LEGO® CUUSOO 空想 - Turn your model wishes into reality

[just2good]

Just saw on the front page of cuusoo, it looks like set #006 was announced.

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/6135

We've known that since last month, but thanks anyways.

[The Real Indiana Jones]

Hmmmm... I notice that every one of the sets I am tracking (including mine and several other different builders) have all had zero new votes added for more than three solid days now. Most of them usually get several votes per day normally, so obviously something is happening...

Has anyone else noticed the same thing? Are they doing something behind the scenes? I know that from time to time, they freeze the vote totals while they are purging out cheaters (e.g. people with multiple accounts). How long does that usually take?

Any intel? Any guesses?

No real intel, but similar observations. Several of my projects that usually see a steady trickle of 3 or 4 votes per day haven't budged in several days even though a couple comments whose contents _implied_ support had been posted in that time. I have no idea if this is just a fluke or if something else is going on behind the scenes, I've learned that watching too closely just makes my head hurt so I'm trying not to read too much into it.

OK, looks like the vote totals are moving again for most people... My guess is that they just did a routine clean-up of cheaters with multiple accounts, etc, but instead of subtracting those people from everyone's vote totals like they did before, they are choosing a more subtle approach, simply keeping the visible vote totals at the same level until the underlying numbers catch up...!

If that's the case, then it makes perfect sense.

Edited November 17, 2013 by The Real Indiana Jones

[Blondie-Wan]

The Adventure Time Project has attained 10,000 votes.

[Blondie-Wan]

Oh, and that's now Sherlock, Japanese Architecture, and Adventure Time... was there one more that has hit 10k this period, or am I misremembering?

[Faefrost]

Oh, and that's now Sherlock, Japanese Architecture, and Adventure Time... was there one more that has hit 10k this period, or am I misremembering?

Another Zelda project.

[Lego Otaku]

And a few disappointed submitter since there's licensing matter. Maybe one of them will get accepted, and maybe not. :/ The Japanese model seems most likely since it won't need licensing but it may be complex as it is.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Lego Otaku

[Blondie-Wan]

Another Zelda project.

Ah, right. Thanks. I do wish we could search for projects in the Review Stage (and archived ones as well, actually). Anyway, the review batch currently being assembled will include:

Sherlock

Legend of Zelda: Iron Knuckle Encounter

Japanese old style architecture

The Adventure Time Project

And a few disappointed submitter since there's licensing matter. Maybe one of them will get accepted, and maybe not. :/ The Japanese model seems most likely since it won't need licensing but it may be complex as it is.

It seems a strong candidate, except for being something that would obviously be much larger and more expensive than any other CUUSOO set to date. That may hurt it, though of course we haven't yet had enough huge projects make it this far to be able to say whether they have much chance. This one will at least give us another test, to help us figure out whether they can make it.

Of the three licensed projects so far, I think Adventure Time is easily the likeliest choice, based on brand fit, business case and production costs (i.e., requiring new molds or not - of course, it could easily make use of them if they were an option, but I think the project submitter has done a good job of demonstrating that figures made entirely from existing elements can still actually look quite nice, and sufficiently true to the source material).

[Faefrost]

And a few disappointed submitter since there's licensing matter. Maybe one of them will get accepted, and maybe not. :/ The Japanese model seems most likely since it won't need licensing but it may be complex as it is.

Licensing is not always a major pitfall. It depends on the license. How much and how broad of a license the license holder is looking to receive for it, etc. I don't think in this case that the lack of a license will give the Japanese set an edge. It seems a bit broad and a bit large for a niche audience. I don't know how far they could trim it before they begin compromising the core of the proposed project, even with just one building.

Looking at the 4 in review for this period, I suspect there is a good chance none will pass.

- Japanese buildings. A really great MOC, but how much worldwide market for a Japanese Onsen? The house and the Onsen seem kind of large for such a niche. The shrine would be perfect but it gets vetoed as a religious subject.

