• This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Not Mine Super Mario Bro Replica? (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
chippitydoodah said:
Go look up Nintendo porn...thats shit hasn't been stopped by Nintendo.
Click to expand...
That is probably fair use parody and tough to crack down on. I think a more apt comparison would be like "Princess' Peach Fleshlight" or "Donkey Kong's-Dong Dildo" with their characters somewhere on them.
 
Bluegrass Poker said:
I disagree that a reasonable person couldn’t think the Mario chips could be authorized by Nintendo. You give the average reasonable person too much credit.
Click to expand...
I'll raise my hand for this, I'm below average intelligence and have seen some really weird Nintendo stuff, I don't know where that line is.

Rieguy said:
That is probably fair use parody and tough to crack down on. I think a more apt comparison would be like "Princess' Peach Fleshlight" or "Donkey Kong's-Dong Dildo" with their characters somewhere on them.
Click to expand...
Im at work, I'll google that later, don't want to be put on a list.
 
I’ll just leave this here for your reading pleasure. FWIW, SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of Jack Daniel’s.

“On Thursday, the nine Justices ruled unanimously in favor of Jack Daniel’s, tossing the Ninth Court’s previous ruling that “Bad Spaniel’s” was a parody that should be protected by the First Amendment and that whole ‘right to free speech’ thing.



“This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion. “[VIP Products’] jokes did not impress petitioner Jack Daniel’s Properties. It owns trademarks in the distinctive Jack Daniel’s bottle and in many of the words and graphics on the label. And it believed Bad Spaniels had both infringed and diluted those trademarks. Bad Spaniels had infringed the marks, the argument ran, by leading consumers to think that Jack Daniel’s had created, or was otherwise responsible for, the dog toy.”

https://www.foodandwine.com/jack-daniels-dog-toy-supreme-court-decision-7509951
 
Meanwhile, in China, a live look at Tina and her line manager laughing at PCF arguing over the morality of copyright and poker chips:

 
I think he's actually nailing his own coffin shut by selling an unknown quantity of unknown denominations for $500 with $75 shipping lol
Screenshot_20230728_154643_eBay.jpg
 
Last edited:
none of this is any of my business but I will say that brpro has refused to print certain chips in the past due to copyright issues yet they make the SPW chips for us. I'm sure it's not high on their list to be sued into bolivian by a megacorp so...

also I hope JLA has to eat all the shitty low res knockoffs too :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 
Bluegrass Poker said:
I’ll just leave this here for your reading pleasure. FWIW, SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of Jack Daniel’s.

“On Thursday, the nine Justices ruled unanimously in favor of Jack Daniel’s, tossing the Ninth Court’s previous ruling that “Bad Spaniel’s” was a parody that should be protected by the First Amendment and that whole ‘right to free speech’ thing.

“This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her opinion. “[VIP Products’] jokes did not impress petitioner Jack Daniel’s Properties. It owns trademarks in the distinctive Jack Daniel’s bottle and in many of the words and graphics on the label. And it believed Bad Spaniels had both infringed and diluted those trademarks. Bad Spaniels had infringed the marks, the argument ran, by leading consumers to think that Jack Daniel’s had created, or was otherwise responsible for, the dog toy.”

https://www.foodandwine.com/jack-daniels-dog-toy-supreme-court-decision-7509951
Click to expand...

I guess the question comes down to infringing and diluting the trademark. The question of infringement could be subjective, but the question of diluting I don’t think can be argued in the case of SPW. Rjdev’s designs have not diluted Nintendo’s trademark in any way, shape, or form. So to equate the copying of his designs with the theft of already stolen property, as JLA, said in his post, is an argument made either in bad faith, or just horribly misinformed.
 
HughDrackman said:
Just chiming in here. From a legal standpoint, this is not an accurate analogy.

Federal copyright law protects parodies, satire, and criticism of copyrighted IP’s under the “Fair Use” doctrine. The test is if a reasonable person would assume that the parodied material was sanctioned by the owner of the IP. In rjdev’s case, the parody SPW chips deviated from the original IP of Super Mario Bros. enough so that no reasonable person would assume that Nintendo sanctioned them, and therefore, did not violate copyright law.

