[palmimports]

Originally Posted by Strange

I believe that what Ten is suggesting goes beyond 'don't do anything illegal'.

He is suggesting that we discourage the creation of what are essentially unoriginal designs. That would mean that it is not really important if a designer believes he can get away with 3 points of difference, or that the copyright owner probably doesn't care or whatever.

Again, if I have this right, then the C5 would actively encourage original work, while discouraging work based around copied designs.

I can understand this from a CT website perspective- but if someone comes to me- and they have- and says- here's a design based, in part, on Acme Casino- weve changed the fonts, changed the words- used different colors and we want 100,000 made - I call my attorney, tell him to review this- he tells me nothing to worry about the changes are enough where I am not copying the original design, and were good to go.

If this site wants to limit this I am in full support- and as a manufacturer and sponser I will comply with the wishes of the masses- but from strict business sense- if I am in FULL compliance with copyright law- and I am a manufacturer- whether it be chips or bathroom faucets- and I am well within legal rights to make something that has been changed enough to be IN compliance with law- I would manufacture it.

Keep in mind- we spoke with the legal staff at Bellagio- I could tell my conversation was construed as a waste of their time-- basically- they could care less as to what we were doing.

With that said- if CT doesnt want to be the instigator of basically " lets steal an existing design, make a few changes and do a GB" I am supportive.

I think 10 is trying to have his site fall within the scope of integrity as a whole- and I have no problem in honoring the final decisions made

[Harlequin011]

Originally Posted by 800over

Would PNY fractionals count? Could someone believe that they are original? maybe.


Endy from BCC have been very clear about not be willing to reproduce or copy other artwork.

Inspiration is not copying. Influence is a respected form of progression. Are the PNY fractionals inspiration or copying?


I appreciate your post and opinion Harlequin. Really I just want to know your opinion on people making chips to fill gaps in a set. Another example I would use is people who make a New York skyline Framed poster with NYer chips inlaid....would it be alright if they sold those for a profit? I just don't see this as a black and white issue. There are grey areas I agree. Difficult subject so the more opinions the better I think.

The first answer to your question is borderline. I haven't seen them in a while, but I know that I thought some of the artwork I saw was far to similar. From what I saw, it may have changed, I felt that the fractionals were a copy.

But thats becuase I saw "New Yorker" and similar effects on the denom and lining ring.

I purposely left of "New Yorker" on the plaque to keep the two entities from being confused. The images on our plaques are clearly influenced by the New Yorker chip set, but we've modified them and altered their appearance significantly.

[rowlin]

Nice post Ten - good discussion here. I remember the issue coming up during a group buy last year, and people weighing in with thoughful and insightful comments.

I think it is a good idea to distance CT from projects that significantly resemble existing designs.

That said, I like the WSOP replicas and the others that were made. I don't have any ceramic chips, but if I did, they might be some of these.

I don't know where the line is drawn between creating something that is inspired by a design versus one that seeks to replicate it. I think the manufacturers and vendors would have the most to worry about if it became an issue.

If anyone is ever stupid enough to try to pass one off as real, s*%t could really hit the fan.

[Senator_Thack]

This discussion is pretty interesting. Now that I understand it better, I am fully in support of the idea.

Most of us already have a general idea of what should and shouldn't be done with respect to chip designs. Different folks have slightly different opinions on certain issues, and some may not be aware of all the issues, but we as a community have an idea of what should and shouldn't be done. I think it is an excellent idea to clarify our thinking, and give guidance to those designing their own chips or offering them for sale. The idea is not to establish a set of hard rules and to have designs submitted to an arbiter for approval before they are posted. The idea is to come to a consensus as to what is appropriate and give guidelines to those who may not be aware of how their actions may harm the rights of others.

Perhaps the best way to do this is in article form. If others thought it appropriate, I could write a draft set of guidelines and then post it to gather and then incorporate feedback from others. I think there is enough material in this thread to get started, but feel free to PM me with additional thoughts.

What do you think?

[tmpa2001]

This screams hypocrisy to me.

I have seen threads here where a member had burned episodes of WSOP or WPT or HSP or something and offered to make copies for people. Yet NO ONE commented on the lack of integrity there.

I also recall seeing a threads were PI was thrown to the lions, but now is a key sponsor and produced the Bellagio replicas...

I just see a moral consensus moving with the tide that changes from day to day based on which "reputable" member says what.

MTC.

In regards to this particular issue of chips, I am guilty, I own a set of Chipco WSOP replicas. But here is a question for you, BPC worked with members here to bring this GB.
And then once it was popular you had KNOCKOFFS such as the epokerdeals version and now the Mr. Chips version. I think the latter showed little to no integrity.