- Zelda set. Same issue as the previous 2. Requires new molds for Link. Plus Nintendo may be reluctant to sell just a small 1 shot Zelda license if it conflicts with the potential to sell a broader full series license to a more video game friendly licensee such as K'nex.

- Sherlock. No way no how, under no circumstances. It fails brand fit first day of review. The show mostly delves into the darker edges of mental illness. High functioning brilliant sociopath squaring off against violent twisted psychopaths alongside a PTSD suffering combat vet. Brilliant television, but not for the 6-12 crowd, ever. Even if it makes it past that, why would Lego pay to license a core subject, that is already in the public domain? They could just do a classic Victorian Sherlock Holmes with no licensing needed.

- Adventure Time. This one probably has the best chance, depending on license requirements and the need for new molds. But those are big ifs. Back to the Future was an easy license to get in a size appropriate for CuuSoo, as it was an older property. Adventure Time is a new and current kids show. The license holder may not wish to tie it up with a small 1 shot type toy deal, and might prefer a larger commitment from a toy licensor. It is doubtful that TLG would enter into any broader licences or pay for a multi year full retail theme over a CuuSoo project proposal. Given how long theme planning takes, if TLG were to do a full Adventure Time theme, then negotiations would probably already be well underway from some time in the past year. This is one of the major potential gotcha's and problematic conflicts that can arise between CuuSoo and TLG's regular business process with current active media properties. This is also an example of why they are no longer defining a reason for project rejection. If TLG was even talking to Cartoon Network about Adventure Time at any point in recent history, then chances are this project would pretty much have to fail review as they would have pre existing licensing discussions ongoing. (And garner much fan gnashing of teeth about TLG stealing ideas, etc.)

Looking at all the complexity makes one wonder what joyfully optimistic maniac at TLG managed to sneak the entire concept of CuuSoo past the legal department?

[Canticleer blues]

This article about Cuusoo was recently posted on Rebrick. It mainly focuses on what happens to projects after they reach 10,000 votes and the role of Business Manager Daiva S. Naldal in that process. There's also a paragraph that sheds a bit of light on the factors that go into a project passing/failing, which is actually fairly interesting. Enjoy!

[Faefrost]

I wish Daiva's interview gave a little more details, but there are a few tidbits in there that at the least confirm much that we have suspected. At a minimum it does seem to smoothly and painlessly introduce some of the types of business case rejection, in a way that will help cut down on outrage.

The interview does leave the impression that they are at last shaking some of the bugs and teething pains out of the Beta CuuSoo review process, and are now operating with a much less ad hoc much more formal process. Which means we will hopefully see faster smoother reviews going forward. It feels like CuuSoo is starting to be refined above its Beta roots and into a full production level undertaking.

[Aanchir]

There's a new blog update that codifies some of the condition projects and members should adhere to. I'm sure some people will be upset at some of these new conditions (the "brick-based construction toys only" condition is somewhat disappointing since it strikes down some of the projects I love like the tape measure and LDD for mobile devices), but I appreciate them for being a clarification of what can and can't work through LEGO Cuusoo and saving us the trouble of finding out through trial and error.

[Meatman]

So does "Brick-based" mean no more technic?

[lightningtiger]

Oh, yes and that we are all wasting our time !

The time, effort and worst......money, which I can't afford to waste !

I agree with the one set rule, which I thought was made very clear at the start plus the use of only currently available Lego parts....so new parts can be asked to be made.

It's the logo crap is the most ticking me off, that means no sporting teams, TV series, film, stores or vehicle brands......why then should we even try ?

That means the Apple store modular project won't get a green light when it hits 10K or any thing else similar even if it has the support.......and support means possible sales....in turn means money which pays the bills and more set development !

Maybe the Cuusoo team find it too hard or have bitten off more than they can chew ?

[Brickthing]

...But I appreciate them for being a clarification of what can and can't work through LEGO Cuusoo and saving us the trouble of finding out through trial and error.

