
Ask HN: Are works created in Lego copyrightable? - lawlessbricks
My understanding is that Lego bricks are a system. Their website footer says <i>LEGO System A&#x2F;S, DK-7190 Billund, Denmark.</i><p>And that in the US systems are not copyrightable: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;17&#x2F;102<p>Example 1: If someone views https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lego.com&#x2F;cdn&#x2F;product-assets&#x2F;product.bi.core.pdf&#x2F;6259467.pdf (generic airplane), and physically creates the model with Lego bricks, is there copyright infringement?<p>Example 2: If someone looks at a picture of LEGO bricks: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flickr.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;shamisenfred&#x2F;50193102497&#x2F; and builds the same result, is there copyright infringement?<p>If there are no trademarked or registered copyrighted works present in the Lego bricks, is it infringement to then sell that collection of Lego bricks and&#x2F;or custom generated instructions that use no LEGO brand assets or trademarks with a disclaimer that it is not an official Lego product?
(People are doing this, but the part that’s unclear is <i>“is there copyright on the Lego creation itself, or just the “cookbook” that is the instruction manual and graphics therein?</i>)<p>It is 1000% clear that you cannot reprint LEGO group or anyone else’s instruction book as that would be clear cut copyright infringement. My understanding is that two people could produce instructions that generate the same result as they describe a system for building.<p>So Lego Group and anyone else who creates their own custom instruction manual can have copyright over the manual as an expression, but not the system it builds is my understanding.<p>If you are a Lawyer or know a lawyer who&#x27;d be interested in talking more, I&#x27;m happy to pay for your time. Make sure your email is on your profile or link to it here. HN has all walks of life so there may be one here!
======
tlb
Keep in mind: If you do something that bothers Lego or any of the rights
holders for their tie-ins, you have a problem. If you have $1M and 2-5 years
to spend on litigation, a court might be able to determine exactly how much of
a problem you have. But if you don't have that much time and money, you have
an insurmountable problem. All you can do is cease & desist.

For example, the case of whether the Java API is copyrightable has been going
on for 10 years and we still don't know the answer. Google and Oracle can
afford to duke it out for that long, but you probably can't.

So exactly what the law allows only matters if you're prepared to litigate.
Otherwise, plan A should be to not bother anyone.

A strategy that sometimes works is to proactively reach out and talk about how
your site will be good free marketing for their products.

------
asperous
There is an answer from a real lawyer on this website [1]

Summary: "Copyright covers works of original authorship fixed in any tangible
medium of expression, even LEGO building bricks."

[1] [https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-you-copyright-a-
lego-...](https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-you-copyright-a-lego-model-
design--1595500.html)

~~~
Rochus
I don't see your quotation in the given reference; none of the three answers
seems to correspond to it.

But you can find an answer e.g. in
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Eligible_works;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Eligible_works;)
it depends on the juristiction. A sculpture or industrial design could be made
from LEGO bricks; if these are covered by copyright laws in your juristiction
there is still the question of originality, see e.g.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality).

~~~
greenyoda
> I don't see your quotation in the given reference...

That quote is the second sentence of Bruce Burdick's reply. Not sure why
you're not seeing it.

------
esquivalience
Copyright law is variable worldwide and (in the EU) the question is actually
shifting a bit at the moment but speaking very generally,

You can create your own things in Lego and that will be your own copyright
work if you've exercised your own creative input in making it.

If it's a copy of someone else's Lego model (or equivalent) that's not your
work and would infringe theirs.

If you're portraying some external thing with Lego the question is more
complicated. It varies from a general impressionist rendition of some thing
(your work) to a pixel-by-pixel perfect recreation in little Lego dots (not
your work). But that's not specific to Lego.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of a huge question. Your examples are useful
but don't cover the full range of texture that real life brings.

~~~
lawlessbricks
> If it's a copy of someone else's Lego model (or equivalent) that's not your
> work and would infringe theirs.

If I build the lego plane in the example above out of Lego bricks I own, have
I infringed on Lego's copyright? (I don't think they own a copyright on the
configuration of the bricks, or else, it would be really hard to police,
wouldn't it? Everyone that builds that model would be infringing!)

