Get so good infringin' dem copyrights....
Copyright/Trademark/Patent infringement (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Marhault
- Start date
OP
OP
I need a translator. I think he's speaking in "Idahoian"
Infringein' right in dem idahoian copyrights. Dem taters.
Combinations of chip colors and spot patterns are not artistic creations that fall under copyright protection.
OP
OP
I may or may not be using the same font for the words...does that hurt me?
Don't make this weird man...Whaaaaaa......
Okay, now it's starting to sound like trolling.....
Artists sometimes creates a new font for their projects -- in which case using the artist's font without permission would be copyright infringement.
If truly concerned, ask the artist.
I used the natty boh guy in a custom set and Got permission from Pabst Brewing. I sent an email and their attorney’s contacted me with some minor requests then sent me an official letter of approval with a limited license to produce a set for personal use. It was easy and protected everyone. Many orgs, esp consumer brands would likely respond similarly, although some for sure would not.
I love Pabst.....
Seems like there was a time when this community did a pretty good job of self-policing those issues.
OP
OP
Not trolling. But to be perfectly honest I didn't know who the artist was.
RudysNYC
Flush
You throw around "copyright infringement" like its nothing, and you're getting into the topic of protecting typography which is LOL funny.
You cannot "copyright" typefaces in the United States, "copyright infringement of a font" as you say in this context is nothing but a crock of doodoo. You can try to protect the digital display (legal "font," the code so to speak) or the shapes through what's called a design patent but that only provides limited protection with regards to digital display.
EDIT: plus it basically never happens, ever
EDIT 2: Word choice
Last edited:
RudysNYC
Flush
Again, call it a scummy move but don't throw around legalese that ultimately means nothing lol
Jake14mw
Flush
So, briefly, what the origin of the scrub donkey idea and art? Such strange looking chips (and so popular) for those not in the know. Thanks.
I think you either misunderstood, or are mistaken. But a pretty brazen response, in either case.
Your 'opinions' on several of the issues addressed in this thread have already been proven to be false.
RudysNYC
Flush
it is black letter law @BGinGA, typeface as typeface is not copyrightable. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1 subsection E. If you want to protect a “custom font,” as you call it, you need a design patent lmfao
https://www.copyright.gov/title37/202/37cfr202-1.html
https://www.copyright.gov/title37/202/37cfr202-1.html
RudysNYC
Flush
Back to my original point: call it scummy but don’t imply illegality when there is none. What’s brazen is trying to imply these outrageous nit issues are actionable or illegal when they certainly aren’t lol. Stick with your good argument that it’s scummy, not your ridiculous idea that a lifted typeface might land someone in court lol
OP
OP
Its kinda a long story. It started HERE. @BonScot and @Kensco did the artwork and design of the chips. They were done by the same Chinese manufacturer that @SeanGecko is using for the custom group buy going on right now.
Here's the link to the OG group buy.
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...p-buy-closes-january-18th-midnight-cst.50003/
RudysNYC
Flush
I wish I would’ve been on PCF for these. Helluva set, I have three cut cards with scrub donkey art and my regular crew has no idea what the hell they mean but they get the biggest kick out of em.
If you have not read @Hammer2171 original drunken rant, you must read it. I still go back to read it about once/month.
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/a-bunch-of-scrub-donkeys.45506/
One Eyed Dollar
Flush
This thread motivated me to finally look up the patent for the Lego board game dice that were part of the inspiration for my mixed game dice design. Not that it's likely they would ever pursue it, but I feel better after reading the patent. They clearly state that their design involves studs on the body of the die. I flipped it around and put the studs on the inserts with recessed in the body. Hopefully that and a number of other differences is enough to clearly set my design apart as not a direct copy.
Jake14mw
Flush
Oh... okay, yes, I remember that. GREAT thread, what a story! So the cartoony donkey art came from THAT. Okay, that makes more sense now, part of PCF history, now I get it.
justsomedude
Straight Flush
Fellow photographer here... technically, you don't need to register copyrights for your photos, even when contracted/paid to take photos by a third party. In photography, copyright is established as soon as you click the shutter button.
Now, if there is ever a copyright dispute over one of your images, you'd need to be able to prove you were the individual who snapped the photo, but legally speaking, that's how image ownership is established. There was a rather entertaining situation surrounding this aspect of law when a macaque snapped a 'selfie' with a nature photographer's camera. The image became popularized over the internet, and establishing copyright (and thus potential profit from said selfie) became a hot mess.
