Silver Star Chips -- what's the history? (1 Viewer)

[CrazyEddie]

Let me correct myself. We're talking about the molds used to make these chips - the "Nevada" and "Diecard" molds. Borland probably had the rights to use the molds, since he bought the molds from Bud Jones, who was the one who commissioned them originally. Bud Jones would have had the rights to use the molds, and undoubtedly when Bill Borland bought the molds he also bought the rights to use them.

The rights to the mold would have stayed with Bud Jones / Bill Borland, and not the casinos that used them. Borland wouldn't have needed permission from the casinos to make chips using that mold.

The inlay artwork, however, is a different matter. That would have been the casinos' property. But again, there was probably nobody around to object when Borland used it to make tribute chips.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Let me correct myself. We're talking about the molds used to make these chips - the "Nevada" and "Diecard" molds. Borland probably had the rights to use the molds, since he bought the molds from Bud Jones, who was the one who commissioned them originally. Bud Jones would have had the rights to use the molds, and undoubtedly when Bill Borland bought the molds he also bought the rights to use them.

The rights to the mold would have stayed with Bud Jones / Bill Borland, and not the casinos that used them. Borland wouldn't have needed permission from the casinos to make chips using that mold.

The inlay artwork, however, is a different matter. That would have been the casinos' property. But again, there was probably nobody around to object when Borland used it to make tribute chips.

I was wondering why you were talking about the dies, when lots of different chips have that mold pattern... This I agree is probably a rational explanation regarding the inlay art. And he may have even actually done the leg work to get those rights too.

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

My guess is that no one was in a position to stop him. The casinos had the rights to use the dies, but the casinos were out of business. The rights presumably still belonged to someone - specifically, whoever took possession of the casino's remaining assets when they were sold in bankruptcy - but whoever that was probably didn't know what Borland was doing and probably wouldn't have cared enough to stop him even if they did.

Borland probably didn't even think about who actually held the rights to use the dies.

... but this is just my speculation. Someone more familiar with the people involved might be able to speak more authoritatively as to who did what with or without whose permission.

This what I think also. He just used the art without caring about its owner.

Let me correct myself. We're talking about the molds used to make these chips - the "Nevada" and "Diecard" molds. Borland probably had the rights to use the molds, since he bought the molds from Bud Jones, who was the one who commissioned them originally. Bud Jones would have had the rights to use the molds, and undoubtedly when Bill Borland bought the molds he also bought the rights to use them.

The rights to the mold would have stayed with Bud Jones / Bill Borland, and not the casinos that used them. Borland wouldn't have needed permission from the casinos to make chips using that mold.

The inlay artwork, however, is a different matter. That would have been the casinos' property. But again, there was probably nobody around to object when Borland used it to make tribute chips.

Indeed, I was also only wondering for the die. The mold indeed he could legitimately use it.

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

Also, I'm not even 100% sure that the dies are the same.

The font on the Borland chips seem thinner.

It can also be due to the pressure that has been applied too. But the Star is too different imho.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Ahhhh! Now I get it. You were all talking hot stamp dies, not the dies used to press the chips... OK, I'll show myself the door now with my head hung low.

 

[LeGold]

And yes, those are indeed completely different dies.

 

[Okku]

Correct, they are different dies.

 

[CrazyEddie]

Yep, definitely different hotstamp dies. The font is different (one way to tell is that the original has "spikes" halfway up each letter whereas the tribute doesn't), and the placement and size of the star relative to the text is different.

It's not clear to me whether the casino (or its successors, i.e. whoever held the rights to the former casino's intellectual property) would have any sort of case for copyright infringement, since the hotstamp consists of just some text (factual text, not a creative writing) and a star - I'm not sure that's enough of a creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. They would have a case for trademark infringement, potentially even though the casino itself was no longer in business. Borland was probably skating on thin ice here legally speaking, and only got by because nobody cared. Or maybe he actually paid the rightsholders for the right to use their trademarked name.