This is definitely the key point to bear in mind about the announcement; these guidelines reflect what Cuusoo has learnt from their project reviews so far, and they are saving supporters and future project makers the trouble of devoting time to ideas that simply aren't viable as Cuusoo sets.

Prior to this announcement, any project that would have been affected by the new rules hasn't have made it through the review process, as can be seen with the Android mascot and Purdue Pete.

I see this as a positive sign that Cuusoo is ironing out its Beta problems, since this will greatly increase the chance that projects that reach 10,000 will pass the review, and gives project creators a much clearer view on what makes a good suggestion before investing too much effort into it.

[Faefrost]

Oh, yes and that we are all wasting our time !

The time, effort and worst......money, which I can't afford to waste !

I agree with the one set rule, which I thought was made very clear at the start plus the use of only currently available Lego parts....so new parts can be asked to be made.

It's the logo crap is the most ticking me off, that means no sporting teams, TV series, film, stores or vehicle brands......why then should we even try ?

That means the Apple store modular project won't get a green light when it hits 10K or any thing else similar even if it has the support.......and support means possible sales....in turn means money which pays the bills and more set development !

Maybe the Cuusoo team find it too hard or have bitten off more than they can chew ?

You are reading too much into the no Logo rule. There is a difference between a corporate logo, and a licenced IP product. Andyt he Bugdroid, The Redit thingy, the Marvel logo mosaic, etc. these are direct corporate logos. There is no business case reason for Lego to ever make these. They are nothing more than free marketing for somebody else's business with no benefit. They are not a model or a product carrying the logo. They are the logo itself.

There are some mixed situations, where the corporate Logo is not itself the project, but may be an element of a project. Such as a McDonald's restaurant, an Apple Store or in your case your Ford dealership. The chances are these projects could easily continue with any specific branding removed. Ie if you were to change your logos to "City Motors". They will probably still allow the use of Logo'ing or licensing of certain types of models of real world things, such as well known cars. A model of a Chevy or a Mustang would most likely be permitted. These sorts of things will probably involve some case by case decisions.

The no sports logo's is interesting. But the rules are probably the same as above. No direct logo or mascot. But something real world such as a stadium model may be permissible.

This in no way impacts Licensed IP's which are company products, not company logo's. As an example while Mario is often associated as a symbol of Nintendo, he is actually an IP. His primary function is as a game character not a corporate mascot. So a Mario set would be permissible ( well except K'nex has the license.) but an actual Nintendo logo (white oval with red border and lettering) would not be.

Lego has an interest in licensing IP properties, not another companies corporate logos and signage.

So does "Brick-based" mean no more technic?

By "brick based" I am pretty sure they mean "Lego part based" so it would encompass any current Lego production parts. Bricks, Duplo, Technic and Constraction. And existing Power Function elements.

There is a very simple reason for the "only brick built sets" rule. The rule is actually "only stuff we design and produce internally using parts readily available from our warehouses and directly owned factories." Stuff like apparel, software, electronic components, tape measures, etc is all stuff that they would normally contract out to a third party producer. That is obviously not something they are looking to do via crowd sourcing. Besides its pretty apparent that the CuuSoo review team is only really capable of reviewing Lego set projects. They are not rigged to do a full business review of say software, write specifications for a software product, design it and Shepard it through development. That requires a very different sort of team than what they probably have available. So limiting CuuSoo to project types that fall within the review groups internal areas of expertise is quite reasonable. And probably should have been in there from the beginning. What sounds like a good idea is meaningless if you don't have a production team designed to deliver it. They are limiting projects to actual deliverables.

[Faefrost]

And just to clarify for everyone. There really is nothing new or unexpected in these new rules. Most of it we have been able to easily glean from observing review results, and applying a little thought or knowledge on business process. Nothing here is meant to screw anybody or act to any bodies detriment. These rules are simply a reflection or a more public explanation of what CuuSoo is and what it's capabilities are. It is a fun crowd sourcing mechanism. But it is not a magic wish machine. Real world limitations and business rules do apply.