~~~
extra88
The company has a copyright on the sculptures shown in the examples provided
but are clearly meant to be replicated for your personal use and enjoyment. If
you built a lot of sculptures matching the example and attempted to sell them,
the company could sue you for distributing copies of their work without their
permission.

~~~
lawlessbricks
This all hinges on if their work is the sculpture itself, or everything around
it, if the sculptures of made of lego bricks are recipes.

~~~
marcinzm
As I see it, the instructions for making the sculpture are a recipe and thus
not under copyright. The final sculpture isn't a recipe and isn't functional
(ie: food, clothing, etc.) and thus is under copyright. Otherwise you get
silly things like all digital works not being under copyright because you can
make a recipe of computer actions that creates them.

~~~
extra88
Recipes for food dishes are not copyrightable, I'm not certain all
instructions for making things are treated the same but let's assume for the
moment they are.

If the instructions for assembly are in the form of photos or diagrams (or
video), I think copyright is still in effect, either they're a derivative work
of the original sculpture or have their own copyright. I think instructions
for assembly written out in words would not be copyrightable ("Place a 2x8
blue plate on the bottom then stack three 2x4 black bricks on top of each
other at the left side of the plate, …), if they're considered equivalent to
recipes for food.

~~~
lawlessbricks
From what I've learned, Even if the recipe was in a video, You cannot make a
video in the same "style" but the recipe itself is not copyright, so if you
made a video of that recipe yourself that was different (different set,
different host, different music) you'd have copyright on that video, but
neither you nor the original video creator on the recipe itself.

This is how I think it applies to lego as well, but as we see from the
comments here a lot of other non-lawyers like me are surprised by that.

When I started this question in my head a few days ago, I absolutely 100%
thought creations made from lego designs were copyrightable, but through my
research, I'm now at this point.

~~~
extra88
A sculpture made out of Lego is not a recipe for making that sculpture. A
photo of the sculpture is not a recipe.

You can't "clean room" copyrighted works, if you coincidentally made an
identical plane (same parts) without having ever seen their plane or
instructions, you could still be infringing on their copyright.

There are limits, just as you can copyright a story but not a sentence, there
are likely combinations of bricks that are too simple to be copyrightable.

Copyright holders can grant blanket permissions for use of their works, or
derivatives, with certain parameters. What you're going to do with your copy
of a work matters, that's where fair use (or "fair dealing" in some nations)
may come in. Whether commerce is involved matters. Some things are technically
copyrighted but are considered to have no value; a court may not grant damages
but could still compel the defendant to stop distributing the work.

------
Kosirich
I highly recommend that you contact LEGO’s customer service directly with the
question, as they are easy to reach and they really take pride in being
available and they try to provide answers or point to people who can (source:
dude trust me)

~~~
riffic
People on customer service teams are not qualified to provide legal advice.
Neither are random people on an internet discussion board.

edit: With this said, neither of the two example scenarios presented by
lawlessbricks encompasses the act of copyright infringement, in my mind,
simply by building a model based on a schematic or photograph with no further
actions. You can assemble whatever you want with the bricks you own in the
comfort of your home and no one can or should stop you from doing that.
Assembly is not equal to reproduction in the eyes of a copyright.

I'm not a lawyer and copyright law varies drastically depending where you are
and how much money either you or your plaintiff have.

~~~
jakear
They could have a set of legal-approved answers to FAQ’s though.

