His Rule, not mine (1 Viewer)

[ssanel54]

I don't even know what this means.... Therefore I categorize myself in the "awesome people" group .

I get super tilted when I see Sheiks username and Perry's avatar in the same thread, feel they should swap

 

[RainmanTrail]

I'm awesome too. Louisville is 985 miles from those Massholes.

Yet somehow, you're still very much in the Masshole crew.

 

[v1pe]

You're relatively new to chipping, but still been around long enough to know you're spewing horseshit. Maybe you're off you're meds, but I'm not sure what ulterior motive you have for skewering @Toby who has been stand-up fair to everyone AFAIK across 3 forums. Hire any designer, J5, Toby, etc. and you don't own the design. You effectively leased the right to use it for your set. You want to follow up getting dealer buttons, cut cards, labels made? You need to pay them to alter the art and meet specs. Stop being a fucking troll.

Is that really the standard? I look at art as if it's any other deliverable, once the work is finished the product (the files in this case) are shipped to the client and the client now owns them. It's up to the client to do as they wish with them...make more chips, put the logo on a T shirt, make a poster, whatever.

I would have assumed some "royalties" agreement was out of the ordinary, especially for a non-commercial (debatable I guess), small scale effort such as a chip set.

I'm quite curious about this because my wife is looking into creating some apparel and my assumption was that we would be paying one time for logo/designs/etc. Not every time we wanted to print some new product using the same logo.

Again, no argument that additional denoms/buttons/etc that require more design work shouldn't be paid for.

 

[sheikh617]

I get super tilted when I see Sheiks username and Perry's avatar in the same thread, feel they should swap

We planned it.

 

[MatB]

So it boils down to you don’t like anyone who disagrees with you Travis.

Ok.

 

[HobokenNJ]

I'm quite curious about this because my wife is looking into creating some apparel and my assumption was that we would be paying one time for logo/designs/etc. Not every time we wanted to print some new product using the same logo.

If there's anything that can be learned from this thread is "don't assume; get it in writing". The link from the copyright office I posted before suggests the copyright resides with the designer absent a written agreement to the contrary (if an independent contractor).

 

[w00zie]

France and Germany differ from the US, UK, and Canada in this regard:

"Analysis of International
Work-for-Hire Laws
The following memorandum addresses the concept of works made
for hire in the international arena. Specifically, it discusses how the
copyright laws of the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom,
France, Germany, China, and Japan treat creative works when the author
is either an employee or an independent contractor.
Executive Summary
Japan and three common law states (the United States, Australia,
and the United Kingdom) recognize works made for hire in the
employment context by providing for the vesting of ownership in an
employer for the creative works of employees made in the course or scope
of employment. Australia, however, does make an exception for the
works of professional journalists.
France, Germany, and China, all civil law countries, vest initial
ownership of such a work in the employee, but Chinese law provides for a
mandatory two-year license to the employer by the employee. German
courts also often will imply a contractual transfer of ownership to the
employer based upon an employment agreement. In most cases, moral
rights are retained by the employee author as they are inalienable once
originally vested in the employee. All three nations have specific
exceptions for software, ownership of which vests in the employer.
France and Germany have similar exceptions for audio-visual works, and
France and China have exceptions for collective works...."

Thanks! And yes, the employee/employer thing also has to be considered.

 

[atomiktoaster]

I'm taking a risk at reading between the lines a little bit, but there should be a big difference between designing art for a personal project, and designing art for commercial resale. Whether it's graphic design, photography, filmmaking, whatever, the price is almost always higher when the art is for commercial use. Attempting to avoid that market reality by vagueness or deception would be not cool at all.

In general, I'll just say everybody should be clear, thorough and honest when forming a deal of this type, both client and artist. Other than that, I'm not sure it's possible or advisable to critique the aftermath from the outside.

