[smoore]

Good discussion. I like the baseball card comparison.

While I think it is important to respect copyright, I also believe that the most sincere form of flattery is imitation. People make these chips because they admire the event or venue. I don't think anyone intends harm. Those designs that are a little too close are decried and changed until they are different "enough".

Because really... if you're going to say that entire chipsets shouldn't be copied how far is it to "You shouldn't copy a design to flesh out a chipset with missing denominations."? I know it seems absurd but this proposal is a step in that direction.

How about those Binion's Tribute chips? The chips are gorgeous and Binions Horseshoe sums up what Vegas was. It was the nice place when most joints had sawdust on the floor. 25¢ blackjack and no-limit poker. If I were to buy any replicas, those would be it.

I just don't see the harm in having these knock-off chips around. It's unfortunate if some people get defrauded on ebay but they really should do some homework before they buy nexgens with stickers for $1.25 ea.

I like to be smug so I'll probably "sign" and then lord it over all you scumbags with WSOP chips! Just kidding. But seriously, if you have this as a public group here on chiptalk it only seems fair to have the opposite group, "Dirty, Dirty Copiers" or something. I'm sure you'd get some proud members, especially with a name like that.

[mizuchaud]

Originally Posted by smoore

But seriously, if you have this as a public group here on chiptalk it only seems fair to have the opposite group, "Dirty, Dirty Copiers" or something. I'm sure you'd get some proud members, especially with a name like that.

How about "The Cut and Paste Mafia"?
Don't want to be a member, but could not help myself from contributing to the "branding".

[jojobinks]

all the argument about whether to enforce or not seems pointless to me. here's why:

i'm a high school teacher, and in my experience, i've learned this: making a rule and claiming that we're all going to enforce it is a horrible idea if the rule is unenforceable. i've worked mostly at ghetto schools in chicago...and after 9/11 the school decided that all kids had to have ID's on at all times, visible, or else blah blah blah.

the rule was not enforceable b/c:

• kids didn't all have ids
• the consequences were inconsequential to them
• we had WAY more important things to deal with (not the least of which was teaching)

the result: many meetings about why it wasn't being enforced, did it need to be, how to better enforce it, and wasted time in the hallways/classrooms trying to enforce it.

IMO, making this a "rule" and then trying to enforce it causes a big mess, basically for the same reasons we couldn't make everone wear an ID.

BUT...that doesn't mean that a code of conduct with community buy-in wouldn't have value. the way things change in communities is NOT by making rules that are enforced. as we see everywhere, people are relativistic regarding rules. you follow the ones you need to and you stretch the ones you disagree with or feel you can get away with stretching.

on the other hand: if there's some group of beliefs that we can generally agree with, it will be "enforced" in a way that's MUCH more effective...those that follow some other path will effectively not fit into the community very well.

every once in a while we have people who come to CT and post tons of short, meaningless posts. the original guy was hayaku ( ). usually, there is no enforcement measure that would make sense. what are we going to do, kick him out for being trite and pointless? these guys tend to disappear on their own, b/c they aren't encouraged to continue acting like twits.

similarly, if indeed most of CT'ers agree that making replicas is legal but ugly, then, theoretically, those sorts of things will peter out here.

reminder: CT has been a driver of the market these last two years. and for that reason alone, it is smart for us to be thoughtful about what we want / think is right. it's wasteful of our position (as huge chip buyers, we have power!) to say "they're just chips" and just let whatever happens happen. we're all here, and participating in this discussion, and that means we care and have stake. stop pretending that doesn't mean anything!

[noelsarchs]

FWIW: I just received an email from someone looking at my Original movie prop Casino de Isthmus City $10 chip listed on ebay. It seems that he bought some of the 1998 Bonds thinking they were from the movie itself. So if Paulson can make a chip that is almost identical to the movie chips in many ways, and the recent knockoffs of Casino Royale by another manufacturer, who is taking advantage of who here?

The nasty responses I get from people when I try to correct their auction text by telling them that the chip is not from the movie have been incredible. Now I get an email from one of those buyers who got duped by one of those sellers claims.

At least with some of the recent chips I've seen reproduced here by others have enough changes made where no one could possibly re sell them as authentic.

[palmimports]

ok- enough of this discussion- lets talk about the next chip were gonna replicate and pay tribute to...
( only kidding)

[Matt]

Post #21

Originally Posted by TenPercenter

I envision a Code of Conduct that would be drafted by, and then emotionally enforced, by the members themselves. If that happens, then Administration involvement would never even be needed. If another WORLD STARS OF POKER" at the "Riu" chip was brought out, then the members would come out against it. If we adopt the Code, then that type of thing would not likeyl occur in the first place.

Post #57

Originally Posted by TenPercenter

For the record, I'm not pointing at ANY design, past or present. The only one I brought up was one I myself took part in (Key West). I want to avoid folks feeling like they have to defend copying because they promoted, sold, or bought copies in the past.

Well you have to excuse me for feeling like I have to defend myself but in post #21 you are pointing specifically at my company and product. You are basically saying that you hope ChipTalk members will boycott this type of designs in the future. How about right now? Don't you think people are affected by the message you are sending at this very minute? I'm quite surprised to see you pointing your finger at me like this, especially since a large chunk of my monthly (and very modest) profits goes straight into your pocket.

