[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by palmimports

In the meantime- were getting signed releases and consent forms- anyone who has work on file with us has already receeved this- this is the best WE can do.

Amen
( where's my daum xanax when i need it most!)

joe: what about the blue chip clones (chinese made) that are featured on the front page of pokerchiplounge and are for sale within? isn't that a BC mold that you knocked off?

http://www.pokerchiplounge.com/products/index/172.html
scroll down to 10g clay old fashioned's

just wondering how this fits with the new policy.

[palmimports]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

joe: what about the blue chip clones (chinese made) that are featured on the front page of pokerchiplounge and are for sale within? isn't that a BC mold that you knocked off?

http://www.pokerchiplounge.com/products/index/172.html
scroll down to 10g clay old fashioned's

just wondering how this fits with the new policy.

Nope- actually we ran this by our attorney-
first- we didnt make this chip- china did
secondly- there is no record of any patent/trademark/etc on that based on what we were advised. It doesnt matter because we still didnt plan on continuing selling this design. We used it as a sample of what the new chip material would be like. Whether it's trademarked etc didnt matter- we know the Endys- we know it looks like their chip-- end of story.


Weve spoken with Dave at BC and agreed to tell china NOT to continue with this mold- and to our belief- they complied... and made a new mold to replace this mold AND a third mold which is Roland's interlocking L mold.

We also agreed that once our small inventory was depleted we would no longer continue with this chip mold as it did-in fact- resemble the Endy's chip.

There is NO doubt china did this deliberately- although they venomously deny they even knew who BC was. Trying to tell a chinese person theyre full of it isnt easily translated- but trust me they got my meaning.

I think what I said above shows our intentions quite clearly regarding respect for both another CT member AND a manufacturer whom we will be doing business.

Yes a few of the chips remain- but they are not for sale- havnt been sold in a LONG time- and probably remain on Dave's site because he hasnt gotten around to changing his site. Trust me- if orders for these chips were being made- I would know because I am the ONLY one with any inventory of that chip.

Hope this splains things

( man oh man that's some REAL good print quality aint it)

[FullMonte]

Originally Posted by Irish Se7en

I'm still curious why no one has a problem with someone going into a casino, getting a rack or two of .25 cent chips and walking out with them. Now they paid .25 cents per chip on a chip that probably cost the casino at the least .75 cents to over a $1.00 a chip. So they in all actuality stole the chip and in most states have committed a FELONY.

Heh..not quite. The person with the chips didn't steal anything...The casino sold them at a loss. There's a big difference.

[OnTheButton]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

joe: what about the blue chip clones (chinese made) that are featured on the front page of pokerchiplounge and are for sale within? isn't that a BC mold that you knocked off?

http://www.pokerchiplounge.com/products/index/172.html
scroll down to 10g clay old fashioned's

just wondering how this fits with the new policy.

Are you referring to the mold being duped?

Or the HD image on it?

If you are pointing out the mold, then I think that falls into a trademark issue, not a copyright. And it legal action would have to go back to the manufacturer, not the reseller to prove damages. And when it comes to foreign countries, everything is different.

In the tradeshow industry (where my business is) there are MANY American manufacturers totally vexxed by the overseas knockoffs of their products, like display hardware and frames. These products are friggen 99% the same as their own USA made products, but made with cheaper materials, and are being sold for half the cost. The companies reselling these are estactic they can compete in the price wars, but the US manufacturers are beside themselves.

If it is the image of the hog you are referencing, I don't think there is anything that can be done about it unless that image was taken directly from the manufacturers site. (that is a Harley Davidson Fat Boy, 100th Anniversary right?) Unless that can be proven, nada. My business partner owns one of these bikes, and for all intent and purpose, he could take a picture of his bike and use it on his chips if he wanted to.

I remember something in advertising school about not being able to protect images of something that is readily and easily viewable to the public. (Like a building or a bridge, or an object.)

Think about something like a classic car calendar given away by an auto parts store for purchases over $50. The rights of those images belong to the photographer, not the auto manufacturer, to reproduce. So long as the photographer and the owner of the car are made aware and/or are compensated/released for the use of the images, Chevrolet, Ford, whoever do not need to be contacted for approval.

I could be dead wrong (it was almost 20 years ago) but vaguely I remember something about this in college.

Now if the HD logo was used in its exact form on the chips and they were being sold as "Harley Davidson" brand products, there might be a problem...

[palmimports]

Originally Posted by OnTheButton

Are you referring to the mold being duped?

Or the HD image on it?

If you are pointing out the mold, then I think that falls into a trademark issue, not a copyright. And it legal action would have to go back to the manufacturer, not the reseller to prove damages. And when it comes to foreign countries, everything is different.

In the tradeshow industry (where my business is) there are MANY American manufacturers totally vexxed by the overseas knockoffs of their products, like display hardware and frames. These products are friggen 99% the same as their own USA made products, but made with cheaper materials, and are being sold for half the cost. The companies reselling these are estactic they can compete in the price wars, but the US manufacturers are beside themselves.