 

[JeepologyOffroad]

What I consider reasonable, having built a custom set, with custom labels:
-If I want more chips (add-ons) or dealer buttons or cut cards to be made, I don't owe anything more to the designer.
-If I sell my chips to another person, the buyer doesn't owe anything to the designer.
-If another person wants to build exactly the same set, they should ask for MY permission first, about a yes or a no, and then (if I say yes) they should ask the designer about his possibly demanding extra remuneration (it's up to the designer). Think about Michelangelo and the Pope. I 'm the Pope who paid for the work of art, sorry
-If another person wants to use my labels on totally different chips, then it's exactly as above.

100% this. Only thing I’d add to point 1 is a reasonable fee should be paid to designer if they are altering for different denoms, bounty chips, etc

 

[w00zie]

Bullshit. This wasn't some piece of art that Toby painted that lemon wanted a print of. This is artwork that was commissioned BY lemon for HIS project. It's much more akin to a company hiring a designer to come up with a logo for them. Imagine if Nike had to pay some graphic designer every time a new pair of shoes or t-shirt gets made because the graphic designer duped Nike with some bullshit licensing contract, taking advantage of them not knowing how this stuff worked, just assuming they were buying the logo, rather than paying for permission to "borrow" it when they commissioned it in the first place.

Of course Nike will do nothing without a contract because of this. Btw google "nike swoosh designer story" it's an interesting read. The woman who designed the swoosh was paid $35. Years later she got some stock (worth like $1million now).

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??

You can only buy the right to use a design. If you want that right forever, exclusively and for every application possible you might have to pay much more for that compared to using it for two sets of chips. Or the designer says "sure, use it for whatever you want!"
>> work the details out with your designer upfront!

If the answer is no, then where do you draw the line? It's obvious that the SB design is a derivation of the Dunes. Should people be asking Toby or the owner of the Dunes design for permission to replicate it? Did Toby get permission to modify the Dunes logo? If not, then how can anyone claim that he owns the SB replica if he did not have permission to create it in the first place?

As far as I know its not a problem to do a derivation. A one-to-one copy is another thing. Think of fake designer clothes or watches.

The main difference in this case, it seems, is that Lemon does not have the design files...so he has essentially only "leased" the design.

If you want open data (the design files) things can get expensive very fast. If a designer is willing to sell them to you at all.

The most expensive SB chip, after all the costs, was the hundo. $1.66e. But sure, be pissed off at me for taking advantage of you all you like. Go for it.

 

[BGinGA]

most people here would feel as though they had been wronged if they were on the receiving end of Toby's arrangement.

I'm not sure you're correct on that point. I think most people here (except maybe newbies) have a pretty decent grasp on how designer rights work in relation to chip-related artwork. Start a poll....

Big difference between not liking something, and feeling wronged by it.

 

[12thMan]

All right, tired of holding my tongue, I’m jumping into the argument: lemonzest has one of the best user names on the board. It’s crisp. It makes me think of summer. And the citrus bar that is on top of a Fremont street hotel that is decorated in yellow, green, and white and there is nothing to do but smell citrus and lay in the sun while watching females that actually belong in swim wear at a pool while drinking a greyhound.

Controversial I know, but there it is.

 

[binisha]

The naive part of me is waiting for someone to just pay Toby for standard denominations and then sell those labels to everyone else so we can be done with the mess.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I suspected this might be the case, so I looked it up. It's not even clear to me that a logo like this actually is in fact copyrightable...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/08/12/trademark-copyright-and-logos/?amp

 

[Tienou59]

I’m also curious where the line is, for instance if I remove the trees, change the typeface and slightly alter the text is this now a royalty free usable image for labels?View attachment 331011
Or am I now borderline infringing upon Breaking Bad IP?
View attachment 331013

found in the chip guide CG #911666

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

I'm not sure you're correct on that point. I think most people here (except maybe newbies) have a pretty decent grasp on how designer rights work in relation to chip-related artwork. Start a poll....

Big difference between not liking something, and feeling wronged by it.

Woah let’s not make statements without all the facts here .

 

[pltrgyst]

....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.
View attachment 330915View attachment 330916

That's another can of worms. The Sunset Beach chips are clearly what is called a "derivative work", for which copyright still rests with the designer of the Dunes chips (unless that copyright has expired, which at "life of the author plus 70 years" is highly unlikely). Without permission from the original copyright holder, that Sunset Beach design was clearly illegally produced and used.