If anyone really wanted to know, someone could ask Jim Blanchard, I suppose.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Yep, definitely different hotstamp dies. The font is different (one way to tell is that the original has "spikes" halfway up each letter whereas the tribute doesn't), and the placement and size of the star relative to the text is different.

It's not clear to me whether the casino (or its successors, i.e. whoever held the rights to the former casino's intellectual property) would have any sort of case for copyright infringement, since the hotstamp consists of just some text (factual text, not a creative writing) and a star - I'm not sure that's enough of a creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. They would have a case for trademark infringement, potentially even though the casino itself was no longer in business. Borland was probably skating on thin ice here legally speaking, and only got by because nobody cared. Or maybe he actually paid the rightsholders for the right to use their trademarked name.

If anyone really wanted to know, someone could ask Jim Blanchard, I suppose.

Really, are any different than the Aria look-a-likes that have been produced, or other casinos both active and closed?

Copyright is only as good as the lawyers hunting down the infringers. It usually ends with a cease-and-desist letter, which gives the infringer a date to stop producing the knock-off product. It rarely goes any further, unless the copyright holder can determine the loss to their brand by the knock-offs outweighs the cost of years of court-costs.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Yep, definitely different hotstamp dies. The font is different (one way to tell is that the original has "spikes" halfway up each letter whereas the tribute doesn't), and the placement and size of the star relative to the text is different.

It's not clear to me whether the casino (or its successors, i.e. whoever held the rights to the former casino's intellectual property) would have any sort of case for copyright infringement, since the hotstamp consists of just some text (factual text, not a creative writing) and a star - I'm not sure that's enough of a creative expression to qualify for copyright protection. They would have a case for trademark infringement, potentially even though the casino itself was no longer in business. Borland was probably skating on thin ice here legally speaking, and only got by because nobody cared. Or maybe he actually paid the rightsholders for the right to use their trademarked name.

If anyone really wanted to know, someone could ask Jim Blanchard, I suppose.

@David Spragg also knows a lot about Borland chips.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Really, are any different than the Aria look-a-likes that have been produced, or other casinos both active and closed?

Copyright is only as good as the lawyers hunting down the infringers. It usually ends with a cease-and-desist letter, which gives the infringer a date to stop producing the knock-off product. It rarely goes any further, unless the copyright holder can determine the loss to their brand by the knock-offs outweighs the cost of years of court-costs.

I agree in principle, but the biggest difference would be that Borland had these chips produced for commercial purposes. And he was selling them from a store front in Vegas, so much more likely to be discovered by the owners of the rights.

 

[upNdown]

Really, are any different than the Aria look-a-likes that have been produced, or other casinos both active and closed?

Copyright is only as good as the lawyers hunting down the infringers. It usually ends with a cease-and-desist letter, which gives the infringer a date to stop producing the knock-off product. It rarely goes any further, unless the copyright holder can determine the loss to their brand by the knock-offs outweighs the cost of years of court-costs.

So it’s not stealing if you don’t get caught?

 

[Poker Zombie]

So it’s not stealing if you don’t get caught?

?

It is wrong, both morally and legally. I have been associated with a game company that received a cease and desist letter for infringing on the James Bond copyright . They did not come at us with mounds of paperwork, and an army of lawyers. Just one law firm, with a simple one-page letter. It even allowed us to unload the product until a certain date, which we complied with.

We meant no harm, but obviously Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer was unhappy enough to put an end to it. Was that stealing? A simple misunderstanding? Completely legal if we took it to court and won? Not my decision to make. Just telling you how it went down when I was involved in a "dispute".

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

In spite of the lack of evidence, some of you seem to think it's likely that Borland produced these chips without permission from the owners of the trademarks. Just an opinion, but I tend to think the opposite. He's running a retail store front in Las Vegas that sells casino memorabilia. I suspect he knows which side his bread is buttered on. Some of these casinos like Dunes were just barely closed at the time he was selling his commemorative chips. Do you not think he had their permission to produce them? So why wouldn't he have permission for all of them?

In addition I would think that ASM, who produced these chips, would also be wary to do so without the permission to use the trademarked names and images, since they too were doing business with the active casinos as well.

