ChipGuide Usage Policy (1 Viewer)

Tommy

Royal Flush
Admin
Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
17,543
Reaction score
37,886
Location
Delaware
Dear PCF Community,

I was contacted by Mr. Kaplan regarding the use of images from the Chip Guide. Please be sure to follow the ChipGuide's Usage Policy when using their images on PCF.

http://chipguide.themogh.org/cg_usage_policy.php

I believe @David Spragg mentioned a while back that adding something like "Images courtesy of The Museum of Gaming History's ChipGuide" would be sufficient but don't hold me to that.

Thanks,
Tommy
 
For the TL/DR crowd...

Blah, blah, blah...
All content (images, descriptions, webpages, etc.) on the ChipGuide is copyrighted and use of any of the contents requires expressed written consent, with these exceptions:

  1. Images and descriptions (but not entire webpages) may be used for non-commercial purposes, such as educational purposes or trade lists, if the source is identified as "The Museum of Gaming History's ChipGuide".
  2. Commercial use is prohibited and includes, but is not limited to, sales, auctions and publications.
  3. ChipGuide Numbers (CGxxxxx) may be used to identify items cataloged on the ChipGuide for both personal and commercial use. ChipGuide numbers can be used in publications (including websites) if the source is identified as "The Museum of Gaming History's ChipGuide".
  4. Use of ChipGuide website content is hereby granted to the Casino Chip and Gaming Token Collector's Club (CC&GTCC), The Museum of Gaming History in any and all of their endeavors, including Casino Chip and Token News and their websites.
My take... Give "The Museum of Gaming History's ChipGuide" credit when using a photo, and do not use a photo to sell chips (which I think is rare, if it ever happened).
 
Last edited:
I finally found a few they don't have, only the $.50 and $1 on their website
20211031_201609.jpg

But instead of my name can we make it "photo courtesy of PCF" since we got these here?

Kidding, since it sounds like @allforcharity owns probably the most of these I think it would be cool for one of our Nothern Brothers to submit an entry!
 
I finally found a few they don't have, only the $.50 and $1 on their website
View attachment 803833
But instead of my name can we make it "photo courtesy of PCF" since we got these here?

Kidding, since it sounds like @allforcharity owns probably the most of these I think it would be cool for one of our Nothern Brothers to submit an entry!
That $10 & $20 meeeeeow
 
How about "I'm looking for this chip?" with a picture from TCG?

Does that count as sales?
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd think "I'm looking for this chip?" qualifies as a trade list item, thus requiring "The Museum of Gaming History's ChipGuide" photo credit.

Actually offering it up for sale would be different. Then again, if you are selling a chip, I'm going to need a photo that's not a chipguide photo. Proof of life concept - before I send the monies.
 
All content (images, descriptions, webpages, etc.) on the ChipGuide is copyrighted and use of any of the contents requires expressed written consent, with these exceptions:

  1. Images and descriptions (but not entire webpages) may be used for non-commercial purposes, such as educational purposes or trade lists, if the source is identified as "The Museum of Gaming History's ChipGuide".
  2. Commercial use is prohibited and includes, but is not limited to, sales, auctions and publications.
  3. ChipGuide Numbers (CGxxxxx) may be used to identify items cataloged on the ChipGuide for both personal and commercial use. ChipGuide numbers can be used in publications (including websites) if the source is identified as "The Museum of Gaming History's ChipGuide".
My take on this is...

Re 1: What is the definition of a "trade list"?

Re 2: Sales and auctions are not necessarily commercial use. Use in publications is dependent on whether or not the use qualifies as "fair use".

Re 3: Individual ChipGuide numbers have absolutely zero legal trademark protection.
 
My take on this is...

Re 1: What is the definition of a "trade list"?

Re 2: Sales and auctions are not necessarily commercial use. Use in publications is dependent on whether or not the use qualifies as "fair use".

Re 3: Individual ChipGuide numbers have absolutely zero legal trademark protection.
Since they specifically say "Commercial use is prohibited and includes, but is not limited to, sales, auctions...", I would have to say they do not want their copyright used for sales or auctions.

