johnjohn
Full House
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2017
- Messages
- 2,608
- Reaction score
- 5,095
- Rewards
- 121
- Location
- 73 63 72 75 62 20 64 6f 6e 6b 65 79
Still a sick design.
-
PCF is an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!
His Rule, not mine (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jeevansluck
- Start date
Marhault
Full House
1) Artwork ultimately belongs to the artist unless specifically stated in the contract signed for the work.
2) In a case with no contractual agreement it falls on US copyright law in which case you default to rule #1.
Obviously there should have been a written contract, but an artist wanting paid for what seems like obvious profit seeking is not something out of the ordinary. It happens all the time. I'd say if the resale market didn't end up where it's at with these custom chips that maybe we would be in a whole different situation but we will never know.
You can be mad at the artist all you want but he's absolutely in the right on this. To me this is nothing more than everyone trying to get a cut of the pie.
For me I'd never own the chips at their current prices. Obviously because I'm poor, but also because casino chips can be had for less and I'd rather have casino chips everyday of the week. For customs I'll stick with CPC or just CCs.
I hope everything gets worked out.
2) In a case with no contractual agreement it falls on US copyright law in which case you default to rule #1.
Obviously there should have been a written contract, but an artist wanting paid for what seems like obvious profit seeking is not something out of the ordinary. It happens all the time. I'd say if the resale market didn't end up where it's at with these custom chips that maybe we would be in a whole different situation but we will never know.
You can be mad at the artist all you want but he's absolutely in the right on this. To me this is nothing more than everyone trying to get a cut of the pie.
For me I'd never own the chips at their current prices. Obviously because I'm poor, but also because casino chips can be had for less and I'd rather have casino chips everyday of the week. For customs I'll stick with CPC or just CCs.
I hope everything gets worked out.
OP
OP
Jeevansluck
Royal Flush
Tournament Set is the NUTZ! Like I'm drooling everyday...got to touch some of them 43mm tourney chips
Gotta say...the cash set did nothing for me!
Lemonzest
4 of a Kind
You live close by!
Last edited:
Except for 43mm, casino 43mm are still more expensive. Tough for those of us who have a thing for 43mm chips.
Marhault
Full House
Touche lol. I'm really enjoying the Royal 43mm best CCs I've handled by far. For sure understand the lure of casino chips though.
Why is it shitty to pay someone for hours and hours of work?
Im pretty sure he and lemon weren't sitting at a bar and had some great idea to do SB designs together.
I don't think you can play the community card here. He designed these chips for an individual.
OP
OP
Jeevansluck
Royal Flush
Shit man...
I want to make my own $5k Jack chip from these royals...I'm falling in love.
Eloe2000
Straight Flush
Which part of what I said is BS? Nike employs graphic designers in house as employees and as far as the law is concerned Nike itself is therefore the creator. Copyright belongs to the employer. If they used an independant contractor or a contracted company the copyright would belong to that person or agency and not Nike unless they have a contact specifically transferring those rights.
However an apt example would be Nike commissioning an outside advertising agency to create an advertisement. The contract for that commissioned work would be for specific media usage, a specific time period, and a specific region with an option to extend the usage at additional rates. Nike would have to pay for all usage outside of the initial scope of the agreement.
This may “feel” wrong, but it is in fact how copyright works in the US and how creative work gets commissioned. Both parties can of course always agree to anything both parties want however.
In this instance Toby states that they had agreed with a lemon to create artwork limited to one tourney and one cash set. So any usage beyond that is outside of their agreement and no one else has any right to duplicate and alter that artwork.
Last edited:
Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
I understand he has the right to charge a fee to further use his design. I would also bet he made it clear ahead of time with the BTP group what exactly they were getting and what they would be able to do with it afterwards as far as labels, cut cards, etc.
The fact that Lemozest had no idea what he was “buying” is not a good way to do business for either of them.
Do it!
Edit: i misread, do it from the SBs, not the Royals, mixing the CC with the Paulson would be bad.
Nothing was ever said for the BTPs, it was just understood that it was Tobys artwork, he did a lot more work on the all-in and bounty buttons. There was a fee involved.
From what i understand, and maybe Lemon could clarify on this point, there WAS an understanding between them that Toby had control of the artwork.
They both entered into a business relationship, and while contracts were not signed, there was definitely a clear understanding from both sides as to who had artwork control.
In fact. now i think on it. Not a single person in the BTP buy questioned even once when the subject of artwork fees came up.
It was just a given that there was someone working a LOT of hours on creating something, and that they would get paid for that. Period.
It was just a given that there was someone working a LOT of hours on creating something, and that they would get paid for that. Period.
Perthmike
Straight Flush
The artwork ownership thing has always confused me to be honest. At what point does the customer own, or partially own the artwork if the idea was theirs.
Forgetting the sunset inlay, what if ask for a design called concrete jungle and I ask for the dunes inlay, but with a car instead of a flag and buildings instead of the two trees.
To be clear, I'm not saying that's what happened here, I don't know who came up with the idea.
I'm genuinely asking the question, because it happens a lot with these types of homage design such as the sunsets, or concrete jungle lol surely consideration has to be given to the idea and the inspiration.
What if I want to change the surfboard colours and sun colour. Is that a new design? It's a nice inlay, but I don't think its exactly a custom design in the strictest sense.
