His Rule, not mine (2 Viewers)

[1A25R]

Sorry @Toby , I'm a bit confused (sometimes don't get if fully right due to language)

Apologies if my desire to get paid for the work I do is causing upset

Is totally fine to get paid for his work. Is totally fine to get pay for the artwork.
However, I do not understand the terms and conditions behind the "for other use" OR do you make reference to

I elected to be paid for the SB job in chips. To date, I have not been paid for the work.

Which in that case I can understand and as is not my business then you can ignore the rest of my post/questions.

[...]Lemonzest engaged me to create a design for him.[...]I own the artwork, so permission for other use resides with me.[...]

What are the "other use" examples? Can Lemonzest at least hold, play and exhibit the artwork?
I understand the reason to apply or request an "artwork fee" to release the files or in order to create new or additional labels. But I don't get the the notion of "artwork usage" coupled with the design created for Lemonzest but the permission for other use that resides with you.
How it works with poker chips which are intended to be gaming currency in a social game? There is also a fee to pay each time that a game is played? How it works? It's a flat fee or in proportion to the buy-in?

I am not in receipt of any payment on the backend of Lemonzest's commercial venture, like a vig per chip sold or anything.

This is an statement means "no, I do not ask" for a fee or commission per chip sold on 2nd market ? Or or the opposite, like "I'm not getting" my fees as expected and/or desired.
I'm confused due to the other statement that says

[...]My advice to anyone buying [...] chips would be to factor my artwork usage cost into your budget planning[...]

There is a small artwork usage fee. This is the same as for BTP artwork use for label purposes and is paid by anyone wanting to get labels made up.

Was the 20 $25'000 chips an unlabeled barrel for which $150 was requested for artwork fees and labels ?

Thank you in advance

 

[saleen121212]

Good morning, PCF! It feels like there are a few things to clarify, so here we go.

Lemonzest engaged me to create a design for him. He paid for the creation of the design and for permission to get 1 set of cash and 1 set of tournament chips made through a gaming supplies manufacturer.

I own the artwork, so permission for other use resides with me.

I am not in receipt of any payment on the backend of Lemonzest's commercial venture, like a vig per chip sold or anything.

I initially said "No" to anyone getting labels made up against the backdrop of Lemonzest requesting that all SB images and info be removed from the forums for fear of repercussions following vendor contact.

Two members of PCF enquired about artwork use. I told them "No" but on checking with Lemonzest, he was no longer concerned about repercussions. So I contacted the two members and said we can look at creating labels.

There is a small artwork usage fee. This is the same as for BTP artwork use for label purposes and is paid by anyone wanting to get labels made up. This is separate to the cost of getting labels produced by, eg, Gear, to be clear. Contact your label producer for info on process/costs, etc.

For anyone paying market prices for Lemonzest's chips (unsure what this is, perhaps between $500-1,000 per rack), the independent cost of additional artwork use for labels or the creation of new SB denoms is not significant imo.

My advice to anyone buying or relabelling chips would be to factor my artwork usage cost into your budget planning. Please discuss with me first, before planning your set, so we can set expectations.

I elected to be paid for the SB job in chips. To date, I have not been paid for the work. But I am hoping chips will be received later this week or next through delivery to a third party, who will hold the chips intrust.

Lemonzest was concerned I'd sell chips to the community in competition with him. We have an agreement that he will clear his inventory and give the green light for my chips to be released to me.

I am not selling any chips - this agreement is for Lemonzest's peace of mind.

Apologies if my desire to get paid for the work I do is causing upset. And apologies for the "No labels" mix up. I was trying to look out for the best interests of others. The position has latterly been clarified and we now know (after this thread blew up) that we're good to make labels. Shoot me a pm if you're interested!

Did he ask you to create the art for him or did he ask to use art you already had?

 

[w00zie]

What are the "other use" examples? Can Lemonzest at least hold, play and exhibit the artwork?
I understand the reason to apply or request an "artwork fee" to release the files or in order to create new or additional labels. But I don't get the the notion of "artwork usage" coupled with the design created for Lemonzest but the permission for other use that resides with you.
How it works with poker chips which are intended to be gaming currency in a social game? There is also a fee to pay each time that a game is played? How it works? It's a flat fee or in proportion to the buy-in?

