[TenPercenter]

Originally Posted by Strange

If I get a design approved by PI for a ceramic that clearly violates the spirit of the C5, and then post pictures of my new chips, would you just ignore the post, or delete the pictures, or comment on my lack of taste?

Or perhaps the C5 only applies to GB's that are run via the site?

This is not intended to be any official www.ChipTalk.net set of rules. I was not anticipating ChipTalk Admins to police it in any way.

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.

[mizuchaud]

How about taking the positive side and just saying YES to originality?

I understand people's attractions to certain current casino chips because they seem to be well done, but we got talented designers here, it just takes some work.

To my eyes it has always boiled down to a shortcut, either financially or artistically. Granted, you can have tons of inspirational designs as a background, but you got to make it your own. Forget the three differences to avoid copyright infringement lawsuits, make it recognizably YOURS.

I'd say being proud of your own original design would seem so much better.

Caveat: I'm too chickens**t to make my own, settling for buying obsolete paulsons.
I applaud EVERYONE who makes their own. That takes guts.

[JoseRijo]

First of all, all great art (and production in general) is based upon the work of others. The whole point of copyright (and patents) is that an artist's work is protected for a certain amount of time to recover his investment. Then that work is released into the public domain where it can be used by all.

Second, in this "code of conduct", you don't address fair use in any way. It's one thing to produce and sell a blatant copy of someone's work to the general public in competition with the original. It's entirely another to create a small run of something for personal use.

Most of us aren't copyright lawyers here, and I don't think we need to start acting like them because someone wants to duplicate a chip that hasn't been made for 20 years or one they couldn't purchase even if they wanted to.

[Matthew]

In principle it's good idea. One of the major differentiators are chips for personal use and those that will be produced in quantity. Personal use is one or two playable sets - probably up to a quantity around 2000 chips.

I haven't formulated this enough yet to state my full opinion, but chips for personal use based on or derived from an existing design that do not infringe on copyrights desrve more leeway than a new line of chips being produced in mass quantities for resale.

[BigBrando]

Excellent thread, Ten. Personally, I would take the position that tribute chips (not copies) should only be encouraged under a very limited set of conditions (both of which should be met):

Acceptable
1) Unreleased Denominations - provided that a denomination was never produced, I think it is acceptable for the purposes of this community to use a pre-existing casino/fantasy design as the basis of the tribute design. For an example, here was our New Yorker "fractional" - one of a few different designs put forth by CT members. I believe that making a set of actual casino chips more usable, by the inclusion of an unreleased denomination, helps the chip set community here.
2) 3+ Points of Differentiation - I completely agree with an earlier poster that there should be 3 points of differentiation between the original and the tribute design.

In fact, in my conversations with Dave and Mike at BCC, I believe these conditions are very similar to theirs regarding the usage of casino-inspired artwork.

Also, I think it is important to emphasize that acceptable designs would only be for denominations that were never produced - not ones that are simply difficult to obtain. Exclusivity exists for a reason. Think how lame it is to have a Ferrari kit car rather than a genuine Ferrari (well, I suppose the only thing more lame is having an actual Ferrari and a penis pump).

I really am glad that you posed this question, as I think it goes to the heart of any collecting community. Generally, Star Wars fans hate reproduction figures, DVD afficionados abhore bootlegs, watch collectors hate knock-offs, etc. because such items implicitly undermine the uniqueness of authentic items. Given that most replica/tribute chips are not used for commercial gain (more like fan artwork), I would never directly compare them to the aforementioned "collectibles." Regardless, I think it's good for the ChipTalk community to collectively decide how to view replicas/tributes/etc.

Note: Personally, I love the designs that (off the top of my head) Snowstorm, Blake27, HQ, BW, joshuadalton, and others bring to CT - so none of my comments were meant to undermine their talents

[VARoadstter]

Originally Posted by JoseRijo

First of all, all great art (and production in general) is based upon the work of others. The whole point of copyright (and patents) is that an artist's work is protected for a certain amount of time to recover his investment. Then that work is released into the public domain where it can be used by all.

Second, in this "code of conduct", you don't address fair use in any way. It's one thing to produce and sell a blatant copy of someone's work to the general public in competition with the original. It's entirely another to create a small run of something for personal use.

Most of us aren't copyright lawyers here, and I don't think we need to start acting like them because someone wants to duplicate a chip that hasn't been made for 20 years or one they couldn't purchase even if they wanted to.

Jose,

There's no force of law here. Do you object to the main point - that we, as a group, agree that we shouldn't continue to purposefully pursue a desire to replicate/copy/commemorate existing designs?

If you were to, on your own (without seeking to involve the community at large), produce a design for your own use then I don't think it matters much to the site - that's your own business. I have always felt that original designs are superior to the copies anyway, simply because they aren't subject to the limitation of trying to adhere to the specifics of a particular design. Look at those gorgeous Protege chips as a perfect example of what can be done.