I do agree that toby has every right to charge for edits and such that he is asked for. I'm less sure about the one of charge for the rights to use it, but then I'm not a designer. I'd like to have a bit more clarity regarding who came up with what.
Not digging at Toby or perry with this post and normally I'd say it's not our business, but this was clearly a set designed for resale and there are plenty of people who bought with the expectation that they'd get to reprint labels. Chips were purchased at very high prices, so I think some level of explanation and clarity is owed for the buyers sake.
Forgetting the sunset inlay, what if ask for a design called concrete jungle and I ask for the dunes inlay, but with a car instead of a flag and buildings instead of the two trees.
To be clear, I'm not saying that's what happened here, I don't know who came up with the idea.
I'm genuinely asking the question, because it happens a lot with these types of homage design such as the sunsets, or concrete jungle lol surely consideration has to be given to the idea and the inspiration.
What if I want to change the surfboard colours and sun colour. Is that a new design? It's a nice inlay, but I don't think its exactly a custom design in the strictest sense.
I do agree that toby has every right to charge for edits and such that he is asked for. I'm less sure about the one of charge for the rights to use it, but then I'm not a designer. I'd like to have a bit more clarity regarding who came up with what.
Not digging at Toby or perry with this post and normally I'd say it's not our business, but this was clearly a set designed for resale and there are plenty of people who bought with the expectation that they'd get to reprint labels. Chips were purchased at very high prices, so I think some level of explanation and clarity is owed for the buyers sake.
hdgeno
Full House
Yeah that's cool initially, the designer should be compensated. Buying a set with the impression that doing a few labels is ok, and then being asked for more money once it gets to that stage is BS.
So if I commission one of the designers (@p5woody, @Johnny5) to do custom artwork for a set, they forever own the rights to that design??
Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
I know the artists need to be paid. I have a custom set that I paid @p5woody to design. Then when I added more denominations I paid him some more. When I added a dealer button I paid him again. I don’t think anyone is saying Toby shouldn’t be paid!
But unless Lemonzest is lying he didn’t know what he was getting into as far as what could be done with the art work after the set was complete as far as being able to make labels.
OP
OP
Jeevansluck
Royal Flush
Yep...it's bad.
I can't afford SB...or AS or ES or BPT.
I need a 5k to make my $4000 Jack set go.
The Paulson cc sacrelige be damned...
That's on the buyer. Ignorance is no defense in the eyes of something and some sort....
Yes. As Changster said, he wanted to add on to a set and was told by a designer he couldn't.
Lemonzest
4 of a Kind
I dont need them.
Last edited:
RainmanTrail
Royal Flush
Who ever said an artist shouldn't get paid for their work? This is about an artist being deceitful and trying to extort people for additional money on the backend after already being very well paid for his work. I don't know what all chips he got for doing the inlays, but I know it's not a sample set. Even if he just got one rack of 43mm chips as payment (I got the sense that it must have been more than that though), that would already be a pretty big payday for what was, at most, a few hours of work.
Artists can choose however much they want for their work. Completely within their rights. It's the deception and gouging tactics that I have a problem with.
Artists can choose however much they want for their work. Completely within their rights. It's the deception and gouging tactics that I have a problem with.
Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
Which IMO is shady business on the part of Toby then to take advantage of. And will make me be cautious in ever dealing with him and may have other people thinking the same way.
tulkas
3 of a Kind
lol, that’s gonna end up in the out of context thread...
RainmanTrail
Royal Flush
Hence you were taken advantage of. Obviously Toby knew the laws and the norms here. For him to not bring it up and later try to make money on the project again is deceitful. He should have been clear with you that you were only borrowing his work, not buying it.
Quicksilver-75
4 of a Kind
Reading this shit on holiday makes me want to quit helping people with their wishes. 
I'm not so sure. When you designed a custom set did you get an immediate response from the designer about rights to the artwork and what should happen in a resale? If the artist is under the impression that the artwork is solely for a customer's use then he may not have brought it up. I agree it should have been brought up by one party or another, but I'm not in a position to assign blame or assume intent.
Perthmike
Straight Flush
What if you design a custom CPC set and someone else wants to have their own set made, for personal use.
Should you contact the original artist and see if they want a fee for the production of the second set?
I have to admit I discussed that with someone and didn't really think about that. I would have gleefully given permission (out of kindness) without another thought. Now that I think on it, I guess that's a faux pas? This is too confusing lol
Should you contact the original artist and see if they want a fee for the production of the second set?
I have to admit I discussed that with someone and didn't really think about that. I would have gleefully given permission (out of kindness) without another thought. Now that I think on it, I guess that's a faux pas? This is too confusing lol
Lets just say it was NEVER talked about then (highly doubtful)
If ANYONE worked to draw up a design for me and I wanted to use that design for something. The first thing i would do is ask that person/ designer if i could use it.
You cant buy multiple chip sets to sell, and then sell them to people and say 'sure go ahead, get labels done all you like'
Forst thing anyone would do is ask the designer for permission. Or clarified with the designer what the deal is.
It seems he didn't, and sold the chips with the expectation more art could be used. Now you have 3rd and 4th party using the terms deceitful, extortion, taken advantage of.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