"Other use" would be using the design for anything other literally. Dealer buttons, cut cards, shirts, whatever.

It depends on the contract between the designer and his client. A client can (if the designer agrees) buy the right on a design completely and use it for whatever he wants. That's far more expensive, of course.
You can also buy the right to use a certain design e.g. for a set of 10k chips and nothing else. If you want to add on or have cut cards being made you would have to pay additional fees.

The designer always owns his designs as they fall under the copyright law and can be seen like a painting, the content of a book etc. Nobody but the designer can own this intellectual work (I hope that's the right term). You as a client can only buy the right to use it exclusively.

 

[tulkas]

sorry, forgot the quote...

 

[tulkas]

But... but... I want to be mad at someone!!!

 

[timinater]

Every time I do a design for someone on here I always release the files (including design files). I like ya'll and want you to re purpose the files as you need.

 

[MatB]

Every time I do a design for someone on here I always release the files (including design files). I like ya'll and want you to re purpose the files as you need.

That is very generous of you.

And by that statement, are you are saying that it is at your discretion?

 

[timinater]

That is very generous of you.

And by that statement, are you are saying that it is at your discretion?

I think it's certainly at any designers discretion. Lots of people will not release design files, and for lots of "real life" clients I won't either. Typically a customer is paying for flattened print files only.

If you buy headphones you don't usually get the wiring diagram, parts list etc. you get a finished product. Same applies here.

 

[Lemonzest]

As I said before I really don't know what the norms are with IP and rights to artwork. I can't speak to that.

 

[timinater]

As I said before I really don't know what the norms are with IP and rights to artwork. I can't speak to that. What I can say is that working with Toby was a good experience and he went above and beyond on the project. He saved the project from me making some bad looking chips and spamming yellows/blues on every chip. I would work with Mr. T again without hesitation.

He's been crushing it!

 

[w00zie]

I think it's certainly at any designers discretion. Lots of people will not release design files, and for lots of "real life" clients I won't either. Typically a customer is paying for flattened print files only.

If you buy headphones you don't usually get the wiring diagram, parts list etc. you get a finished product. Same applies here.

Exactly. We often told clients: If you buy a Coke you don't get the secret recipe with it for free.

 

[pltrgyst]

"The designer always owns his designs as they fall under the copyright law and can be seen like a painting, the content of a book etc. Nobody but the designer can own this intellectual work (I hope that's the right term). You as a client can only buy the right to use it exclusively.

That is not true. It depends on whether the design was done as "work for hire" or not.

In the case of a "collective work," whether "work for hire" or not, it also depends on how much of the design was created by the customer himself and then modified or improved by the designer. It may in fact be that rights to the final design are shared by the person commissioning the work and the designer.

There are a lot of grey areas here, which is why a detailed contract is always desirable.

 

[w00zie]

I am not a designer but I owned a design agency together with two designers for a few years.

I can only talk about German copyright law - US law could be completely different. My answers are therefore regarding German law. I am also not a lawyer but have some experience concerning the creation of corporate designs, illustrations and more for corporate clients.

Would be interesting to hear from a US designer about the differences!

That is not true. It depends on whether the design was done as "work for hire" or not.

Here it is true and I would be surprised if it was different in the US. "For hire" or not, intellectual property is always on the creator. A poker chip design like SB might be considered a "work of authorship" (like a painting).

A quote from German patent office:
"Copyright protects personal intellectual creations. It is created without formal registration and is free of charge: a work is considered protected by copyright as soon as it is created."

In the case of a "collective work," whether "work for hire" or not, it also depends on how much of the design was created by the customer himself and then modified or improved by the designer.

That's a different pair of shoes, of course. I meant designs created by a designer only.

There are a lot of grey areas here, which is why a detailed contract is always desirable.

This is always recommended!

 

[HMK]

Chinese copyright laws seems legit. Should solve this issue, no problem. Bada-bing-bada-bom!