~~~
riffic
Lego does, actually, look for their "Fair Play" brochure:

[https://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/](https://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/)

------
geofft
> _My understanding is that Lego bricks are a system. Their website footer
> says LEGO System A /S, DK-7190 Billund, Denmark._

> _And that in the US systems are not
> copyrightable:[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102)_

Wouldn't this logic imply that operating systems are not copyrightable, or
that works created using products from Adobe Systems Inc. are not
copyrightable?

~~~
lawlessbricks
> Wouldn't this logic imply that operating systems are not copyrightable, or
> that works created using products from Adobe Systems Inc. are not
> copyrightable?

Operating systems are copyright as literary work AFAIK.

You can copyright the output of a system AFAIK, but with Lego, _the output is
the system_.

For example, if you make a graphic in photoshop, the result is it's own
entity.

The result of building in lego may look like something new, but it exists _as
lego_. My argument is a lego model is just pretty instructions that is merged
with the work and cannot be separated.

Hoping a lawyer will pop in so I can pay them some money to answer this. :)

(I talked with one, and they agreed with my original logic. I'm looking for a
few more to understand the spectrum.)

And to be clear, if you take a picture of your lego design, that photograph is
100% your copyright.

If you make a graphical depiction of your lego creation, that is 100% your
copyright.

If you make something in lego -- is it copyrightable?

~~~
8note
A sound recording is just a combination of building blocks as well, individual
frequencies with specific amplitudes and phase shifts. Why wouldn't the same
argument apply?

~~~
lawlessbricks
My current theory (not a lawyer) is that a sound recording is 1 expression of
the idea (captured in that specific way). That makes it copyrightable.

I think Lego falls under merger doctrine:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distinction#Merger_doctrine)

------
extra88
> Lego bricks are a system. Their website footer says LEGO System A/S, DK-7190
> Billund, Denmark. And that in the US systems are not copyrightable

Having the word "System" in the company name doesn't mean anything. But a Lego
System does seem to be a thing [0], "The LEGO System means that: all elements
fit together, can be used in multiple ways, can be built together. This means
that bricks bought years ago will fit perfectly with bricks bought in the
future."

I'm not sure what "system" means in a copyright sense but I what Lego seems to
mean by "system" is a consistent set of parts and ways for those parts to fit
together. If that's what copyright means by "system" you can't copyright that
but I think that's what Lego has patented.

The existence of the system would have no bearing on the copyrightability of
any work created out of the parts they designed and connected using their
system. I can buy a bunch of gray and white Lego, fit them together to make a
sculpture that looks like my cat and have a copyright on that work (if it's
sufficiently original).

[0] [https://www.lego.com/en-us/lego-history/lego-system-in-
play-...](https://www.lego.com/en-us/lego-history/lego-system-in-
play-60d5efbce6cf46a78794f108b3c19bda)

~~~
lawlessbricks
> The existence of the system would have no bearing on the copyrightability of
> any work created out of the parts they designed and connected using their
> system.

I would love examples of this -- as I think it's the crux.

I've looked at some case law earlier this week, but I didn't find any
specifically calling out systems.

------
pbhjpbhj
IANAL; this is not legal advice.

My instinct is yes lego models would attract copyright protection, but
copyright applies to works that have a distinctive quality to them. If you
make a generic house, no copyright.

Also, people only infringe if they copy, just creating the same lego model
isn't enough and courts are likely to need extraordinary proof to sway the
'balance of probabilities' towards the work being a copy.

Yes, instructions can be reproduced as they are factual and not artistic, but
you can't necessarily copy the way the instructions are presented (eg images
are likely to be protected by copyright, but an image of a single brick
wouldn't pass the distinctiveness threshold; and also probably wouldn't be
copied).

You'd need to make it explicitly clear if you didn't have trademark approval
from Lego that your lego models were not originated by them (if your images
show their bricks or use the word "lego").

In the UK, Design Rights might be more relevant, but I know very little about
them. In other countries Utility Patents might also have relevance.

If your designs are functional then the functional elements won't accrue
copyright/design rights.

In UK you'd probably be limited to actual damages for infringements (people
copying your lego model), ~£0.

I consider lego to be genericised, but courts would probably disagree.

 _This post represents my private, personal opinion and in no way relates to
my employment._

------
tgflynn
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you are misunderstanding paragraph b:

> In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
> extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
> concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
> described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

I think what that means is that just because your copyrighted work describes
or represents some system it doesn't mean that you have copyrighted the system
itself. For example if you write a book that describes an operating system in
general terms it doesn't mean that you have any rights to the general concept
of an operating system as it exists in any form apart from your book.

