PlayingCardForum.com - A Discourse For Playing Cards
Playing Card Chat ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦ => Playing Card Plethora => Topic started by: badpete69 on April 21, 2014, 10:30:18 AM
-
Wonder if netflix gave the go ahead for this. Copyrights baby
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/464096646/house-of-cards-playing-cards (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/464096646/house-of-cards-playing-cards)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/902/216/36e849db2e718de48de993cad263a35c_large.png?1397977071)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/831/355/08efdc415d784ce2c6b4dc54bcbaa375_large.jpg?1396506306)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/831/380/9af0472c0e5e328f0024b64cba3464f6_large.jpg?1396507298)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/835/128/045f56ff192483463e0d6980e7236dd1_large.png?1396577368)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/899/887/55ca3816706dc46df174360a0a6d69c0_large.jpg?1397912298)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/899/732/432421449397ab4c8ec6b45bd962ef03_large.jpg?1397904753)
-
No mention of USPC (likely due to copyright issues) and a $1000 goal?? :-\
I would dig this but I'm unsure if this'll hold water.
-
Got an answer from the project creator
HI @Pierre! We were wondering about copyright before we launched, so we checked with a lawyer and it turns out the deck falls under the same fan art / parody law that most fan art projects here on Kickstarter fall under. Thanks for your support!
-
Got an answer from the project creator
HI @Pierre! We were wondering about copyright before we launched, so we checked with a lawyer and it turns out the deck falls under the same fan art / parody law that most fan art projects here on Kickstarter fall under. Thanks for your support!
Wow!! I'm no Lawyer, but that sounds SOOOOOO wrong to me!
Kickstarter is definitely not Etsy, which is where a lot of the fan art stuff falls under the radar.
thanks, Randy
-
That excuse will be great until they get the cease and desist letter.
-
And the lawyer black helicopter descends in 5...4...3...2...
-
I don't believe the defence of "falling under fanart" will help when the copyright lawyers descend on it.
As much work as it can be and the possibility of reject, I'd think getting the full copyrights and everything would do wonders for the project. The exposure alone would probably be pretty crazy.
-
Got an answer from the project creator
HI @Pierre! We were wondering about copyright before we launched, so we checked with a lawyer and it turns out the deck falls under the same fan art / parody law that most fan art projects here on Kickstarter fall under. Thanks for your support!
This is when I wonder about KS, I wonder if this came up when the project was submited, or if KS questioned it, and if they did, was this the "Legal" stand they gave...........either way, KS gave them the green light. I think there is some wishful thinking on their part that this doesn't get noticed. Not to mention, they need to find a new lawyer, lol.
-
I don't watch the show (ironically enough), don't like the deck, but may pledge just to see how they explain their way out of things when the boom gets dropped.
When they get the C&D letter, their project will collapse like a, wait for it, house of cards.
Sorry, but someone had to make that joke! ;-)
-
Having not that long ago been a member of the South Carolina Bar Association (for almost 15 years), I'd have to say they don't have a leg to stand on, but - I don't practice law any more, so I'm going to defer to the current crop of sharks. I'd have to just off the top of my head say that they are SO wrong, though. Not that it will matter, frankly it's not a very appealing deck, but then again "Atelier" (sp?) fooled me, but I didn't have the inside scoop that the guy was an Apple fanboy and able to muster all the press with his $19/deck 'minimalist' design.
-
Who's their lawyer? Saul Goodman?
-
Im no law expert and please feel free to correct me but isn't the point of copyright laws to prevent people from profiting off of others intellectual property? For example, they have the right to create and print the deck for personal use (as that falls under the same category as fan art and fan fiction) but if a situation were to occur where they could sell that art (in this case, selling the playing card deck) then they would be in trouble with the law, right? Or is my understanding incorrect?
-
So they have removed "House of Cards" from the title of the project, and the tuck box.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/001/908/730/f1545a24d0c857843177aa797db2141d_large.png?1398129504)
A quote from the FAQ section of the project
Copyright or trademark concerns?
(https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/464096646/house-of-cards-playing-cards#project_faq_87780)
Of course, with all fan-art projects, copyright concerns can arise. When we launched this project, we were sharing some designs we loved on a small scale as an homage to the show. We never expected such sudden and massive attention (thanks!), and to make sure we don't encounter confusion around rights and official associations, we're keeping an ear to any and all concerns.
After research, especially into projects similar to ours on kickstarter etc., we have zero reason to think there will be any misunderstanding, and we're actively probing official sources to make sure you all get to share in these lovely designs. Kickstarter passed our project through their approval process without a hitch, and we're actively seeking further confirmation that our designs fall under fair use.