The MOGH is a registered 501 (c) (3) Tax Exempt Not-For-Profit Corporation. As such I suspect that they are restricted in using their stuff for any for-profit venture by the IRS.

Now, if I used their chip photo to sell an item on eBay, could they legally stop me? I really don't know. I do know that they asked nicely not to use their photos for a sale or auction, and to give them credit when using it for informational purposes. Tommy brought it to our attention. That is good enough for me.
 
Since they specifically say "Commercial use is prohibited and includes, but is not limited to, sales, auctions...", I would have to say they do not want their copyright used for sales or auctions.
Agreed, but what they want is immaterial. That sentence's use of "sales, auctions..." applies only to commercial use. Individual sales among collectors, etc. are not commercial use, by definition..
 
Agreed, but what they want is immaterial. That sentence's use of "sales, auctions..." applies only to commercial use. Individual sales among collectors, etc. are not commercial use, by definition..
In cases like this, I will take their intent vs can I win in court.

But I agree with you, their legal case may be thin. Suing for "damages" even thinner. In the spirit of keeping the Mogh free and open and not a locked down paywall...

72310.jpg

Photo: "The Museum of Gaming History's ChipGuide"
 
My take on this is...

Re 1: What is the definition of a "trade list"?

Re 2: Sales and auctions are not necessarily commercial use. Use in publications is dependent on whether or not the use qualifies as "fair use".

Re 3: Individual ChipGuide numbers have absolutely zero legal trademark protection.
Damned IP lawyers.
 
lets play a game!

tell me which image is the chipguide without searching for/ through the chipguide. all taken from eBay recent sales or google.
how are we suppose to know which is which? and who becomes the owner once an image hits google or eBay from a different seller without a watermark. like i said for years and im talking chipboard years long ago before pcf was a thought or using them was an issue

? anyway lets play the game.
 

Attachments

  • Dunes20-20100.jpg
    Dunes20-20100.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 131
  • dunes100new.jpg
    dunes100new.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 143
  • il_794xN.3354305229_7bae.jpg
    il_794xN.3354305229_7bae.jpg
    118 KB · Views: 143
lets play a game!

tell me which image is the chipguide without searching for/ through the chipguide. all taken from eBay recent sales or google.
how are we suppose to know which is which? and who becomes the owner once an image hits google or eBay from a different seller without a watermark. like i said for years and im talking chipboard years long ago before pcf was a thought or using them was an issue

? anyway lets play the game.
1635822437456.png
 
lets play a game!

tell me which image is the chipguide without searching for/ through the chipguide. all taken from eBay recent sales or google.
how are we suppose to know which is which? and who becomes the owner once an image hits google or eBay from a different seller without a watermark. like i said for years and im talking chipboard years long ago before pcf was a thought or using them was an issue

? anyway lets play the game.
Are any of them the chip guide? They don't look like the right lighting and or spacing ... fwiw Kaplan has an image searcher or some nerd equivalent (apparently) that searches for their photos on the internet to match them. I only know that because I ran into him for a photo that I took but it was actually the same exact chip that had at one point been submitted to the chip guide and he said he had something that could identify the chip not necessarily the photo (which I guess is possible considering there's enough detail differences on each chip to make them almost all unique).

As for the "who becomes the owner" I'm guessing there's fairly concrete laws/rulings dictating this. I can't just grab the Times cover photo and throw it on eBay for my buddy to grab and because he didn't get it from the Times its his/fair play now right?
 
Also . this is where it gets sticky im no lawyer but a graphic designer for a hospital we have lots of weird rules we have to follow but most id assume apply here.

ChipGuide Usage Policy
The Museum of Gaming History has been granted use of the images shown on the ChipGuide by their owners. In some cases, the ChipGuide has modified these images to meet its guidelines. The Museum of Gaming History retains its rights over the image modifications. (correct but herein lies the sticky part!)

which by my law degree which is none.

1)When you make an image, you automatically become the owner of the copyright all i have to do is edit the image again and it now becomes my copyrighted image. but see #5!

