How is this not on a poker chip already? (1 Viewer)

upNdown said:
I wonder if this is a generational thing?
Like, did people who grew up in a time when you could copy, paste, and print literally anything in the world, did they just grow up assuming they could do anything they want with those images?
Not trying to be a dick here, it’s a serious question.
When I was growing up, I worked at a copy center. And when we got a full color laser copier, we had a list of regulations too long for anybody to read, telling us what we couldn’t copy. Basically if it wasn’t your original work, we weren’t copying it. Now maybe that was corporate being overly cautious, but I’m pretty sure they were just trying to follow the letter of the law.
I don’t care if people here follow letter of the law or not. Just don’t tell me that speeding is legal, or laugh at anybody who points out that it isn’t.
Click to expand...
1683224020633.gif
 
The reason this argument continues to go around in circles is because there is no clear definition of what constitutes "enough" change to make the work sufficiently new such that the creator of the original has no rights to it. Taking the subject ass, is the removal of the wine glass and replacement with cards, making it a circle and removing the red line through the middle sufficient to make it a new piece of work? How much change is enough?

For example:

Original:
1683225130877.png


Variation 1:
1683225145398.png


Variation 2:
1683225223046.png


Variation 3:
1683225785191.png
 
Darson said:
The reason this argument continues to go around in circles is because there is no clear definition of what constitutes "enough" change to make the work sufficiently new such that the creator of the original has no rights to it. Taking the subject ass, is the removal of the wine glass and replacement with cards, making it a circle and removing the red line through the middle sufficient to make it a new piece of work? How much change is enough?

For example:

Original:
View attachment 1129970

Variation 1:
View attachment 1129971

Variation 2:
View attachment 1129975

Variation 3:
View attachment 1129979
Click to expand...
I’m sure this was rhetorical, but I’ll play.

#1 is a virtual copy. I doubt it would be considered a new work by anybody. But it’s worth mentioning that whoever sold these chips paid for the rights to the art. Or so I’ve read.

#2 is what we’ve typically called a tribute. I think in terms of trademark law, if it were printed on a chip, it would be a violation - the exact same art (with an additional/different name) could maybe possibly be okay for a t-shirt, but printing slightly modified poker chip art on a poker chip probably isn’t going to cut it (just my lay guess.). But if these were a single set made by Tom exclusively for use in his home, I’m not sure it constitutes fair use, but I’m also not sure how the Dunes could claim any damages.

#3 is almost completely different to my eyes and is probably fair game.
 
upNdown said:
I’m sure this was rhetorical, but I’ll play.

#1 is a virtual copy. I doubt it would be considered a new work by anybody. But it’s worth mentioning that whoever sold these chips paid for the rights to the art. Or so I’ve read.

#2 is what we’ve typically called a tribute. I think in terms of trademark law, if it were printed on a chip, it would be a violation - the exact same art (with an additional/different name) could maybe possibly be okay for a t-shirt, but printing slightly modified poker chip art on a poker chip probably isn’t going to cut it (just my lay guess.). But if these were a single set made by Tom exclusively for use in his home, I’m not sure it constitutes fair use, but I’m also not sure how the Dunes could claim any damages.

#3 is almost completely different to my eyes and is probably fair game.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting conundrum. For example with #2, I would argue that the "likelihood of confusion" metric would mean it's perfectly fine as Tom's is a completely different word with no resemblance to Dunes - had it been Punes or Dune's then I would think differently. But it's not my opinion that counts, it's that of a jury.
 
Darson said:
The reason this argument continues to go around in circles is because there is no clear definition of what constitutes "enough" change to make the work sufficiently new such that the creator of the original has no rights to it. Taking the subject ass, is the removal of the wine glass and replacement with cards, making it a circle and removing the red line through the middle sufficient to make it a new piece of work? How much change is enough?

For example:

Original:
View attachment 1129970

Variation 1:
View attachment 1129971

Variation 2:
View attachment 1129975

Variation 3:
View attachment 1129979
Click to expand...
how havent i noticed this sooner about sb ?!
 
epicwin said:
Wtf did I just real lmao. I guess no place is safe from Karens
Click to expand...
When you’re designing your customs, please copy the artwork from another PCFer’s customs. Then you’ll see Karens.
 
Darson said:
It's such a funny ruling - Warhol was found to have violated the copyright because he used the picture for something that would appear in a magazine article and the original photo was taken and licensed for a magazine article - the same purpose. If Warhol had use the picture and printed it on toilet roll, he would have been fine...
Click to expand...
Oh I haven’t even read the opinion yet, just the AP headline. I’ll take a look.
 
Darson said:
It's such a funny ruling - Warhol was found to have violated the copyright because he used the picture for something that would appear in a magazine article and the original photo was taken and licensed for a magazine article - the same purpose. If Warhol had use the picture and printed it on toilet roll, he would have been fine...
Click to expand...
Oh, okay, the Reuters article does a better job of explaining it. “It was not fair use because it served the same commercial purpose as Goldsmith’s (original) photo: to depict Prince in a magazine.” As opposed to his Campbell’s soup series which serves as an artistic commentary on consumerism.
Interesting.
 
What if my true surname were "Paulson" and I had some spare millions to start a poker chip factory?
Confusion. But my name is Paulson.
My dad had to deal as a lawyer with exactly this, only it was about two candy stores owned by unrelated people of the same surname, one more famous than the other (being very good at their job too).
 
Coyote said:
What if my true surname were "Paulson" and I had some spare millions to start a poker chip factory?
Confusion. But my name is Paulson.
My dad had to deal as a lawyer with exactly this, only it was about two candy stores owned by unrelated people of the same surname, one more famous than the other (being very good at their job too).
Click to expand...

Your name might be Paulson, but it's not Paul-Son.
 
In case you 're interested, the Court's verdict was that the less known candy maker had to add the initial of his first name to the company's logo.
 

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!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

R
New here and looking for some insight on a discovery I've made recently with some old poker chips!
Replies
13
Views
502
potatolei
potatolei
L
Is a transparent-background label possible?
Replies
19
Views
842
Taghkanic
Taghkanic
Pliskin42
Is there a set that goes with this dealer button?
Replies
24
Views
1K
Machine
Machine
B
Greetings from Ohio
Replies
14
Views
363
KHarp1
K
J
Apes and Ales - Need help with design ideas.
Replies
19
Views
748
jshul
J
Back
Top Bottom