# Lego Animation... legality **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 14, 2001, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lego-animation-legality/76223 "2001-08-14T17:31:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Arken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@Arken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arken)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lego-animation-legality/76223/1 "2001-08-14T17:31:56Z")
After watching several very funny animated films made with Legos (not going to post a URL considering this is a question about legality), I was wondering about whether or not this is a legal thing to do… to use lego as your medium, I mean. When does it become illegal? I assume you couldn’t legally make an animated film with, for example Star Wars figures… at what point does it become copyright infringement? ---
**Author:** ![Podkayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lego-animation-legality/76223/2 "2001-08-14T17:41:13Z")
Well, if you do claymation, are you infringing on the copyright of the clay company? There are “construction blocks” that are exactly like Legos. I think as long as you don’t _call_ the work “Lego” or show their logo, it should be okay. Ooh, but does Lego still have rights to the little Lego people, and were they used in the work you’re considering? IANAL. Meaning I am neither a lawyer nor a Lego-person. Here’s some [Lego art](http://www.cheapass.com/eyeca.html) that’s probably fully illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lego-animation-legality/76223/3 "2001-08-14T17:52:34Z")
Tricky area. IAAL, but don’t specialize in copyright law. Here’s a current link to a court decision addressing this issue. Very similar facts, except it concerns Barbie dolls, rather than Lego people. [http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/14/barbie.lawsuit.ap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/14/barbie.lawsuit.ap/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Arken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@Arken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arken)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lego-animation-legality/76223/4 "2001-08-14T18:03:45Z")
That’s a very interesting case… I can see how tricky this is. The big problem with lego is, as Podkayne suggested, that the brick itself is not copyrighted or trademarked which is why there are lots of lego knock-offs. I can understand how clay would be impossible to sue over as how can you prove it was your company’s clay they were using… but lego is tougher as its little men are instantly recognizable and I don’t know if other companies use the little yellow smiley headed guys. Going back to the Star Wars point I brought up, I doubt you could use the Lego Star Wars little men… but what about the Star Wars set blocks in a non-Star Warslike configuration? What if you took a very obvious Disney toy but switched its head with that of another toy and painted the body? I understand that this is all legally very tricky… but there must be some sort of precedent for cases such as this. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lego-animation-legality/76223/5 "2001-08-14T18:28:46Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Arken \* > \*\* > Going back to the Star Wars point I brought up, I doubt you could use the Lego Star Wars little men… but what about the Star Wars set blocks in a non-Star Warslike configuration?_\* probably…so long as there weren’t obviously Star-Warsy parts (i.e., you use a block that bears the Rebel Alliance/Empire’s logo, you use the piece for R2D2’s head, with recognizable central eye, etc.) > [@](#): > > \*\*What if you took a very obvious Disney toy but switched its head with that of another toy and painted the body? > \*\* As long as the body was still recognizably a Disney toy…probably not. Taking Buzz Lightyear, painting him completely black, and putting a head you molded yourself from clay will probably still leave you liable. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lego-animation-legality/76223/6 "2001-08-14T20:28:52Z")
The site of the LEGO Group has set up a few “Fair Play” rules on their website: [http://www.lego.com/info/printfairplay.asp](http://www.lego.com/info/printfairplay.asp) The relevant parts would probably be those: > [@](#): > > **The LEGO Logo may not be used on an Unofficial Web Site** > > The bright red LEGO logo has become one of the most recognized trademarks in the world. \ We must, therefore, insist that the LEGO logo NEVER be used on an unofficial web site. > > **The LEGO Trademarks may be used under certain Limited Circumstances on an Unofficial Web Site** > > The LEGO trademarks (but not the logo) may be used in a non-commercial manner to refer to LEGO products or elements which are shown or discussed on a web site, as long as the trademark is not unduly emphasized or used in a way that can lead an observer to mistakenly believe that the site is sponsored or authorized by the LEGO Group. > > **Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site** > > If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say “MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS”. Never say “MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs”.Also, the trademark should appear in the same typeface as the surrounding text and should not be isolated or set apart from the surrounding text. In other words, the trademarks should not be emphasized or highlighted. Finally, the LEGO trademark should always appear with a ¨ symbol each time it is used. > > **The LEGO Trademark cannot be used in an Internet Address** > > The LEGO trademark should not be incorporated into an Internet address. \ > > **Use a Disclaimer** > > A disclaimer should be used when the LEGO trademark appears on a Web page. An appropriate disclaimer would be “LEGO® is a trademark of the LEGO Group of companies which does not sponsor, authorize or endorse this site”. \ I guess “non-commercial” is the most important word here. If it’s any indicator, Lego decided not to sue after an artist made “concentration camp kits” of Lego bricks. Apparently, it was considered better to not draw attention to the case and betting that the public would be able to tell what was real and what wasn’t. Of course, if someone else without the excuse of it being artistic were to infringe on Lego’s copyright, he or she probably wouldn’t fare so well. S. Norman ---
**Author:** ![Arken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@Arken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arken)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lego-animation-legality/76223/7 "2001-08-14T21:35:20Z")
Hmm… everything in that disclaimer has to do with their trademark and logo, not the bricks themselves. I’ve sent an e-mail to Lego asking them. I will let everyone know if I get a response.