The one advantage that this has is it prevents certain types of inherently impossible projects from getting everyone's hopes up, and then burning through several months of CuuSoo review team time and effort only to leave everyone disappointed or bent out of shape.

Once again there really is nothing particularly surprising here.

- No new parts. While this is sad, it makes sense. New parts are by all accounts the most complicated and expensive part of TLG's business, requiring a much larger commitment of resources than we are probably able to appreciate. The new parts projects never seemed a good fit for CuuSoo, in many ways. Chances are that that extended review if the Portal set was them looking at new part viability under the CuuSoo banner. They probably hit the complexity head on and determined that the two concepts just would not viably mesh.

- no corporate logos. Lots of reasons for this one. Aside from those listed above, it may also be for legal reasons regarding the CuuSoo web site itself. The use of a corporate logo in a project proposal may publicly imply an endorsement by said company that does not in fact exist. Case in point, the Apple Store. A third party is using Apples signage to solicit votes and support for a project that benefits them. It's one thing to make a proposal using an IP symbol such as the Batman logo. But if you stick a DC comics rondel on your project it means something very different. The lawyers may have raised some issues there. I suspect that this rule may see some future refinement.

- No Lego Logo. As above it implies endorsement that does not exist.

- one project = one set. They have been shouting this at us for years. Some just refuse to listen. CuuSoo is a small, limited sub group within the greater Lego. They are targeted at one shot sets. They don't do product themes, nor do they cross pollinate with the internal theme groups. We know this. They have told us this over and over.

- No minifig only projects. Once again they have been shouting this at us repeatedly. Some just don't get the hint.

- No non brick projects. CuuSoo can only make things that Lego makes themselves internally. No third party production deals or partnerships. Makes perfect sense.

- only use authentic Lego parts. As above, lots of very basic reasons for this. And I don't think anyone is really surprised by this rule.

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence.

[Faefrost]

Oh boy more wall o text :D

http://lego.cuusoo.com/guidelines

No seriously in reading through the actual new Guidelines and House Rules they are much much clearer than the summary. Here are a few key highlights. And a few interesting things that the Summary missed that will really surprise some.

- "No submissions with only company or team logos or mascots. Ideas containing a logo or mascot must be in the context of a meaningful LEGO model."

I think this addresses Lightningtigers concerns pretty head on. You can't make a model OF a corporate or Sports logo or mascot. You can use a logo in appropriate context for a greater Lego model. So no Purdue Pete. But LT's Ford dealership is fine.

- "LEGO CUUSOO is not a gallery to display your creations. Please make it clear through your images and description that you are recommending your submission as a potential LEGO product. If you want to show off your creations instead please post to the LEGO.com Create & Share Galleries and ReBrick."

Is anyone else laughing with joy over this one?

-"Drawings and photos are OK. You may use your own photos or drawings of non-LEGO objects, as long as you describe how you would make them into a LEGO product."

Notice the subtle change here. You can no longer just submit a picture of something and say "I want this made in Lego" you still have to provide some reasonable design work yourself. Be it brick or drawing, etc.

-"Your submissions are your own work and no one else’s. You agree not to upload images that belong to someone else as a part of your project, even if that person gives you permission. If you want someone else’s idea to become a reality through LEGO CUUSOO, please ask them to post it. Collaborations between builders is welcome, but please refer to guideline #8 below.

You can submit an idea someone else has already submitted, as long as your work is original. For example, two people can submit original designs of the same model car, or original designs of the same item from a movie. In the case of overlap, we will consider the project that reaches 10,000 supporters first, regardless of which project was submitted to LEGO CUUSOO first. Each person must submit their own original work."

I'm guessing those last few sentences answers any questions we might have concerning how they will handle the Ghostbusters project issue? First to 10k gets the review.