[asam2006]

Originally Posted by Jonah 99

Could you give some examples of chips that you feel should not have been made?

Exactly! What exactly are we restricting? A code of ethics is a fine idea but how is that going a affect what we do? Who are we trying to protect? Blindly signing on to a policy of restriction does not appeal to me. I'll have to know a whole lot more before aggreeing to it. How has operating the way we always have hurt others? I need more information.

[palmimports]

Originally Posted by Senator_Thack

This discussion is pretty interesting. Now that I understand it better, I am fully in support of the idea.

Most of us already have a general idea of what should and shouldn't be done with respect to chip designs. Different folks have slightly different opinions on certain issues, and some may not be aware of all the issues, but we as a community have an idea of what should and shouldn't be done. I think it is an excellent idea to clarify our thinking, and give guidance to those designing their own chips or offering them for sale. The idea is not to establish a set of hard rules and to have designs submitted to an arbiter for approval before they are posted. The idea is to come to a consensus as to what is appropriate and give guidelines to those who may not be aware of how their actions may harm the rights of others.

Perhaps the best way to do this is in article form. If others thought it appropriate, I could write a draft set of guidelines and then post it to gather and then incorporate feedback from others. I think there is enough material in this thread to get started, but feel free to PM me with additional thoughts.

What do you think?

Alot of variables- and positions...
The position of the website... we dont want to contribute to knocking off chips
The position of the buyer.. I want a set of WSOP chips
The position of the manufacturer... if its deemed within legal constraints I'll make em.. if I dont someone else will

The past... the site AND members AND sponsers AND manufacturers
( some)has allowed and contributed to replica chips
The present... lets try and clean up our act and NOT be party to replica chips
The future..have to wait and see

The good: lots of great artwork designs both new AND from existing artwork
The bad.. we're contributing to replica chips that MAY be in a grey area of the legal realm
The ugly..some members will be mad-- some members happy

Solutions:
The site doesnt knowingly contribute to replication of existing poker chips
The sponsers dont knowingly sell replicas to the CT community
The manufacturers/sponsers dont knowingly use CT as a medium for sales/distribution of replicas
The site refuses to allow knock off artwork/scans of knockoffs/pictures of knockoffs to be posted
The site doesnt allow participation in gboup buys or member-to-member sales of knockoffs

So, youre a CT member and you want a WSOP replica chip- contact through PRIVATE means the seller/manufacturers and handle your business- only dont do it on the CT site

Now comes the hardest part-

The threads will be reduced- posted images of chips reduced, discussions about artwork reduced
The argument of a member saying his image/artwork isnt a knockoff by HIS definition
The policing of all the posts which fall into grey areas

This is a good thread!!

[Strange]

Originally Posted by tmpa2001

This screams hypocrisy to me.

Well, not really. I don't see anything in what Ten has said that indicates that he believes a certain chip or GB or whatever should not have been done. He's looking for a discussion on the future.

So...if you believe that you personally would want CT to be the place where you can market a design of yours that was based on someone elses, or where you could buy such a design as part of a GB then you should not sign the suggested C5.

If you'd like CT to be the place where you could market your brand new design, or where you could take part in a GB that supported such a design, then you might consider signing the C5.

What has gone on in the past is irrelevant other than to serve as examples for the purpose of the discussion.

So if I said that Snow's WinterNight design is the sort of thing that would be discouraged by the C5, that should not be interpreted as me saying that the design should not have been made, or that Snow's integrity is in doubt.

[rowlin]

I think a code is a good idea in that it allows the site to say "Hey, this stuff goes on, but it's not what we're trying to do here." Good policy IMO, but I don't know the best form or extent of it.

I don't think the intent of this was to begin a witch hunt or anything, and would hate to see it happen that way.

[palmimports]

One more spin to look at...
linpduck, a CT member and talented artist- designs a chip based in part on The Cracked Chip Casino and Drycleaners, Las Vegas Nevada

He uses alot of Cracked Chip's original designs, changes a few fonts and colors and- woa baby- the next hot CT group Buy

Calm Imports and Mrs Chips love this new chip- so Calm Imports makes it and Mrs Chips handles the GB.

Cracked Chip gets pissed- calls up their law firm of Goldstein Goldstein Shapiro and Oreilly and files a lawsuit.
Named in the suit is:
Limpduck
Mrs Chips
Calm Imports
AND.............. Greg- the owner of Chiptalk since his site contributed to this whole mess

food for thought