2)No protection is available for unregistered designs. While the UK has design rights akin to copyright, design rights in the US are related to patents and must be registered in a design patent application at the USPTO. Unless the image that the artist is copying is registered with the US Copyright Office, the other artist cannot seek a court order restricting its use. Thus, remedies such as injunctions or damages would only be available if the design is registered. (dont hold me to this but Total Items on the ChipGuide = 279,587 thats alot of design patents.


3)
How much do you have to change artwork to avoid copyright?

There is actually no percentage by which you must change an image to avoid copyright infringement. While some say that you have to change 10-30% of a copyrighted work to avoid infringement, that has been proven to be a myth. The standard is whether the artworks are “substantially similar,” or a “substantial part” has been changed, which of course is subjective.

The court will look at the circumstances and what exactly has been copied. While copying a small part of an image might seem insignificant, it might be deemed “substantial” if it defines or is the essence of the piece. The court will likely say that if a reasonable person would see the pieces as similar and point out which is the copy, an infringement has occurred.

Nonetheless, if you were to use the work for purposes such as criticism(ugly chip why would you want thc), comment, news reporting, teaching(informing chippers of $1 chip in jims upcoming sale potentially ), scholarship, or research(wanted add), then you would not be infringing under the fair use exception to copyright infringement. The court uses the following factors to determine if the use of the artwork falls into one of the fair use categories:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


4)https://tineye.com/search/9f57ed8a1af1c4e339a0c985b36258dfffdb3faa?sort=score&order=desc&page=1
image was taken from chipguide and searched through tineye. results say mogh does not own the image in question. rather seems eBay does LOL

5)

Who owns the copyright of a photo once It has been edited?​

A photographer will own that copyright throughout their life and 25 years afterwards.


Whether it’s photography on your hard drive, online portfolio, or a post on your Instagram feed, with this ownership, you have exclusive rights to your image according to the Copyright Law of the United States of America. This includes:

Reproducing your photography
Preparing derivative works based on your photography
Distributing copies of your photography to the public (by sale, rental, lease, or lending)
Publicly displaying your photography

..in conclusion kinda puts to bed the we don't want you using ARE image with outh mogh. we all will be respectful of your wishes for the most part but dont expect everyone to bend over backwards to do this unless greg susongs wife has the images on a sd card somewhere in is safe then those images he edits are his and we cant use them! the only way mogh has any rights to any image is if we all send are sd card to them and they patent every image for there use and they have the files on hand and they must prove they were the orignal creators of the photograph. but we are talking about a scan which is even a more complex bag of worms. Copyright: If the entire object to be scanned is copyrighted, then scanning the object and creating a file without permission is a violation of the object creator's copyright. so dunes casino or paulson or somebody else who created the chip owns the copyright not use scan, not mogh editing. the original creator who made the chip is the copyright holder unless somebody else files for a patent ie. paulson ( why is it they are the one who we are chasing in the chip world HAHA)

and lastly In the US, creative works are copyright protected from the moment that they are created. This means that the creator of the work immediately has copyright protection without needing to actually register the work with the US Copyright Office. However, in order to file a lawsuit, the work needs to be formally registered with the Copyright Office.





have a nice day!
 
What if someone takes a photo of the image? Or a screenshot? Do they become the owner? Asking for a friend.
yes in theory taking a photo yes, screenshot no, but your not taking a photo of a apple in an orchid by a yellow house your shooting a picture of an object.
Copyright: If the entire object to be scanned is copyrighted, then scanning the object and creating a file without permission is a violation of the object creator's copyright. so dunes casino or paulson or somebody else who created the chip owns the copyright the original creator who made the chip is the copyright holder unless somebody else files for a patent ie. paulson
 
yes in theory taking a photo yes, screenshot no, but
Copyright: If the entire object to be scanned is copyrighted, then scanning the object and creating a file without permission is a violation of the object creator's copyright. so dunes casino or paulson or somebody else who created the chip owns the copyright the original creator who made the chip is the copyright holder unless somebody else files for a patent ie. paulson
so does this mean chipguide can never claim copyright as they themselves have effectively violated the copyright of the original chip maker?
 