-"When you submit a project on LEGO CUUSOO, you're giving us the rights we need to commercialize your idea. This also means you may not sell anything related to your project independently. You may not sell building instructions, custom kits, or anything related to your project. We will remove projects without notice if we learn you are commercializing content submitted to LEGO CUUSOO. You may share and distribute photos and building instructions free of charge on your own website and online profiles."

That seems to clarify a few things regarding monetization and distributing instructions.

Overall I kinda really like these changes. They all seem to make sense. Streamline and clean up the process. Cut back on the impossible projects and overall clutter, and encourage clean tight well thought out projects that can actually see a chance of appearing in a box on a store shelf. Refinement is often good.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Faefrost

[The Real Indiana Jones]

Yes, a lot of these rules have been in their Official Guidelines for a while, but most people just didn't see it, or didn't read it.

It's great that they're clarifying things now, and I'm glad that they are starting to enforce the rules with the threat of deletion!

Personally, I'll gladly update my project, and even delete things if necessary, if it means that everyone has to follow the rules! =)

[ShaydDeGrai]

The project culling and form letters have begun (in my case is was for a new part proposal - which prior to this revision _was_ a legitimate (to the point of having it's own rules and compensation scheme) proposal subject.

The letter the CuuSoo team sends out to culled projects looks like this:

----------

Dear (username),

Today we've updated LEGO® CUUSOO's Guidelines, House Rules, and Terms of Service.

These changes help focus the projects on the site toward what we're able to produce

as LEGO CUUSOO sets.

Unfortunately with this update, a project of yours no longer qualifies under the new

Guidelines and House Rules and as a result has been deleted:

(Project_Title)

(Project_URL)

We know you've worked hard to create this project in hopes that it could one day be

produced as a LEGO set, so we're sorry to have to share this news. Please know that

this update was not made lightly. We've seen a lot of great ideas and models, but

not everything fits what is practical or possible to make and sell through LEGO

CUUSOO.

LEGO fans are infinitely passionate and creative, so we hope you'll continue to

imagine and create projects that fit within the revised Guidelines and share them so

others can vote and help make them a reality. You can read all about this update on

our blog: http://blog.lego.cuusoo.com.

Again, we're sorry for the disappointing news.

Kind regards,

The LEGO CUUSOO Team

----

Given that the proposal in question for me was a stand-alone new part design and the letter makes reference to a "LEGO set", I'm assuming that they're just using a blanket form letter for any projects deleted under the new guidelines rather than going into detail about which new rule was at issue. I would assume that projects that could be modified to _become_ compliant (such as working around the need for a new mold or avoiding a brand name such as "Ford Dealership" becoming "Auto Dealership" ) got a different letter, but I didn't have any projects in that category so I can't confirm that.

While I can't say that I'm happy about what CuuSoo has become (compared to where I'd hoped they were headed when the experiment began) I do appreciate them finally writing down (and actively enforcing) many of the previously "unwritten rules but realities of practice" that AFOLs had guessed at but never gotten firm confirmation of. The new guidelines don't really come as any great surprise to anyone who's been following CuuSoo over the years. The early guidelines _did_ say that many, now dead subjects such as theme proposals, parts and non-brick tie-ins, were all kosher but these changes didn't come out of thin air.

Every time a theme gained some traction the authors were asked scope it down to a "pilot" set and shift the focus of the proposal, so a one-project-one-set rule should come as a surprise to no one.

Set proposals requiring new molds just didn't make sense to anyone who understood the economics of the situation and, for those who don't understand why TLG can't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars mastering new parts that will only be used in a specialty kit with a production run of 10k units, it's probably easier to just explicitly forbid the practice than to belabor the point with exhaustive debate and justifications.

