jhairehmyah

Not OP, but as a former (and current) business owner who uses LEGO, I'll add to his reply with:

TL;DR: First Sale Doctrine + LEGO Company's own "Fair Play" policy give OP and anyone in this business a wide road to work in that will not run afoul of the LEGO Company. And as long as custom parts do not violate LEGO-owned patents, they are fine there too.

First LEGO Company has a fair, open, and accommodating legal doctrine called "Fair Play." It outlines acceptable use by people in both non-commercial and commercial cases. See it here: https://www.lego.com/en-us/legal/notices-and-policies/fair-play/ Summary though: don't use our logo or "lego" in a top-level domain name, freely use trademarks in a way that is clear you're not LEGO, disclaim all use of trademarks, and don't reproduce copyrighted items.

Even the above has had exceptions through the years. LEGO allowed scanned instructions books provided items were two years out of production, for many years. They now have a free service offering that on their own site too.

Selling parts, including making custom "MOC" kits is clearly covered under first sale doctrine which states that the person who owns the item can resell it. While a US construct, it is applied in other places. If I buy a LEGO set, I gain the rights to resell its parts or whole. Period. Whether you sell those parts individually or you collect 20 sets and repackage parts from each into one "MOC" kit, there should be no issue under first sale doctrine.

The largest parts market on the internet, called BrickLink, while it operated for years independently of LEGO company, is now a subsidiary of LEGO, having been purchased a few years back. So basically, LEGO owns one of the marketplaces for people who re-sell individual parts that they've sourced from broken up sets and/or surplus in their own collection. LEGO Company's ownership of BrickLink is an implicit rubber-stamp that this type of business is okay by them. (As it should be).

That said, the BrickLink marketplace formerly was wishy-washy on allowing custom or modified parts (ie: engraved, 3d printed) but now under LEGO ownership it is prohibited. https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=103 Making custom compatible parts and selling them on your own market should be fine, as long as copyrights or patents are not infringed. Look at MegaConstrux (formerly MegaBloks) as the biggest LEGO look-alike that is out there making fully compatible parts to the original LEGO system.

The bottom line is OP has nothing to worry about as long as they adhere to fair use, patent laws, and first sale doctrine.

Everyone else who is not self-employed or run their own business. True, this is the most understood part about self-employment, but let's not forget there are lots of us who share this sad truth... paying in April, not partying with a refund. :(

Not OP, but...

Biktarvy, which is a once-a-day pill that many (not everyone) can now use to treat HIV and which someone close to me uses, is $3400 per month. For him, insurance pays 95% of it, and Gilead has a co-pay card to bring the cost to zero.

Once you have HIV under control, you need to get semi-annual checkups with your doctor (so 2x as many as a normal person should get) plus HIV viral load, kidney, and liver labs. If you're uninsured, these costs vary by doctor, but for my friend, he says its around $50 out-of-pocket every six months.

Here is the kicker though: I'm on PrEP to prevent transmission of HIV to myself. I need once every three month checkups and STD/STI checks in order to stay on PrEP and with insurance and the Gilead co-pay card, I also pay zero for Truvada/Descovy, which are $2800 per month cash. To prevent HIV, it costs more than my friend pays to treat it.

I will note: people who had HIV before these much more effective drugs came to market have long-term issues caused by the illness. OP mentions some. Those long term issues have costs associated with treatment.

HIV meds including PrEP can be rough on the body, especially kidneys. People who take PrEP but who face kidney/liver issues can stop, but people with HIV with the same issues must switch to less effective meds (2x daily, 3x daily, etc) with varying costs.

To be honest, a well-treated person with HIV is likely a safer sexual partner than a person who says they're "clean".

• A person with HIV is getting regular checkups, including STD/STI checks.
• A person with HIV who is taking their meds will, in just 3-6 months of treatment, get a to "undetectable" where studies show that copies of the virus are so low that transmission doesn't occur via sex.
• Meanwhile a "clean" person who engages in condomless sex with other "clean" people can be spreading the illness for literal years before they show symptoms or get tested. The virus lays dormant in your body for 2-5 years before developing into AIDS.

The cases of an infected person knowingly transmitting the disease in a malicious way were far outnumbered by the false reporting due to stigma.

The change in the law gave space for people who are no danger to others, ie: undetectable, safe-sex only, to choose to be responsible with or without disclosure while still punishing the person who is aware they have it and choose to be irresponsible.

When you have two competing ideas, things do get murky.

But think about it this way:

You buy LEGO Marvel sets and using stop-motion animation make a Marvel movie spoof. Provided its satire, you should be fine under copyright fair use laws at the international level.

But if you use long clips from the official soundtrack in that, you may be asking for the mouse to come down on you.

INAL, so it depends on what you're doing.