As are many other derivative chips. The derivative creators and producers are simply betting their money that the original copyright owners will not care enough to prosecute.

 

[pltrgyst]

I just have a general question. If I created a design in Photoshop because I don't use Illustrator, and pay someone to make it into an AI file, who would typically own the rights to it?

You would. There is no element of creativity involved in a change of format. That is a solidly established point of US IP law.

 

[pltrgyst]

....PS your egg salad sucks

pps: All egg salad sucks.

 

[saleen121212]

pps: All egg salad sucks.

Egg salad is amazing, yall crazy

 

[tulkas]

pps: All egg salad sucks.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

You’re mistaken, I believe.

That's another can of worms. The Sunset Beach chips are clearly what is called a "derivative work", for which copyright still rests with the designer of the Dunes chips (unless that copyright has expired, which at "life of the author plus 70 years" is highly unlikely). Without permission from the original copyright holder, that Sunset Beach design was clearly illegally produced and used.

As are many other derivative chips. The derivative creators and producers are simply betting their money that the original copyright owners will not care enough to prosecute.

According to Wikipedia, derivative work becomes a “second, separate work independent from the first...the transformation, modification, or adaption of the work must be substantial and bear its authors personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright.”

Clearly the adaption of the work is substantial enough that you can tell the difference just by looking at it, and since we all can agree @Toby has no personality the new artwork certainly bears his personality. Thus his artwork would indeed be copyright protected in and of itself.

 

[pltrgyst]

You’re mistaken, I believe.

According to Wikipedia, derivative work becomes a “second, separate work independent from the first...the transformation, modification, or adaption of the work must be substantial and bear its authors personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright.”

Clearly the adaption of the work is substantial enough that you can tell the difference just by looking at it, and since we all can agree....

As in trademarks,the determining factor is not the ability to distinguish differences. The standard used by the courts is a determination of the "likelihood of confusion", which is generally applied very strongly in favor of the original work. This example is *nowhere near* substantial enough.

Anyway, you can argue it with the courts -- I don't get a vote.

 

[RowdyRawhide]

TL DR, read the first few posts and the last few.

I don't have a dog in the fight here, and am being sincere when I ask this, but where the BTP chips handled with the same stipulations as these.....it almost feels like a game of gotcha if not.

I really dont care because I feel like both these sets are insanely priced for redistribution to the community, but at the same time people are still fucking crazy enough to pay the asking prices.

 

[Changster]

PCF has now become pseudo IP court.

 

[Josh Kifer]

Have you guys watched "Love after lockup" on WeTV?

Because it has less fucking drama then this and it's on WETV!!!!

Shammmmmmmeeee

 

[David O]

It really does not have to look the same to win in court now. The Sunset Beach looks close enough to Dunes more so than the alligator below looking like the beaver! Look at this case in Texas where Bucees sued because a competitors logo was similar to theirs and they won. Don't trust lawyers and many judges!

Story can be read HERE. Unbelievable!

 

[navels]

Who gives a shit about the law though? This has nothing to do with what is or isn't legal. It has everything to do with what's "right". And most people here would feel as though they had been wronged if they were on the receiving end of Toby's arrangement.

I wouldn't.

 

[ovo]

You're relatively new to chipping, but still been around long enough to know you're spewing horseshit. Maybe you're off you're meds, but I'm not sure what ulterior motive you have for skewering @Toby who has been stand-up fair to everyone AFAIK across 3 forums. Hire any designer, J5, Toby, etc. and you don't own the design. You effectively leased the right to use it for your set. You want to follow up getting dealer buttons, cut cards, labels made? You need to pay them to alter the art and meet specs. Stop being a fucking troll.

wow, courage, haven't seen you in a long time. Anyway, when I hired J5 , I was given the own the rights option or the borrow the rights option, nice to see you back

 

[Johnblue]

. I understand charging for changing a denom, but that takes 5 key strokes max?