This isn't meant to compete or overlap with any official merchandise, and if our contact with official channels shows any concerns, then we'll gladly take down the project and no-one will ever be charged for their pledges, so you take on no risk as backers.
Last updated: Mon, Apr 21 2014 9:12 PM EDT
-
Im no law expert and please feel free to correct me but isn't the point of copyright laws to prevent people from profiting off of others intellectual property? For example, they have the right to create and print the deck for personal use (as that falls under the same category as fan art and fan fiction) but if a situation were to occur where they could sell that art (in this case, selling the playing card deck) then they would be in trouble with the law, right? Or is my understanding incorrect?
IP is a pretty straightforward thing, and anything that infringes on anyone's copyright, trademark, trade secrets, brands or related things especially if they are designed to derive an income from it are strictly prohibited. How things like this and the "Sherlock Holmes Artwork" decks get by Kickstarter legal are a mystery to me.
IANAL, but I used to be...
-
Im no law expert and please feel free to correct me but isn't the point of copyright laws to prevent people from profiting off of others intellectual property? For example, they have the right to create and print the deck for personal use (as that falls under the same category as fan art and fan fiction) but if a situation were to occur where they could sell that art (in this case, selling the playing card deck) then they would be in trouble with the law, right? Or is my understanding incorrect?
IP is a pretty straightforward thing, and anything that infringes on anyone's copyright, trademark, trade secrets, brands or related things especially if they are designed to derive an income from it are strictly prohibited. How things like this and the "Sherlock Holmes Artwork" decks get by Kickstarter legal are a mystery to me.
IANAL, but I used to be...
The Sherlock Holmes art thing is a public domain issue - much of the Holmes work is now considered without copyright, though the estate is trying/had tried/succeeded (pick any one) to register the works as trademarks. To me, this might stretch trademark law just a wee bit too far, but I'm no lawyer.
I love this part from that FAQ blurb:
Kickstarter passed our project through their approval process without a hitch
Translation: the guy with the rubber stamp didn't miss when he slammed the "seal of approval" on it and a hundred other projects, all at the same time...
-
Yep, that's my interpretation of it as well, either that or he didn't forget to ink the rubber stamp... Sherlock Holmes is a question mark, but Jackson clearly has the exclusive rights to create playing cards from the Conan Doyle Estate for five years.
-
Hey Mike nice to see you around hehe
-
KS will allow anthing to happen that will make them a buck. I like crowdfunding and what it ahs brought us, so KS (and to a lesser degree IGG) is a necessary evil. I wouldn't put my faith into KS "approving the project" for anything. Don is spot on with his KS rubber stamp guy comment!
-
I don't understand how he considers it a "Parody" deck. All the actors are drawn very straightforward and are very recognizable. And as for "fan art". When something is mass produced it quickly becomes less fan art. In making this deck he would have to assume that netflix wouldn't care, Kevin Spacey's production company wouldn't care, and every single actor featured on the deck wouldn't care. All of those actors have lawyers whose job is to protect their likenesses. He'd better hope they send him a cease and desist now rather than after everyone has been charged. Right now he could just walk away from the project, but once money has been exchanged it will become a much bigger problem for him.
As a point of reference I recently used the likeness of aviators for my Flight Deck project and had to deal with a few estates for likeness issues. After a lot of research and exchanges with multiple lawyers I can tell you for certain that this sort of item is not protected under fair use and that's the reason why USPC isn't printing it. They have a disclaimer about celebrity likenesses in big red letters on their quote form for just this reason. The would never print this deck. If he wants to make some unlicensed House of Cards products he should make some limited edition art prints. Those would be protected under fair use.
-
Yep, that's my interpretation of it as well, either that or he didn't forget to ink the rubber stamp...
C'mon, Mike - the stamp is self-inking! How else could they rubber-stamp so many projects at once? :))
It's very simple. At some point in the project, Netflix will throw them a C&D letter courtesy of their lawyers and this project will be done, period. It won't see the light of day. Any printer who printed this would also be liable, so I think this guy hasn't actually showed his printer what he's doing or his printer is too stupid and/or greedy to care. We've seen this happen all too many times, usually before the deck projects ends (Steampunk Heroes), but sometimes after (Bicycle Army Men). The only reason backers for Bicycle Army Men got their money back was that despite a little mismanagement, Adam Clarkson made good on his word and refunded all his backers. A lot of KS project creators would not be quite so conscientious about it.
