I wanted to open this thread to
HOPEFULLY have a constructive conversation about a topic that was heavily debated and discussed in another thread. If you are looking to flame someone, move on to the next thread. I thought of scenarios and it got me thinking about this topic of copyright infringement.
The intent of this thread is to maturely discuss the topic and come to a common ground of understanding within the forum. Hopefully that is possible. I’ve put quite a bit of thought into this thread and have done my best to lay out some potential ground work for a great discussion.
My idea was to lay out a couple of different scenarios and understand how if in fact, they are different from one another. I will not use names, as it has nothing to do with the end result of the discussion, nor will I or am I pointing any fingers at people, GB’s, artists, chip mfg’s, etc.. I’m simply looking to discuss the differences between three different possible scenarios.
I’ve also asked / discussed this same question to an Attorney / close friend of mine who plays in my home game to get his view on the subject from a legal approach.
Let me make this point again, and make it very very clear…. In no way shape or form, by any far stretch of the imagination, am I looking to point a finger at anyone or say that one was right, wrong, good, bad or indifferent. I think this is a very important subject, and I’m simply looking to understand the difference between scenarios. That difference being supplied by the popular belief of the forum members. If there is anyone with a legal background, I’d appreciate hearing your view on this as well.
As a group, I’d like to understand how these differ from one another and thoughts on the questions for each scenario.
Scenario One: The “Show ‘Em” Chip
Everyone wanted a new custom chip, in a GB type arrangement that did a “Show’em” type theme, and a “Reload” type theme. Very fun for a home game, etc. etc. etc.. Everyone got together and decided on artwork, colors, designs, manufactures, etc. and hammers out a final design.
One of the designs that was created, and finally ended up being produced was of a rather attractive and rather busty
brunette woman holding cards. This was obviously a photograph that was found somewhere. Likely on the internet.
Being that it was a photograph, it was taken by someone else, a photographer for some other purpose than a GB for a custom chip. This photograph is in fact the work of someone else. I don’t believe that a formal attempt was made to contact the owner of the photograph and obtain their permission to use their photograph.
In scenario One, I ask the question:
1. Was this copyright infringement?
2. If “no” please explain why.
Scenario Two: The Kokopelli Chip
The Kokopelli Chips are a fantastic looking chip. Great design, wonderful colors, etc. Provided by a few chip vendors and can be purchased through them, and or could have been purchased via the GB that took place some time back. The design is very original. Clearly a design that had never been seen before and totally and 100% completely custom. Then (semi) mass produced for the GB, and through the web sites that offer them to the retail market. Life goes on.
Some time later, someone posts a thread about some “groovy” chips that a chip vendor is making. Great chips, very cool looking, etc. etc. However, on their site, they have other ceramic chips. Some called the “Lucky Symbols” (
http://www.epokerdeals.com/ProductDe...Show=TechSpecs ) and if you look closely, one of the chips in that set clearly uses the “Kokopelli” Flute Player. The same exact kokopelli person / shape of a person playing a “flute” dubbed as the “Kokopelli Flute Player”
Now, while the design of a “Kokopelli” is not new, in fact aging back long before internet, and poker chips, there are two people out there making chips with a “kokopelli” on them. Granted the design is slightly different, but using the same symbol, none the less.
In scenario Two, I ask these questions:
1. Did anything think about this when these Kokopelli chips where being created in that they share a similar design to another chip out on the market?
2. Who was first to come up with a design of the “kokopelli” on the chips?
3. If they were first (epokerdeals web site above), did the GB / current vendor(s) look into using this design with regards to the other similar designed chip with a “Kokopelli” featured on it?
4. Is this considered copyright infringement?
5. If “no” please explain why.
Scenario Three: WSOP Replicas
The WSOP replica chips are 100% top notch looking! A large GB was coordinated with Chipco for these chips. The original WSOP chips that these mimicked were created by Bud Jones. The chips are also for sale by a few vendors common to the chip market.
The chip design has been modified as to not include any WSOP lettering, etc. to not step on the toes of Bud Jones, the owner and creator of the original WSOP chips in which these replicate, and as we all know, Harrah’s exclusively owns the rights to “WSOP”. However the term WSOP is used synonymously with and for these chips. Nothing wrong with that.
When you mention (in this forum for example) “Hey, I got me some WSOP Replicas" on the way though the GB or via the vendor which sells them. You know
exactly which chips this person is referring to, either by seeing the chips on TV, or seeing the designs through the GB.
These two chips (BJ v. Chipco replica) are incredibly similar to one another other than the center wording which does not include “WSOP”. THe chip designs are somewhat iconic. The colors scheme and layout for the chips that are used for the WSOP are exactly the same as these which are being produced as a replica.
In scenario Three, I ask these questions:
1. Did the creators of this WSOP Replica chip get specific permission in writing from BJ to do a replica of their chip?
2. If not, why? The chips are a 99% knock off in color, design, etc. all but the words WSOP.
3. Did Chipco contact BJ and pose the same question? (Please don’t answer this question with an assumption that “because it’s Chipco I’m sure they checked it out” Let’s ask ourselves the straight forward question)
4. Being that the WSOP chips are well known and a creation of Bud Jones, is this copyright OR trademark infringement?
5. If “no” please explain why.
Again, I’m asking these questions in a new light and interested in having an intelligent conversation about this issue. If you are looking to flame, please move on to the next thread. I’m hoping that there will be a better understanding of designs, names, ideas, artwork and so on which the community moving forward would use and hold some value to / towards.
To make replies and discussion easier, feel free to
and
Scenario One: (Show’em)
In scenario One, I ask the question:
1. Was this copyright infringement?
2. If “no” please explain why.
Scenario Two: (Kokopelli)
1. Did anything think about this when these Kokopelli chips where being created in that they share a similar design to another chip out on the market?
2. Who was first to come up with a design of the “kokopelli” on the chips? 3. If they were first (epokerdeals web site above), did the GB / current vendor look into using this design with regards to the other similar designed chip with a “Kokopelli” featured on it?
4. Is this considered copyright infringement?
5. If “no” please explain why.
Scenario Three: (WSOP)
1. Did the creators of this WSOP Replica chip get specific permission in writing from BJ to do a replica of their chip?
2. If not, why? The chips are a 99% knock off in color, design, etc. all but the words WSOP.
3. Did Chipco contact BJ and pose the same question? (Please don’t answer this question with an assumption that “because it’s Chipco I’m sure they checked it out” Let’s ask ourselves the straight forward question)
4. Being that the WSOP chips are well known and a creation of Bud Jones, is this copyright infringement?
5. If “no” please explain why.
Linear Mode