This "shutter button copyright" is a quirk of photo creation that isn't as easily transferable to other commercial works of art/logos/advertising/etc.
Like @Himewad, I wanted to use a design element from an artist. So I asked. He was super cool about it and was clear about the terms of my use. I just ended up going in a different direction but still play with the idea in my mind.
Design ownership is an interesting question. Without a written contract, who own the copyright? Artist or purchaser (when different)? I would expect the purchaser (and the price would be reflective). Disney owns the copyright of art produced by employees. I assume the Washington Football Club (or Dan) owns the copyright for the Redskins name and logo, not the artist. But it could be the artist (giving the purchaser defined use rights) per the contact. When unclear, it would be a fun legal argument to watch (and a horrible one to be party to).
As for where the copyright ends? I think you could also argue that the totality of the chip is the art (inlay, spots, mold) and this it can’t be duplicated. I suspect we saw that play out with the CPC Chesterfields- allowing David to use some combination of elements, but not a full match.
Edit: typo
Design ownership is an interesting question. Without a written contract, who own the copyright? Artist or purchaser (when different)? I would expect the purchaser (and the price would be reflective). Disney owns the copyright of art produced by employees. I assume the Washington Football Club (or Dan) owns the copyright for the Redskins name and logo, not the artist. But it could be the artist (giving the purchaser defined use rights) per the contact. When unclear, it would be a fun legal argument to watch (and a horrible one to be party to).
As for where the copyright ends? I think you could also argue that the totality of the chip is the art (inlay, spots, mold) and this it can’t be duplicated. I suspect we saw that play out with the CPC Chesterfields- allowing David to use some combination of elements, but not a full match.
Edit: typo
Last edited:
OP
OP
I think it depends on the designer. When @timinater did my custom design he basically said once he's done that I can use it however I want after he was paid. Some designers want to retain some rights because of possible monetary compensation somewhere down the line. I think both of which are perfectly fine. They do the work they deserve to be compensated for it. Since my customs were for me personally I think that's why Tim was ok with me making more chips with his work but if I were designing something to sell or start a business with it would probably be a very different transaction.
Eloe2000
Straight Flush
The copyright is owned by the creator at the point of creation and that copyright is not transferred unless specifically done so. However, when a creative work is made by an employee of a company as a matter of their employment then the employer is viewed as the creator, not the employee as in your Disney example. It would be different if that individual was a contractor however. As a matter of law and practice, when a creative work is made by a contractor or third party as a creative service the copyright is not, in fact, transferred by default nor in practice.
If I shot an image that was used by McDobald’s for an ad campaign we would negotiate a price for that image for a specific usage (Print media, social media, digital ads, etc), for a region/nations, and for a period of time. They would then need to renegotiate if they wanted to extend usage beyond those parameters. Depending on exclusivity agreements I may or may not be able to sell usage of that image to other clients within or outside of the areas of McDonald’s usage.
However, in these more informal circumstances like poker chip inlay design for personal use in a community the customs may be completely different. The usage of the copyrighted material created for the user is typically discussed and negotiated as part of the service and usage agreement.
I am not a lawyer, but am a photographer like @justsomedude and this is the type of thing we typically deal with.
Last edited:
RudysNYC
Flush
exactly. The right move in terms of principle is to ask permission for original designs, I can’t imagine anyone on here will have issues in terms of reprinting chips If they ask. My only slant in all of this is that people should be worried about their conscience if they rip off designs, not necessarily worried about hiring lawyers. I think we are largely reasonable people and can understand that just because you won’t be sued doesn’t mean you should do it. As much as I love @timinater and the designers on here, an unfortunate fact of American law is that with personal, non-commercial design elements in this context, it’s super hard to effectively protect small designs. A lot of copyright law also falls behind the times, the part of the Code of Federal Regulations I cited earlier was last revised in ‘92, but it’s been upheld in the courts routinely.
American law can be slow unfortunately, good thing we are reasonable people with consciences, degens we may be!
RudysNYC
Flush
Right, we sign agreements anyway so the designs themselves are property of the designers. I know I clicked an agreement when I worked with Tim. Hopefully everyone does what they can like Tim does to protect their entire designs. Due diligence works but it unfortunately can still be useless sometimes
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