I just finished reading through all 145 posts in this thread and I can't find one good explaination why replicas basically should be boycotted. I can tell you that there are lot's of people, even here at ChipTalk, that want a replica set more than anything else available on the market. The ones who bought my WSOP replicas bought them because that was exactly what they were looking for and they are thrilled to have them. I can tell you that it brings me great joy being able to make people so happy. You should read some of the comments my customers send me!

If you want to create some code of conduct or some exclusive club here at ChipTalk to teach people that they should be ashamed because they like replica chips and/or punish them for buying them and so on, then please go ahead. But the day it is up to anyone but the end customer himself, here at ChipTalk, to decide what chips he should buy and play with in his own living room, that day I will likely no longer be a sponsor of your forum.

I LOVE poker chips. I am really CRAZY about poker chips, I really am. But I don't collect them. And if this has anything to do with the ChipCo WSOP replicas going down in value or similar, well, I'm not going to excuse myself for attempting to create newer and better replicas of the same casino chips. Other than that I can't see any "negative effects" with replicas, at least not replicas that could never be mistaken for the real thing. What is the actual reason for this "code". Please explain.

To clarify things, as some do not know this, our replicas are completely different from the originals in that they are made of a different material, they don't weigh the same, they don't feel the same, they don't sound the same, they are not shaped the same and have obvious visual differences. They could never be mistaken for real WSOP chips. Nor should they have any negative impact on the collector value of the real WSOP chips.

Anyway, I hope all this works out for the best for everyone. Especially the end customers. Because as long as the copyright owners don't have a problem with replicas being sold, why should we try to talk people out of buying them?


Matt

[7thSeat]

Originally Posted by BlondWidow

Hmmm... "among those who like it"? That's odd. If that's the case, I'm not sure this is a necessary code to put into effect. Or at the very least, it is redundant. I mean, people who would be the ones agreeing are already observing the code, aren't they? So what – people who disagree will go on copying, or replicating, dedicating or commemorating, whatever you want to call it. They wouldn't be affected by it in the least. What's the point?

I think the code if well formulated can have an influence on people and besides that create an awareness of the subject. New member must at least think about it for a while.

If it wasn't for the Slab free club I wouldn't think about the slabbing of chips as I do now.

I know there is a thin line here and that we never can agree 100% what is a copy and what is not. How ever I think we can get close enough to address the main issues.

7th

[TenPercenter]

Originally Posted by Matt

you are pointing specifically at my company and product....I can't find one good explaination why replicas basically should be boycotted.

... What is the actual reason for this "code". Please explain.

I actually cut and pasted that chip example from someone's previous post, I didn't think twice about who sells it Matt. And No one is talking about boycotts.

The reasons against copying have been repeated several times in this thread. I bet my reason is even in the original post. Bottom line is, I think copying existing designs and chips should be avoided, that's all.

Most of the people speaking up in this thread disagree with me (and the voters are apparently not speaking up).

[osumike11379]

[quote=TenPercenter]Am I calling this idea a "code of conduct" incorrectly? I keep seeing it repeated that we have to "enforce" a "policy" to do any good, but I explain that I think it will still help just by embracing the code. I don't want to have any official policy, and I don't5 want to enforce anything, and I don't want anyone "policing" anything. We draft a Code, and anyone that chooses to can agree with it.

All this will do is create more elitism as some people will think this "badge of honor" gives them the right to be self-righteous and sanctimonious towards everything and everyone they don't agree with..

[quote=TenPercenter] And so to your scenario: I see that scenario working just fine, that could happen. However I'd say that the part where "vendors get so sick of it they leave" becomes "vendors get wise after the first mistake and begin to promote what doesn't get bashed by the community."

Mistake??? So if a vendor puts out a replica its a "mistake"? Since when did Chiptalk and its members become the supreme court on all things chip related? Isn't that just an opinon?? I still think vendors could pull out based on Matt's comments..Either way this will discourage the vendors from selling any sort of replica for which there is a BIG market for... I don't think its right to try and "shame" the vendors into not selling something because some people think its violates some code of ethics..And back to the whole main point...we are talking like we are members of congress here..way too serious..

I am not advocating "copying" designs. If you design and copyright something no one has a right to rip it off. But this discussion seems skewed towards replica chips sold by vendors and NOT towards individuals who plagarize other people's designs for profit.

10 - This is a great site and I enjoy using it immensely but I think this is going to create a lot of division on here and get everyone worked up for no reason. My biggest fear is that we will drive away vendors and create a group of people that will try and "shame" anyone that does not agree with this...Just my opinon....

[TenPercenter]

ChipTalk Creativity Canon
"Encourage Original Poker Chip Designs"

I subscribe to the following guidelines regarding the design of poker chip artwork intended for use on a custom poker chip, plaque or other gaming related items.

Chip design artwork should be original in design, concept and implementation and should not represent usage of preexisting artwork whether personal or commercial in nature.

Presentation and support of chip design artwork should embody promotion of original design whether as a collective effort of others or as a single effort by the designer.