It’s the same reason you see prints of “mashups” of popular comic book characters at comic cons. None of those artists have permission from Marvel or DC to create those images, but they can’t stop independent artists from making and selling them.

A better analogy would be if you saw a print of, say, Homer Simpson fighting a xenomorph for sale at comic con. You buy the print, scratch out the original artist’s name, replace it with your own, make a bunch of copies, then set up a booth right next to the original artist and sell their print as your own.

The original artist didn’t violate the law, but you did by copying their exact work and passing it off as your own.

Just wanted to help clear things up for everybody.
Click to expand...
Do you actually practice trademark law because this is, frankly, shocking to me if it’s actually how it works for a commercial retailer using trademarked IP without license
 
Frogzilla said:
Do you actually practice trademark law because this is, frankly, shocking to me if it’s actually how it works for a commercial retailer using trademarked IP without license
Click to expand...

I do not practice trademark law. I’m a certified ABA paralegal, and matters of the law interest me, so I research interesting topics.

There are several factors in this case that distinguish it from a commercial retailer using trademarks without permission.

First, rjdev isn’t a commercial retailer. His SPW chips weren’t for sale at bulk in a traditionally commercial space (retail store, Amazon, eBay, his own commercial website, etc.).

Second, I believe (and it wouldn’t be too difficult to argue in court) that his designs varied enough from Nintendo’s IP that no reasonable person would confuse them for licensed Nintendo products.

Third, the issue of damages. There is no proof that rjdev, through his designs, impacted or could impact the sale of any established Nintendo trademark.

I think what JLA did was a dick move, and much more black and white “wrong” than rjdev using Nintendo IP’s in the first place. JLA’s analogy of “robbing a thief” doesn’t hold water because rjdev never stole anything to begin with.
 
HughDrackman said:
I guess the question comes down to infringing and diluting the trademark. The question of infringement could be subjective, but the question of diluting I don’t think can be argued in the case of SPW. Rjdev’s designs have not diluted Nintendo’s trademark in any way, shape, or form. So to equate the copying of his designs with the theft of already stolen property, as JLA, said in his post, is an argument made either in bad faith, or just horribly misinformed.
Click to expand...
IMG_7508.gif
 
Rieguy said:
View attachment 1170567

I'm fully behind rjdev here and the straight rip is full-stop wrong, but I'm conflicted on the specific issue/argument you are making here.

If it weren't for the characters gambling, one smoking a stogie, and another one boozing, the layman would absolutely think it was something sanctioned by Nintendo. However, with the aforementioned in mind, that changes things since they are characters marketed for children. But that also brings up a new issue; would Nintendo not still send a cease and desist due to their IP being used in such a way? I think if these were being sold on a much more massive scale than within our niche hobby, we would probably find out. Interesting to think about either way.
Click to expand...
@rjdev7 changed the source material and never marketed them as "Super Mario" Or Nintendo. That being said I do believe that Nintendo could and probably would send a cease and desist. But I don't know if they would go straight to infringement. But then again Nintendo is like Disney on HGH when it comes to copyright
 
HughDrackman said:
I guess the question comes down to infringing and diluting the trademark. The question of infringement could be subjective, but the question of diluting I don’t think can be argued in the case of SPW. Rjdev’s designs have not diluted Nintendo’s trademark in any way, shape, or form. So to equate the copying of his designs with the theft of already stolen property, as JLA, said in his post, is an argument made either in bad faith, or just horribly misinformed.
Click to expand...
HughDrackman said:
I do not practice trademark law. I’m a certified ABA paralegal, and matters of the law interest me, so I research interesting topics.

There are several factors in this case that distinguish it from a commercial retailer using trademarks without permission.

First, rjdev isn’t a commercial retailer. His SPW chips weren’t for sale at bulk in a traditionally commercial space (retail store, Amazon, eBay, his own commercial website, etc.).