 

[CdnBeerLover]

Edit: posted after skimming the thread. Missed the post on German law. Canada is similar in that work-for-hire doesn't apply here. The devil is in the details.

 

[liftapint]

@Toby, How much is it to use the art to print more $1 labels, should I choose to use different chips as $1s to complete my set? Just curious. And is it a separate fee if I also want to print $5 labels?

 

[Roll Tide Roll]

I paid Toby to be my designer for the SB chips. The inlay was 100% him. Toby helped me with colors and also provided a really nice inlay. I paid him for services rendered. We never discussed usage of the inlay art or who owns the art. As far as I am concerned people can do what they like.

I dont know what is normal for graphic designers. I dont know about IP rights and all that as this was my first time emoloying a designer.

^THIS

It is up to the designer to create terms that is out of the normal of realm of compensated services and have those terms agreed upon before receiving compensation and producing a product.

If I design you a house and you have a builder build it, I would not get paid when you sell it for a profit down the road.

IP rights must be specifically stated before and during the commission of the sale.

JMO.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Here's what happened...

A couple people (I was not one of them) who bought SB chips asked lemon if they could get some gear labels made to customize their SB sets. They wanted to use some of the tourney denoms as cash denoms, turn a rack of $5s into fracs, etc. The standard stuff that many chippers do when buying sets. If you look at the boat chip sets floating around, you'll see that this is pretty common (people making AS chips into ES chips and vice versa). So after buying sets, they asked lemon if they could get some gear labels made to customize their sets. He of course said, "sure, no problem!" then asked Toby if he could send gear the artwork. Toby said no, that it was his artwork and people would have to pay him if they wanted to get gear labels made (despite already having been paid for the project). He asked for a $100 artwork usage fee plus $20 per denom just to allow gear to print the labels for each person that wants them (or as Toby says, "a small fee"). This came as a surprise to lemon and everyone asking for labels. So if you just want to relabel one rack of chips, as someone requested, it would be $120 payable to Toby in addition to whatever fees gear charges for his services. Toby may see this as a "small fee", but nearly everyone else sees this as extortion. I certainly do.

 

[hdgeno]

Here's what happened...

A couple people (I was not one of them) who bought SB chips asked lemon if they could get some gear labels made to customize their SB sets. They wanted to use some of the tourney denoms as cash denoms, turn a rack of $5s into fracs, etc. The standard stuff that many chippers do when buying sets. If you look at the boat chip sets floating around, you'll see that this is pretty common (people making AS chips into ES chips and vice versa). So after buying sets, they asked lemon if they could get some gear labels made to customize their sets. He of course said, "sure, no problem!" then asked Toby if he could send gear the artwork. Toby said no, that it was his artwork and people would have to pay him if they wanted to get gear labels made (despite already having been paid for the project). He asked for a $100 artwork usage fee plus $20 per denom just to allow gear to print the labels for each person that wants them (or as Toby says, "a small fee"). This came as a surprise to lemon and everyone asking for labels. So if you just want to relabel one rack of chips, as someone requested, it would be $120 payable to Toby in addition to whatever fees gear charges for his services. Toby may see this as a "small fee", but nearly everyone else sees this as extortion. I certainly do.

So this hobby is just about the money now, good to know. Good thing hockey season is right around the corner, it will be a nice diversion.

 

[BGinGA]

If you look at the boat chip sets floating around, you'll see that this is pretty common (people making AS chips into ES chips and vice versa).

That's because Gear has permission to produce certain customized Star artwork labels. You'd have to ask him if there are/were any extra artist costs involved.

Like it or not, custom artwork is not in the public domain, and using it without permission is theft of intellectual property. And it's up to the individual artist to determine how -- and how much -- they want to charge for the results of their labor efforts. I'd hardly call that extortion, given that it's their right to do whatever they want with their property and it's subsequent usage beyond the initial intention.

after buying sets, they asked lemon if they could get some gear labels made to customize their sets. He of course said, "sure, no problem!"

Generous, but that's not his decision to make, since the artwork doesn't belong to him.

