with you in theory, but in reality if you should oblige any catalog
addition to show pictures taken by the contributor himself you'd have to
wait weeks if not months before someone parts out a set and feel like doing the
effort of taking pictures of all the new items and adding them to the catalog.
If I take a look at the main catalog contributors I don't see a lot of big
sellers among them (as they probably don't have the time for this).
I mean to say that I understand the practice of using a random image of a Lego
item as they are usually readily available in bulk on the Internet, most of them
without clear mention of the copyright holder.
Side discussion: in how far can someone be a copyright holder of a picture of
an item on which he has no copyright, like a Lego item? You might laugh at this,
but such has cases have already been tried at court.
Anyhoo, such poorly rendered and basically ugly pictures should never be a part
of our catalog. I dare say that by today's standards our catmins wouldn't
allow such an image to be used in the first place.
Erikk
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=87
It is clearly stated in our rules
"Image Sources and Crediting Contributors"
"If an image you upload is an original scan or photo, then you will receive catalog
credit for adding it. If the image is later identified as originating or deriving
from somewhere else or is another person's image, then credit for the image
may be replaced. Images from official LEGO websites are acceptable for use and
will be credited to you. You may lose image credit if your image is replaced
by one from another member."
"Image preferences"
"BrickLink accepts any accurate image of decent quality when no image exists,
but certain preferences are exercised when choosing to replace an image or move
it to a different position. Larger images are preferable to smaller images of
similar quality and existing images are typically only replaced when the replacement
shows a significant improvement in quality or size. For specific items:
Parts - Renders are preferred.
Parts, Default Catalog Image - Professional-grade photos are preferred.
Parts, Patterned - Photos are preferred.
Parts, Variants - Photos are preferred, except for the current version of a variant
group.
Parts, Unusual Color Types - Photos are preferred for all non-standard colors
such as transparent, chrome, etc. and rare (non-inventoried) colors.
Figures - Official LEGO images are preferred.
Literature - Scans are preferred for instruction booklets, catalogs, and other
printed literature.
Sets and Original Boxes - Official LEGO images are preferred.
Sticker Sheets - Scans are preferred.
Sticker Sheets, Mirrored and Reflective - Photos are preferred."
So for plain parts offcial LEGO renders will be prefferd instead of photographs.
If we have photographs then we don't delete them but they frequently go to
additional image slot. So for main image render will be preffered.
I'm sorry, but that's laughable in practice on this platform.
Um, no! People and websites still own their own images. Grabbing an image for
personal use is fine, but this is a commercial site and that is not allowed without
permission. It does not matter if my image is of a public item, it is still my
image.
LEGO has let us use their images for ages now.
Jen
In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
Yeah, not cool to grab other's images without permission...
.
Is this a real minifig? If so, can someone submit an actual picture so we don't
have a weird photoshopped image.
Just submitted a good picture of this fig from my copy of 7048, in excellent
condition. I was laughing pretty hard at that photoshopped picture, especially
since I've looked at it before and never noticed what was off about it!
.
Is this a real minifig? If so, can someone submit an actual picture so we don't
have a weird photoshopped image.
Just submitted a good picture of this fig from my copy of 7048, in excellent
condition. I was laughing pretty hard at that photoshopped picture, especially
since I've looked at it before and never noticed what was off about it!
.
Is this a real minifig? If so, can someone submit an actual picture so we don't
have a weird photoshopped image.
Just submitted a good picture of this fig from my copy of 7048, in excellent
condition. I was laughing pretty hard at that photoshopped picture, especially
since I've looked at it before and never noticed what was off about it!
I've not seen it update yet and can't believe the commotion this created,
but that's for getting a valid image in.
USA, Pennsylvania
Austria, Wien
Germany, Niedersachsen
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
Belgium, Brussels