so does this mean chipguide can never claim copyright?
im not a lawyer but in all my time creating web pages, and design ive never ran into the problem and weve done some shady stuff for a top 100 hospital in the US. . only way to find out for 100% is to get sued from mogh for copyright infringment and to do that legally they have to have a patent on the image in question, registered with united states. . and again all there photos are of an object not a photo so objects are copyrighted to the creator (casino, or suppiler or head graphic desinger of chip in question)
 
im not a lawyer but in all my time creating web pages, and design ive never ran into the problem and weve done some shady stuff for a top 100 hospital in the US. . only way to find out for 100% is to get sued from mogh for copyright infringment and to do that legally they have to have a patent on the image in question, registered with united states. . and again all there photos are of an object not a photo so objects are copyrighted to the creator (casino, or suppiler or head graphic desinger of chip in question)
I doubt the mogh will sue. Who would they even sue? Just talking about seems silly. Its a hobby. Entertainment. A pastime. If I had to hazard a guess, what the mogh are after is acknowledgement for their time spent to build and maintain such a resource. Id happily contribute a few bucks a year to its running, especially If it absolved me from such pleasantries of acknowledging everytime a photo of a chip was used. Im lazy like that.
 
Last edited:
also,
Using a scanner is considered mechanical reproduction. It isn't substantially different than photocopying , which I'm sure you recognize as infringement.

When a device strips artistic choice from the operator, it's just copying. Scanning is not like photography, where composition, aperture or other exposure choices, really anything except for subject. Which any copier has to select anyway.

Thus you can't legally claim copyright because you did not create a new work,

so anyone who scans something cant file for copyright because your copying the item your not creating a new work , you can be sued bye the original creator for infringement though!!

so if you take my avatar and scan it your copying my image it isnt a new image that you created im still the copyright holder to that image.


Now mogh my have a copyright on the name and likeness of mogh, and possible the catalog of items. ie say i wanted to create a new database it would have to be substantially different then the current website. that is possible that they do have that copyrighted.
 
It doesn't matter what the item is in the photo, if they took the photo, then someone cant use it without their permission.
If you use it and "get away with it", that doesn't make it legal.
Is the museum going to sue you? Highly doubt it, but that's why they're asking you not to...it's their photos (unless lent/given by another photographer) and they prefer you don't use them.

Quite simple really...didn't take the photo? Don't grab it.
 
It doesn't matter what the item is in the photo, if they took the photo, then someone cant use it without their permission.
If you use it and "get away with it", that doesn't make it legal.
Is the museum going to sue you? Highly doubt it, but that's why they're asking you not to...it's their photos (unless lent/given by another photographer) and they prefer you don't use them.

Quite simple really...didn't take the photo? Don't grab it.
No that’s not how copyrighting works!!! If they want to sue you for copyrighting They don’t own the object they can’t sue. None of us owns the objects that we are scanning!! Now if they are using photographs and cropping out the casino than yes they own the copyright on those!!
They didn’t take any photos all photos were lent except for the original creators photos Greg susong ! 90% of images are scans scans arnt photos they can’t be used in copyrighting! Scanning an object isn’t a photo!! There’s no copyrighting a scan unless your crating custom art ! That’s visually different from the original. The average person can’t tell you who’s is who’s so copyrighting wouldn’t stand anyways. The scan isn’t different enough from the other to warrant anything unless you start a database of there images then they got something on you.

Meaning it doesn’t matter what you scan! That chip is an object they don’t own any of those chips The dunes owns the copyright on any chip scanned into the database(or Paulson or designer does ). Any current chip in the mogh is currently copyrighted by the casino / gpi / design creator !!! Doesn’t matter what we do to it we don’t own the scan !

Now if we are taking the chip out into the field and photographing it when a bird lands on It then we have created a copyright via photography because we’re using a camera.


Here U go from my lawyer friend,
If someone scans an existing object that they didn't create, do they get a copyright in the file? No, not from just scanning it. Copyright protection is not granted for copies of creative works made by someone other than the original works copyright owner! Ie you can’t get a copyright on a scan!!! Your scanning an existing object that was created already. Your not doing anything to that chip to warrant a copyright !
 

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.

Back
Top Bottom