 

[Changster]

I have ES cash chips and originally wanted to just take the same label and change the denomination. I was denied by I believe the creator of the artwork.

I also at one point was discussing to buy the black cat club CPC set (not from Toby), but wanted t be able to make more of certain denoms and also create new higher denoms. I was also denied. It was said I could buy the set but not use the artwork for relabels or add new denoms or add to the existing set.

I respected the fact I don’t own the artwork and have to get permission and/or pay for the usage. In both instances above, money wasn’t the problem. The owner of the artwork just didn’t want more produced (completely fine).

I’m not sure what the difference is in the Sunset Beach situation? It just seems like this is the norm?

At the same time I’ve seen AS chips relabeled to other denom AS chips... unsure what the logistics are behind that.

 

[Eloe2000]

As a professional creative myself I can get on board with @Toby’s principal and this is common practice for commissioned artwork or creative design work. The actual level of the fees is a different story though. It’s unfortunate that all of this profiteering is creating bad vibes but it isn’t @Toby’s fault.

 

[Rhodeman77]

It FEELS like Toby is seeing how much money Lemonzest is making off the sale of these chips and wants in on some of it. The ability to make labels of different denominations is something that Lemonzest should have worked out with Toby ahead of time. And Toby being the professional should have brought that up IMO. It is not fair to the people that bought the chips that they were told by Lemonzest they could have labels made then later find out they need to pay an art fee on top of it.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I'm not an attorney but I have significant experience in this area.

I run a marketing agency, and our creative team is largely comprised of freelancers, 1099s, etc.

The way the laws are written, anything they create on behalf of MoxieMen remains their IP whether I pay them for it or not.

To get around this, our vendor agreement explicitly transfers the IP rights from them to MoxieMen, and in our contracts with our clients, we transfer all ownership rights from us to them.

How I came to learn about this was when we had a client who ran a law firm. His previously web developer took down the website (and refused to release the source files) that they'd paid to have developed when our client declined to renew the maintenance contract, and she was perfectly within her rights to do so. It was at his insistence that we put the legal language in the contract about transferring ownership rights.

 

[hdgeno]

It FEELS like Toby is seeing how much money Lemonzest is making off the sale of these chips and wants in on some of it. The ability to make labels of different denominations is something that Lemonzest should have worked out with Toby ahead of time. And Toby being the professional should have brought that up IMO. It is not fair to the people that bought the chips that they were told by Lemonzest they could have labels made then later find out they need to pay an art fee on top of it.

Shitty behaviour by both considering how much people paid to get the chips. This kind of crap is no better than the crap Greg pulled over at CT when his boat was sinking.

 

[RainmanTrail]

As a professional creative myself I can get on board with @Toby’s principal and this is common practice for commissioned artwork or creative design work. The actual level of the fees is a different story though. It’s unfortunate that all of this profiteering is creating bad vibes but it isn’t @Toby’s fault.

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.

 

[MatB]

It FEELS like Toby is seeing how much money Lemonzest is making off the sale of these chips and wants in on some of it. The ability to make labels of different denominations is something that Lemonzest should have worked out with Toby ahead of time. And Toby being the professional should have brought that up IMO. It is not fair to the people that bought the chips that they were told by Lemonzest they could have labels made then later find out they need to pay an art fee on top of it.

100% that is not the case.

The fees he is asking are well within the range of what he's charged for other work, and changes on other designs. BTP is one example.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Don't get me wrong. I get that Toby is within his rights to conduct business this way. I'm sure there is some copyright law that exists where he can take advantage of people by not informing them that they needed to write up a contract if they wanted to actually "own" the logo they hired him to design. I just think it's a shitty way to conduct business, especially in a "community".

 

[RainmanTrail]

100% that is not the case.

The fees he is asking are well within the range of what he's charged for other work, and changes on other designs. BTP is one example.

Doing a shitty thing twice doesn't make it any less shitty the second time around.

 

[hdgeno]

Doing a shitty thing twice doesn't make it any less shitty the second time around.

All good as long as the money is being made...