If it is the image of the hog you are referencing, I don't think there is anything that can be done about it unless that image was taken directly from the manufacturers site. (that is a Harley Davidson Fat Boy, 100th Anniversary right?) Unless that can be proven, nada. My business partner owns one of these bikes, and for all intent and purpose, he could take a picture of his bike and use it on his chips if he wanted to.

I remember something in advertising school about not being able to protect images of something that is readily and easily viewable to the public. (Like a building or a bridge, or an object.)

Think about something like a classic car calendar given away by an auto parts store for purchases over $50. The rights of those images belong to the photographer, not the auto manufacturer, to reproduce. So long as the photographer and the owner of the car are made aware and/or are compensated/released for the use of the images, Chevrolet, Ford, whoever do not need to be contacted for approval.

I could be dead wrong (it was almost 20 years ago) but vaguely I remember something about this in college.

Now if the HD logo was used in its exact form on the chips and they were being sold as "Harley Davidson" brand products, there might be a problem...

Hmmmm this is clearly a TRADEMARK related post- someone please start a trademark thread and put this in the proper area.

But seriously- I think Jojo was referring to the chip and not the artwork.

It's been addressed with Blue Chip- havnt had any problems with it- so I am surprised it's resurfaced-
I did however email Dave and told him to use the NEW chip images and take this one down- as it does add to confusion

[JM]

Originally Posted by jdunford

Or (reverse the poles) a penguin? I'm sure the designers of the Antactic Casino custom chips didn't go to Antarctica (or even a zoo) to photograph an emperor penguin for his custom ASM set... (again, sorry for the specific references, but it helps to make the point).

You should get the facts before you go throwing around your opinion on whether I stole someone else's artwork for my chips. I am in fact the designer of the Casino Antarctica chips, and I DID IN FACT PAY FOR THE IMAGE. It is legally licensed for my use either personally or commercially.

Any more accusations you'd like to toss around? I saw the earlier reference to animal chips and knew what you were referring to and I was debating whether to bother responding.

So do your homework before you start accusing me or anyone else of copyright infringement. And if you read Jamby's thread, you'll see discussion there about whether the images they are using of the bears are public domain or not.

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by JM

You should get the facts before you go throwing around your opinion on whether I stole someone else's artwork for my chips. I am in fact the designer of the Casino Antarctica chips, and I DID IN FACT PAY FOR THE IMAGE. It is legally licensed for my use either personally or commercially.

Any more accusations you'd like to toss around? I saw the earlier reference to animal chips and knew what you were referring to and I was debating whether to bother responding.

So do your homework before you start accusing me or anyone else of copyright infringement. And if you read Jamby's thread, you'll see discussion there about whether the images they are using of the bears are public domain or not.

Those are still one of my favorite sets to see progress here.

[JM]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Those are still one of my favorite sets to see progress here.

Thanks Matthew. And in case anyone wonders, yes the entire set is copyrighted.

And yes jdunford, I did give you negative rep for that post.

[JM]

Originally Posted by jdunford

PalmImports isn't charging for the (copyrighted) artwork. They're only charging for printing and materials used...

In other words, "No your honor, I wasn't charging for the cocaine in that baggie, I was just charging for the baggie so therefore I didn't violate drug trafficing laws".

[jdunford]

Originally Posted by JM

Thanks Matthew. And in case anyone wonders, yes the entire set is copyrighted.

And yes jdunford, I did give you negative rep for that post.

LOL. Thanks. That -26 thwump made the lights dim.

Thanks for replying. I couldn't remember who's customs (and avatar) they were (otherwise I would've given proper credit and made the same pre-apology as I did regarding Jamby's chips), but it's ironic that I'd get negged from you since your customs were the first custom set I really liked when I was still just browsing CT back in May-June last year. I made a point of congratulating you on such great chips when you added on with your "secondaries" when more spot options opened up:
http://www.chiptalk.net/forum/367070-post13.html

I still think your chips are my favourite ASMs ever! I'm sorry you interpreted my comments as an accusation. As I'd started that post:

Originally Posted by jdunford

Hopefully the negging has stopped and this has turned into a "non-violent" discussion of copyright interpretation...

I guess not. Oh well. I was trying to come up with an example of a type of artwork that wouldn't be as obvious. EVERYONE recognizes Star Wars, and that's how this whole can of worms got opened. What about something as innocent as an animal picture? Who's to know if it's copyrighted? I even admitted (somewhere in this thread or one of the others on the same topic) to using and modifying clipart that I found on the web in labels that I had made. I didn't know if you, or Jamby, or anyone else had purchased the rights to your animal pictures. That wasn't the point. The point was, how does ASM know that you're using those pictures with permission? Does ASM (or any other manufacturer; just using ASM as an example) even care? Did anyone jump on you and demand proof that your artwork was original and/or that you had permission to use that artwork? Probably not, because it's not famous. It might be your picture, or it might be some random picture you found on the web. Who's gonna know?

I'm sorry you were so offended. It was an emotionally charged day and an emotionally charged thread. We lost a great sponsor (at least in my opinion) over unlicensed artwork, and then I made the mistake of comparing other people's artwork without THEIR consent! I guess I broke copyright, too!

*EDIT* Oh, and yes, that was me who gave you positive rep for that post.