I certainly understand those who get excited about making their own KGB chips or whatever but I would caution that it is a slippery slope. Many here remember the former member who was censured over his blatant copying of other's designs. Even though he swore up and down that he had no intention of doing anything other than keeping them for himself in the end he did indeed pursue the idea of selling the copy chips. In the early stages, I seem to recall that some members here were supportive towards him - this is what I would personally like to see curtailed. This group should indeed shoulder some responsibility to behave ethically and not enable those who do otherwise.

That is my 2 cents. Understand, Jose, I'm not linking anything I've stated above to you or anyone else. I'm simply trying to give my input and provide the supportive data that led to my having the opinion that I hold.

[mizuchaud]

Originally Posted by JoseRijo

First of all, all great art (and production in general) is based upon the work of others. The whole point of copyright (and patents) is that an artist's work is protected for a certain amount of time to recover his investment. Then that work is released into the public domain where it can be used by all.

quote below from the US copyright office JUST TO CLARIFY your use of the terms "certain amount of time":


How Long Copyright Protection Endures

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date

These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case would the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.
Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.
Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.
Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer required to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue to renewal registrations that were made during the 28th year.
For more detailed information on renewal of copyright and the copyright term, request Circular 15, Renewal of Copyright; Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright; and Circular 15t, Extension of Copyright Terms.

[palmimports]

Wow- sure glad I caught this thread with only three pages to read--

Well- if we all agree to this- then anyone who ownes DICE poker chips needs to destroy them- as the chip design is copyrighted and we ALL are in violation of the owner's copyright on the chip. Ive spoken to him years ago when he was frustrated and tried to stop the importation of his design into the USA. We all know how far that got--

I think we need to do this: seriously look at copyright law- see what can be done to a design to be complaint with the law- I think someone mentioned 3 pertinent differences/changes- I'd have to have our attorney review the law- and if we stay within the law- we should be ok... rather then make a blanket agreement NOT to produce anything that looks like anything else.

Most everything we buy in the stores where we have a choice of products ALL similiar- went through this. Some manufacturer made LEGAL changes to a patent and made his own version of the item- and all perfectly legal.

I think we need to follow legal guidelines for our future artwork endeavors -
then everyone can have what they want- and we're all legal

My two cents

[800over]

Originally Posted by Matthew

In principle it's good idea. One of the major differentiators are chips for personal use and those that will be produced in quantity. Personal use is one or two playable sets - probably up to a quantity around 2000 chips.

I haven't formulated this enough yet to state my full opinion, but chips for personal use based on or derived from an existing design that do not infringe on copyrights desrve more leeway than a new line of chips being produced in mass quantities for resale.

I agree but I don't feel that quantity and personal use are mutually exclusive. IF the intent is for personal use...(I'll use the example of the Matsui WSOP chips) I don't see the problem. It's not like Binions (or Harrahs now I think) is releasing home use replicas and this group buy is reducing Binions sales. These chips are an homage to the original for our enjoyment and personal use...

In comparison I'll take Big Brando's mention of Star Wars. Everyone knows that lucasfilm is one of the toughest companies with respect to copyright (rightfully so)....but they in fact encourage Fans to produce their own materials AS LONG as they are not for profit. Some will say "wait a second Matsui is making a profit on the production of the chips" well so is Walmart when they sell cloth to make a Star Wars outfit....or the Camcorder that films the fan films or the paint used for my drawing.

As for the value or exclusivity of an item determining whether or not it should be copied is a red herring. Either it's wrong or not. It shouldn't matter that the chip is worth $1 or $50. It isn't the Casino....or for that matter the artist for the chip that makes money when someone sells a Casino cihp for 5x the face value.

I guess I feel that if you are producing a better mousetrap...(or one that no one else sells) and you're doing it for home use...then I have very few qualms. The only issue I have is the loss of revenue by the companies that are playing by the rules. We shouldn't be able to copy product that someone else sells and thereby cause them a loss of revenue. (but if someone wants Palm Imports to make a ceramic copy of "DICE" chips why should I complain?)

Maybe I'll put my Jolie show 'ems in MTM to assuage my guilt (and I guess my penis pump too ). But having said that.....Josh when is the next GB for the Matsui WSOP replicas?

[2_hotty]

I can see this causing a lot of problems. I see the rash of posts where some new guy posts a pic of a Palms replica he wants to get made, and he gets blasted from 30 members claiming he's going against the C5, and how he should be original instead.

I can see why collectors would like this, so there is no confusion as to what's real and what's a knock off flooding the market. However, I think it's the actual manufacters responsibility to make sure what they are creating is on the up and up.

I just don't see the benefit of giving everyone here a virtual sheriffs badge as to what is considered "okay to replicate". I also think that there is too much of a grey area to make any kind of destinction anyway. Let the manufacturers handle it, it's their ass on the line anyway.

I might be in the minority here, but I vote no, this isn't a good idea.