So I don't think that paragraph is relevant to whether a work made of LEGO
bricks is copyrightable or not (I think that the answer to that question would
typically be yes).

~~~
lawlessbricks
Embodied: be an expression of or give a tangible or visible form to (an idea,
quality, or feeling).

If I create a lego model, and put it in front of you, and give you the blocks
you need to create that model, is the model not a tangible embodiment of the
recipe that is that lego model?

Now, if I made a from-scratch, clay model of a plane, and then said to you,
recreate exactly this from clay, if you did it would be infringement IMO,
because you didn't copy the recipe, but 100% recreated it.

The final form of the clay work, is separate from the recipe to create it.
With Lego, it's visible in every brick connection line.

My argument is lego are a procedure, which the result embodies the procedure,
sort of like a quine. (again, I'm not a lawyer.)

~~~
tgflynn
Your argument would apply equally well to a book. A book is nothing but a
sequence of symbols chosen from a small finite set. Therefore a book is
actually a recipe for recreating itself because the book tells you exactly how
to arrange it's symbols in order to recreate it. Hence applying your reasoning
it follows that a book is not copyrightable. But we all know that books are
copyrightable, so your argument must be flawed.

------
jacquesm
Not a lawyer, but I'd be happy to bet that works in LEGO are copyrightable.
After all, LEGO is just the medium for an expression here, and by creating
something with LEGO as that medium you have made a (hopefully) original work.

I don't see the difference between LEGO, bits of code, a book, an audio
recording or a work of art such as a sculpture or a painting.

That said, since LEGO itself started out by infringing on the intellectual
property rights of others as far as I'm concerned they can jump into a lake,
but that's not something that will get you very far in a court in case you get
sued.

[https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/03/lego-
stole-...](https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/03/lego-stole-their-
now-patented-bricks-from-kiddicrafts-patented-self-locking-bricks/)

~~~
lawlessbricks
> After all, LEGO is just the medium for an expression here, and by creating
> something with LEGO as that medium you have made a (hopefully) original
> work.

Again, I'm not a Lawyer, but I think this is covered by merger:
[https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/media_law_prof_blog/2006/0...](https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/media_law_prof_blog/2006/05/merger_doctrine.html)

There are only so many ways to connect Lego bricks which is the part I'm
trying to understand.

~~~
jlokier
> There are only so many ways to connect Lego bricks which is the part I'm
> trying to understand.

There are only so many ways to arrange the sample bits in an audio file 3
minute long, yet an audio file can contain copyrightable music.

There are only so many combinations of characters that could occur in a
reasonable sized book.

There are only so many ways to color pixels in a photograph.

Etc.

------
bawolff
IANAL

I suspect that plain lego bricks are not original enough to warrant copyright
(threshold of originality and also very utilitarian - utility objects dont
have copyright in usa) but the little lego figurines might be copyrighted.

Basing this on:
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#I_know_that_I_can't_upload_photos_of_copyrighted_art_\(like_paintings_and_statues\),_but_what_about_toys?_Toys_are_not_art%21)

------
mensetmanusman
Interlocking blocks are like words. You can string them together in any number
of ways, most of which have no value.

However, some of these ways are aesthetically or mechanically interesting, and
are up to the designer to discover.

After this pattern/arrangement is discovered, it’s exact layout can be
copyrighted.