As for non-brick tie-ins, were any of these even close to reaching 10K supporters in the first place? The only one I can think of with any real support was a proposal to port LDD to gaming platforms (the DS maybe, my memory isn't what I remember it being anymore, perhaps it never was…)

Logos and trademarks and mascots (oh my!) Personally, I think this particular rule probably should have been explicit from Day One just to spare us all the roller coaster of watching things like Purdue Pete and the Android Andy the Bugdroid flush through the system sparking all sorts of media hype, internet chatter, hardcore AFOL v. non-Lego fanboy-folk feuds, etc. only to be shot down in review. I mean no slight to the creators of these projects, but if TLG knows they're not going to fly, then why accept them as proposals in the first place.

As for killing off new part proposals, this is probably the most disappointing change as there were actually a handful of well thought out and terribly useful ideas out there that are now dead (to be fair, there was also a fair share crap). Realistically though, CuuSoo never handled part proposals well. People don't rush to CuuSoo in the hopes of supporting a new roof tile design; they go there for the pop-culture tie-ins and cool kits, not a redesign of a Technic pin with a 45 degree double axle offset. I think "My Little Pony" got more votes in a single day than all the parts proposals, combined, did and MLP was DOA (logistically speaking) I never thought the idea of lumping new part submissions in with the vast sea of pop-culture driven MOCs and holding them to the same "success" criteria was a good one. Simon Pegg isn't going to go on national media and tell people to rush over to CuuSoo and support a new SNOT element the same way he did with the Winchester. I wish that TLG DID have a vehicle for giving serious consideration to new part designs suggested by AFOLs, but CuuSoo utterly failed in this regard so they may as well be honest about it and drop the category.

Edited December 13, 2013 by ShaydDeGrai

[Faefrost]

I think part of it with the new part proposals is both we and those behind CuuSoo failed to fully take into account the shear enormity of what goes into part design. Regular set proposals are basic design work and design validation using existing known elements and parameters. But part design really isn't so much design as it is engineering with an underlying testing and validation need way above what was probably feasible via CuuSoo. Which is a shame. I'm sure there were some fantastic part ideas on there. And I really hope they do figure out a better way to poll the fans for such good ideas.

All the changes strike me that CuuSoo is primarily being refined so that it isn't simply about channeling ideas, but also deliverables. In the long term scheme of things this is a good thing.

I'm kind of surprised that the guidelines did not offer any advise regarding reasonable size or cost of proposed sets? I figure that discussion will make it's way down the pipeline eventually. (The license issue with the Sandcrawler may have prevented its other problem from really coming into play?)

[ShaydDeGrai]

I think part of it with the new part proposals is both we and those behind CuuSoo failed to fully take into account the shear enormity of what goes into part design. (snip)

I very much agree. I actually am an engineer so I appreciate the long and complex journey a new part needs to navigate in going from a visualization of a new shape and a consumer item. I remember laughing while reading postings from people who were complaining that, under the old CuuSoo rules, the author of a new part that passed review would get a one-time flat fee. People who knew nothing of what it takes to produce mass produce a part to TLG's exacting standards would say naive things like "That's all I get? But I did all the _real_ work, I even made a wireframe in MLCAD! All they have to do now is start making it…"

I think a lot of people take for granted to the vast expenses (in both time and money) that go into bringing an idea to fruition as a mass consumable. (Small tangent) My freshman year in engineering, I had a class with a professor who held several patents. One day he brought in the end product of one of his inventions, a golf ball. His patent was actually for a machine the did quality control checks on the dimple pattern of the ball when it came off the assembly line, but he also came to class with a two wheel cart loaded with paper that (supposedly - I didn't bother to read it) embodied all the patents for all the machines and materials involved in the projection of that golf ball. Literally thousands of man-years worth of work to produce something that people buy in bulk for a few dollars, hit with a heady blunt object and (it my game is any indication) ultimate lose in a lake or the underbrush; and, unlike a Lego block, a golf ball doesn't need to interconnect with anything else - its manufacturing tolerance are a lot more forgiving.

Popularity contest aspects of CuuSoo aside, I think Faefrost is right in that the CuuSoo format really undersold the true complexity of what it takes to get a part made and is just one reason why it wasn't a very good vehicle for that sort of "suggestion" to TLG.

