• PCF is an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!

The ChipGuide just accused me of Copyright Infringement? (2 Viewers)

FDLmold said:
The music industry spent the last 25 years on the internet suing people and issuing takedowns for copyright violations.Copyright just exists. As soon as you create something. You can register it if you want, but it is not necessary.
You DEFINITELY register trademarks and patents.
Click to expand...

You are correct that copyright is inherent in creation. Based on inherent copyright, basically all you can do is send "cease and desist" orders. The copyright must be registered in order for the author/creator to have the right to sue for infringement and collect damages.

Don't believe me -- do you own research. Google is your friend.

And no, you don't "register" trademarks and patents. You *apply* for trademarks and patents, Applications are examined and may be granted or not.
 
upNdown said:
“I am the Chipguide”
Click to expand...
3_KingKong.gif
 
@ReallyGoodUsername I'm a little late to the party, but this is a great thread. I may have missed it, but did you consider pointing out this little nugget to Mr Kaplan: If your photo is a copy of his photo, then why is your photo MUCH HIGHER quality than his? Can that level of photographic detail be faked? Certainly not easily.
 
TX_Golf_N_Poker said:
@ReallyGoodUsername I'm a little late to the party, but this is a great thread. I may have missed it, but did you consider pointing out this little nugget to Mr Kaplan: If your photo is a copy of his photo, then why is your photo MUCH HIGHER quality than his? Can that level of photographic detail be faked? Certainly not easily.
Click to expand...
You've never watched CSI, have you?
 
LeGold said:
You've never watched CSI, have you?
Click to expand...
Many times. If you're referring to faking the photograph, yes, I understand that with a great deal of effort it could be done. That's why I said, not easily. And not to attempt to throw off the ChipGuide. If you are going to a) steal their photo, b) photo shop it to increase the apparent level of quality, and c) use it in a ad on eBay, then you're also going to change a few details so their search software doesn't hit on it.
 
ChipFinderSK said:
I use Google to search patents/trademarks. The USPTO search feature is garbage.
Click to expand...

Oh? I'd love to hear why you think that. The Google patent search is handy for non-professionals, but it is superficial and not legally sufficient for some purposes.

The USPTO's Patent Full Text Database provides the thorough search capability that professional practitioners need. It was designed and implemented in 1995-1998. The biggest heavyweights in the field -- including Google and IBM -- took their shots at providing that capability, and couldn't do it. The company that created the search engine used there -- Dataware -- did it.

I should admit that it's my baby, and I'm both proud and amazed that it's lasted this long. :cool
 
TX_Golf_N_Poker said:
Many times. If you're referring to faking the photograph, yes, I understand that with a great deal of effort it could be done. That's why I said, not easily. And not to attempt to throw off the ChipGuide. If you are going to a) steal their photo, b) photo shop it to increase the apparent level of quality, and c) use it in a ad on ebay, then you're also going to change a few details so their search software doesn't hit on it.
Click to expand...
50C81591-6995-433F-BBE6-9CD00E9505F8.gif
 
pltrgyst said:
Oh? I'd love to hear why you think that. The Google patent search is handy for non-professionals, but it is superficial and not legally sufficient for some purposes.

The USPTO's Patent Full Text Database provides the thorough search capability that professional practitioners need. It was designed and implemented in 1995-1998. The biggest heavyweights in the field -- including Google and IBM -- took their shots at providing that capability, and couldn't do it. The company that created the search engine used there -- Dataware -- did it.

I should admit that it's my baby, and I'm both proud and amazed that it's lasted this long. :cool
Click to expand...
I use them in a non-professional practitioner capacity, but I find the USPTO database/queries difficult to use - sometimes I can’t a specific patent/trademark even though I know what I’m looking for.

So maybe it’s just user error on my part, but I find that Google is a lot more idiot-proof, which is generally what I need.
 
pltrgyst said:
Oh? I'd love to hear why you think that. The Google patent search is handy for non-professionals, but it is superficial and not legally sufficient for some purposes.

The USPTO's Patent Full Text Database provides the thorough search capability that professional practitioners need. It was designed and implemented in 1995-1998. The biggest heavyweights in the field -- including Google and IBM -- took their shots at providing that capability, and couldn't do it. The company that created the search engine used there -- Dataware -- did it.

I should admit that it's my baby, and I'm both proud and amazed that it's lasted this long. :cool
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
ReallyGoodUsername said:
After I sent him photos this was his reply right after this OP was created, haven’t heard back since so figure he got around to actually looking at my photos.

View attachment 456878

It’s my impression (correct me if I’m wrong please) that many MANY of the photos in TCG are submitted by others and not his own chips which would make him claim pretty outlandish. Maybe he sends similar follow up language to everyone since it’s usually in these cases it is an uncredited TCG photo but in this case it was clearly not.
Click to expand...
I believe that if you submit a photo of a chip to be included in the ChipGuide (a new chip for example) the photo becomes property of MoGH.
 
DiceDiver said:
I believe that if you submit a photo of a chip to be included in the ChipGuide (a new chip for example) the photo becomes property of MoGH.
Click to expand...
So I have no idea how the copyright image works but what if that same person took say two identical or near identical photos of the same chip? Would MoGH own all photos of that particular chip from now on? Seems pretty absurd if so. If not, how could it ever be proven to be a separate picture other then maybe the file data if taken electronically?
 
DiceDiver said:
I believe that if you submit a photo of a chip to be included in the ChipGuide (a new chip for example) the photo becomes property of MoGH.
Click to expand...
That just can't be right. You, as the author, have the copyright on photos you take. Even if there were such a rights-grab clause, why in the world would anyone choose to accept it?
 

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

P
History guru question
Replies
6
Views
772
allforcharity
allforcharity
Mudfever
The Cajun Cup of Poker
Replies
10
Views
2K
suchj0sh
suchj0sh
Jers28
Another USPS horror story and any advice is welcomed
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
6K
dizzyChipper
dizzyChipper
Gus
Molds & Industry - Master Index
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Gus
Gus
Gus
Strong Horse | CPC CSQ | Cash Set (bitcoin themed)
Replies
9
Views
1K
foreverdev
foreverdev
Back
Top Bottom