Now, modifications by others to the layout would not be protected so long as
it was different enough. (Fashion has this same issue, the difference can be
extremely minor, and then it is not covered).

~~~
lawlessbricks
> However, some of these ways are aesthetically or mechanically interesting,
> and are up to the designer to discover.

For the US:

Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects
inventions or discoveries. _Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the
copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be._

I agree with you that a designer working in Lego may discover new ways to
piece the bricks together, but is that expression of connecting the bricks
itself copyrightable, or just the resulting photos, videos, collateral?

------
chx
While the interpretation of the Berne Convention will vary from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction, Chief Justice McLachlin of Canada's Supreme Court offers
significant guidance
[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc13/2004scc1...](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc13/2004scc13.html)

> In addition, an original work must be the product of an author’s exercise of
> skill and judgment. The exercise of skill and judgment required to produce
> the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely
> mechanical exercise.

We should check the German Supreme Court as well
[https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=347fb9e3-0348...](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=347fb9e3-0348-4af9-b7cf-
ed1d7449dbf0)

> for the protection of works of applied art under copyright law “a degree of
> creativity which allows, from the view of a public open to art and
> sufficiently skilled in ideas of art, to be called an ‘artistic’
> performance”

In both of your examples and your further question alas there is nothing clear
cut here. If someone copied Example 2 and decided to sell it to a museum as a
piece of modern art and the museum decided to accept it as such, there's a
very high chance of a successful lawsuit of infrigement. In most cases,
however, you might find it extremely challenging to prove in a lawsuit that
something made from LEGO reaches the treshold of originality.

And can you sell instructions and LEGO pieces? Sure, why not. You own the LEGO
pieces, under the first sale doctrine, LEGO has exhausted their rights to
them. Creating new instructions are free speech and as such, they are
absolutely impossible to stop. Even in jurisdictions where free speech is more
limited in the United States, legislators have been extremely careful on
setting those limits. (Even where lockpicking is not legal, lockpicking videos
absolutely are. Agatha Christie novels are sold despite they could be viewed
as recipes on how to commit murder. And so forth.) Now, if someone produces a
different set of instructions that results in the same thing, there's nothing
you can do to stop them as ideas are not copyrightable. You could patent it
should it rise the level of patentability.

------
ghaff
Not a lawyer but I'd just point out that your example 2 isn't just a picture
of something built with LEGO bricks. I'm assuming the original LEGO bricks are
out of patent (which may be relevant here as well) but other parts may not be.

In addition, while it's presumably not applicable in this case, some LEGO sets
are presumably licensed from the holders of trademarks or other IP (as in the
case of Star Wars sets). Whereas a knock off would not be.

But again IANAL.

~~~
lawlessbricks
> I'm assuming the original LEGO bricks are out of patent (which may be
> relevant here as well) but other parts may not be.

My understanding is patents protect Lego from other entities _reproducing_
brick designs based on their patents. (Think Lepin lego clone
bricks:[https://technicstory.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/servo2.j...](https://technicstory.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/servo2.jpg))

If patent means people cannot create objects (copyrighted or not) from Lego
bricks without infringing on Lego patent, the point of the toy is moot.

> some LEGO sets are presumably licensed from the holders of trademarks or
> other IP (as in the case of Star Wars sets).

Correct, I'm sure if someone made a Tie-fighter out of lego and started
selling it, Disney could come after them, because it infringes on their
trademark and possibly registered copyright.

~~~
ghaff
>protect Lego from other entities reproducing brick designs

That's what I was saying. There are many different parts in that picture and
some of them may still be covered by patents.

------
alexchamberlain
IANAL etc

Recipes are not copyrightable, in general - though that is a complex question
in its own right - but the text is. So I think you're correct in saying if
someone follows a set of instructions and rewrites them in their own words,
they are probably fine. That being said, Lego is awesome and I wouldn't want
to annoy them, as they might stop selling me the bricks...

------
mikerg87
This sounds like, what is Is known in the world of LEGO as a My Own Creation
(MOC). Tons is sites sell plans and brick kits to build all manner of
sculptures and dioramas. Maybe this will give you a research avenue to answer
your question.

~~~
lawlessbricks
Right, but do the creators of MOCs have rights to the layout of the Lego, or
just the instructions and images they use to present that work? (It's unclear
hence me hoping a lawyer in the HN community takes a look. :)

------
Fire-Dragon-DoL
There is an artist that makes lego sculpture. Since he is famous, I'd imagine
he solved whatever problem is related to the fact that he uses lego.