I'm kind of surprised that the guidelines did not offer any advise regarding reasonable size or cost of proposed sets? I figure that discussion will make it's way down the pipeline eventually. (The license issue with the Sandcrawler may have prevented its other problem from really coming into play?)

I think licensing, the feudal nature of Lego working groups and the question of inevitable discovery by the dedicated LSW team trumped any issue of scale with respect the Sandcrawler. By extension, if conflict with existing licenses/themes continues to govern the review process, CuuSoo could end up scoping itself down to a collection of "one-offs" (BttF) and Creator-esque kits with a (stated or not) price ceiling in line with (non-(Exclusive/Hard-to-Find)) Creator kits. The more projects they reject (or disallow) the more it feels like they really don't want "big" projects, they want "safe" ones that don't tax resources or take up too much shelf space in the store. I don't know that they _need_ to put an explicit price ceiling in their guidelines (as the models people propose are never the ones that actually get marketed, they could always consider a scaled back revision as part of the review process) but I'm not expecting to see a $150+ kit come out of the CuuSoo pipeline anytime soon.

Edited December 13, 2013 by ShaydDeGrai

[Faefrost]

I think licensing, the feudal nature of Lego working groups and the question of inevitable discovery by the dedicated LSW team trumped any issue of scale with respect the Sandcrawler. By extension, if conflict with existing licenses/themes continues to govern the review process, CuuSoo could end up scoping itself down to a collection of "one-offs" (BttF) and Creator-esque kits with a (stated or not) price ceiling in line with (non-(Exclusive/Hard-to-Find)) Creator kits. The more projects they reject (or disallow) the more it feels like they really don't want "big" projects, they want "safe" ones that don't tax resources or take up too much shelf space in the store. I don't know that they _need_ to put an explicit price ceiling in their guidelines (as the models people propose are never the ones that actually get marketed, they could always consider a scaled back revision as part of the review process) but I'm not expecting to see a $150+ kit come out of the CuuSoo pipeline anytime soon.

I think with existing and active licences it is a little more complicated than the simplicity of "inevitable discovery". It's more a matter of "There is already a clear existing contract in place to make these subjects should both parties choose to. That contract does not have room or accommodations for third parties or outside contractors." I actually think that ANY SW projects that stem from ILM or Lucasfilms on screen designs will be DOA at review. But more obscure EU subjects that have not appeared in a movie or TV series might still be viable, if just barely. I also don't think we will ever see a suped up or UCS variation of a specific subject that they have already released as a set in some form.

There are of course exceptions to some of this. One good example of a project that touches on an existing license but might still have potential would be the Barris Batmobile from the 60's TV show. While it is more or less a Batman IP, the actual license for the vehicle was held by the cars creator rather than DC Comics or the television producers. So it would carry its own stand alone license for something like a Lego set.

[lightningtiger]

Okay, now how do you tick off the tiger.......email him that two of his projects will get the axe - one if I don't change it to a single building and the other.....forget about it....I won't get the flaming chance to change it to a single building project.

Not happy this morning !

The funny thing is I allowed as much time as I like to change my "city corner style buildings" to a single one as long as I do it before 1K......I'm not even at 100 yet !

My gut is telling me.....why do I even try on Cuusoo or why did I ever at all ?

Edited December 13, 2013 by lightningtiger

[The Real Indiana Jones]

Wow... It looks like they have already started to go ahead and delete a lot of projects immediately...!

I read that at least 16 projects are already gone from the top 180 (i.e., the top ten pages)

Does anyone know which ones?

[Faefrost]

Wow... It looks like they have already started to go ahead and delete a lot of projects immediately...!

I read that at least 16 projects are already gone from the top 180 (i.e., the top ten pages)

Does anyone know which ones?

You might be able to tell by digging around in Glenbricker's data? I would guess that it is stuff that really has no chance of being changed or modified. Probably a couple of Comic Super Heroes blind bag projects, the LDD 3DS project etc.