 

[CrazyEddie]

Specifically about the Silver Star hotstamped tributes:

The Borland chips were made at 1991 at the earliest. The Silver Star closed in 1978, and then opened and closed again in 1984. That means that in 1991 there was no Silver Star casino in business, which means that a trademark for a Silver Star casino would have been invalid. In order to retain a trademark you must have an actual trade, i.e. you must be using the mark in commercial activity. Trademarks that go unused become lost. Which means that Borland almost certainly did not need to seek permission or license from the previous owners of the Silver Star casino to use what had previously been their trademark.

And as I mentioned above, the hotstamp artwork itself from the original Silver Star chips is probably not copyrightable because it doesn't contain enough to make it a creative work. So Borland's tribute chip wouldn't violate either trademark or copyright protection.

Many of his other tributes did use artwork that contained creative expressions - the Dunes genie, for example - and while trademark still wouldn't be a concern for those (for the same reasons - the previous business were no longer in business and thus had no trademark to protect), copyright would be a concern. The successors to the former owners of the Dunes (for example) could have had a copyright infringement case, assuming Borland hadn't done the legwork to secure permission to use the artwork.

But my guess is that nobody knew or cared, so nothing was done.

 

[shenqibaima]

I believe that you are correct.

Is it the same with Dunes? Dunes Casino closed in 1993

 

[JWC]

Is it the same with Dunes? Dunes Casino closed in 1993

I assume that the owners of the Dunes did not plan to be relicensed, so they ignored the rule. There is also the possibility that the owners entrusted an employee to handle the destruction, and the employee failed to do so.

 

[Sprouty]

 

[upNdown]

Is it the same with Dunes? Dunes Casino closed in 1993

No, the Paulson Dunes housemolds that exist in quantity were left in a vault when the Dunes was blown up. The explosions didn’t destroy them. They presumably were recovered by demolition/construction guys and presumably sold to Spinettis. I don’t have all the details, but that’s the gist.

 

[shenqibaima]

No, the Paulson Dunes housemolds that exist in quantity were left in a vault when the Dunes was blown up. The explosions didn’t destroy them. They presumably were recovered by demolition/construction guys and presumably sold to Spinettis. I don’t have all the details, but that’s the gist.

Lucky chips

 

[ekricket]

Since this has been resurrected…… and since nobody would ever take this on - really who cares, but

States don’t have the right to decide what is and what isn’t currency. The Nevada gaming commission is a state entity. This is strictly a Federal provision.

I’ll refer to the constitution.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 5:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .

Because Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution prohibits the states from coining money,1 the Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s coinage power to be exclusive. The Supreme Court has also construed Congress’s power to coin money and regulate the value thereof to authorize Congress to regulate every phase of currency.


NGC may recognize this right and try to provide compliance, but they can’t decide what is money and what isn’t. But when our electronic money arrives (thks bitcoin) this will all be moot anyway.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Since this has been resurrected…… and since nobody would ever take this on - really who cares, but

States don’t have the right to decide what is and what isn’t currency. The Nevada gaming commission is a state entity. This is strictly a Federal provision.

I’ll refer to the constitution.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 5:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .

Because Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution prohibits the states from coining money,1 the Supreme Court has recognized Congress’s coinage power to be exclusive. The Supreme Court has also construed Congress’s power to coin money and regulate the value thereof to authorize Congress to regulate every phase of currency.


NGC may recognize this right and try to provide compliance, but they can’t decide what is money and what isn’t. But when our electronic money arrives (thks bitcoin) this will all be moot anyway.

I think from a legal standpoint, chips are not considered money. We may value them as money, exchange it for money and use it as such, bit I seem to recall reading that chips are not to be used as money. You are not supposed to buy drinks or dinner (even in the casino) using chips. I believe there was even a rule written that indicates you are not allowed to tip with chips, but that rule is largely ignored for servers and of course, dealers.

 

[allforcharity]

Chips (actually, checks) are a type of corporate currency.