Second, I believe (and it wouldn’t be too difficult to argue in court) that his designs varied enough from Nintendo’s IP that no reasonable person would confuse them for licensed Nintendo products.

Third, the issue of damages. There is no proof that rjdev, through his designs, impacted or could impact the sale of any established Nintendo trademark.

I think what JLA did was a dick move, and much more black and white “wrong” than rjdev using Nintendo IP’s in the first place. JLA’s analogy of “robbing a thief” doesn’t hold water because rjdev never stole anything to begin with.
Click to expand...
I’m going to continue to disagree that no reasonable person would confuse these for an officially licensed Nintendo product.

One would think no reasonable person would think a doggie chew toy would be licensed by Jack Daniels either but it made it to the SC. So to state SPW chips could never be confused is just denying the obvious in my opinion.

And rjdev’s best argument is he made these for his own personal use and never put them into commercial use but that argument fails because he allowed others to use the design and order from Tina as well.

Granted, Nintendo is more likely to go after JLA since he is putting them on eBay instead of sharing on this forum.

Folks wanting to see this as a black and white issue are never going to be satisfied.

IMO, rj used the IP of Nintendo without permission, I don’t know how anyone can look at those and not immediately think of Nintendo IP.

And, I agree the damages that Nintendo could claim against rj would be minute but some companies are bulldogs about protecting their IP.
 
HughDrackman said:
First, rjdev isn’t a commercial retailer. His SPW chips weren’t for sale at bulk in a traditionally commercial space (retail store, Amazon, eBay, his own commercial website, etc.).
Click to expand...
You are mistaken, they were (are?) for sale on this site where he has “vendor” status, marked under a “vendor sale” with his art commercial fee listed

3E6DF432-5244-4B10-B58C-3EC6123A87A9.jpeg
 
While I appreciate everyone who realizes copying my chip designs was a straight up shitty thing to do, and everyone who’s got my back, honestly this thread is just making me realize I should stop offering the SPW chips. I’d appreciate it if we stop hashing out legalities, and just all let the thread die. I will likely just kill the thread in my vendor forum. Not worth it to me.
 
Last edited:
rjdev7 said:
While I appreciate everyone who realizes copying my chip designs was a straight up shitty thing to do, and everyone who’s got my back, honestly this thread is just making me realize I should stop selling the SPW chips. I make a whopping 8 cents a chip, mostly to cover my time in creating something cool for the forum. I’d appreciate it if we stop hashing out legalities, and just all let the thread die. I will likely just kill the thread in my vendor forum. Not worth it to me.
Click to expand...
Tell us you got a C&D without telling us you did
 
This thread is LOL. Credit to @rjdev7 to just stay away. Def the best thing we can for all involved is just let this thread die.

**had this typed up about 4 hours ago and forgot to hit send. Agree @rjdev7 best to stop offering them now. In fact an admin should just delete this entirely. @Tommy
 
Last edited:
upNdown said:
But it wasn’t always like this. Just a decade ago the community didn’t embrace copies of any kind. I’m not sure if the community did a better job of policing it, or if there just weren’t people in the community to dared to flaunt the unwritten rules.
Click to expand...
Not sure how long ago it actually was, but on the old chiptalk site, things like this would've been hammered. I remember seeing a set of Aria's (?) that if I recall correctly, were blatant outright copies and the only difference was the denominations. Had that been on CT, the person would've been crucified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Yant0
Super mario poker chips
Replies
1
Views
502
spartan037
S
S
  • Locked
Wanted Super Poker World Older Design Chips
Replies
2
Views
491
SkyBlue
S
Chris Manzoni
  • Locked
SOLD Super Mario BRPro Ceramics - Cash Game Set
Replies
5
Views
606
Chris Manzoni
Chris Manzoni
C
  • Locked
Wanted Austin, TX Metro Super Poker World (Mario) Chips
Replies
0
Views
337
ChipWhisperer
C
N
Not Mine Murdered/relabeled Havana themed Paulsons
Replies
9
Views
441
allforcharity
allforcharity
Back
Top Bottom