In summary: stay away, stay VERY far away. If you back this and it funds, you might just as easily flush your cash down the toilet and get the same result (as long as you don't clog the toilet)...
And then there's the practical issue of "WHY OH WHY did this designer create INDICES WITHOUT SUIT PIPS?!?"
-
Im no law expert and please feel free to correct me but isn't the point of copyright laws to prevent people from profiting off of others intellectual property? For example, they have the right to create and print the deck for personal use (as that falls under the same category as fan art and fan fiction) but if a situation were to occur where they could sell that art (in this case, selling the playing card deck) then they would be in trouble with the law, right? Or is my understanding incorrect?
IP is a pretty straightforward thing, and anything that infringes on anyone's copyright, trademark, trade secrets, brands or related things especially if they are designed to derive an income from it are strictly prohibited. How things like this and the "Sherlock Holmes Artwork" decks get by Kickstarter legal are a mystery to me.
IANAL, but I used to be...
Mike. Please. Not again. The question isn't why Sherlock Holmes Museum in Playing Cards project is still up and running. The question is why you took down that topic on UC for bogus reasons. Although a cynic could easily believe that question has been answered by recent events.
/bama
-
I think KS is probably covered by the DMCA, and so does little or no IP vetting. But I bet they take down projects quickly if served with a valid take-down notice.
For instance: https://www.kickstarter.com/dmca/back-to-the-wild-inspired-by-where-the-wild-things
-
Finally, here's an example of a bullshit takedown notice from earlier this year:
https://www.kickstarter.com/dmca/prosperos-price-a-lovecraft-and-shakespeare-tale-submitted-by-pr
Evidently, some dude feels that he owns the mashups of Shakespeare and Lovecraft.
The project's creators followed process, the project recovered from being temporarily taken-down, and was successfully funded.
If you check out the reviews of this guy's book on Amazon, people are not pleased by his copyright claim.
Here's where you can find the KS takedown list:
https://www.kickstarter.com/dmca/
-
Pretty simple, Bama.
I got a DMCA takedown notice from the right full owner with documentation.
-
Finally, here's an example of a bullshit takedown notice from earlier this year:
https://www.kickstarter.com/dmca/prosperos-price-a-lovecraft-and-shakespeare-tale-submitted-by-pr (https://www.kickstarter.com/dmca/prosperos-price-a-lovecraft-and-shakespeare-tale-submitted-by-pr)
Evidently, some dude feels that he owns the mashups of Shakespeare and Lovecraft.
The project's creators followed process, the project recovered from being temporarily taken-down, and was successfully funded.
If you check out the reviews of this guy's book on Amazon, people are not pleased by his copyright claim.
Here's where you can find the KS takedown list:
https://www.kickstarter.com/dmca/ (https://www.kickstarter.com/dmca/)
I get what you're saying about that project. But this is a much clearer example of a violation, I would think. The imagery, the actor depictions... Even the original title of the deck is kind of a giveaway. Fan fiction doesn't necessarily get real protection under the law - it gets protection from the "court of public opinion," in that it would appear in the public eye to be a case of a big company squashing the dreams of the little fan, something that's not likely to thrill your fan base. In most cases, as long as there's no profit being made, the IP owner doesn't go after the violation - though some cases of "slash" fiction haven't been as well received.
Parody is specifically protected as free speech, but there's no parody here. It's just a pack of cards with artwork depicting reasonably accurate portrayals of the characters in the show.
Pretty simple, Bama.
I got a DMCA takedown notice from the right full owner with documentation.
Say what?
-
Don,
I totally agree. The House of Playing Cards Deck of Cards by "no reply design" is a blatant rip-off. Time will tell if the folks who own the copyright actually care. If they do then KS will pull the project and publish the DMCA takedown notice.
/bama
-
Pretty simple, Bama.
I got a DMCA takedown notice from the right full owner with documentation.
Say what?
From UC:
"Jackson has provided notice on the A C Doyle Estate letterhead sufficient for enforcement that both his and their IP (Intellectual Property) rights are being infringed.
Thread locked pending legal process."
New to me is that this was an official DMCA notice. Its sort of curious in that I believe the law states only the Copyright holder or their agent can file a notice.
Jackson has subsequently stated that he doesn't care, and I believe him. I'm guessing that this was sort of a knee-jerk reaction.
But it does point-out the need to have multiple independent forums for discussing playing cards.
Designers may fail on their first attempt in KS, yet try again and be successful. What's the likelihood that she'll come back to UC to discuss her next project when the discussion of her first deck gets locked?
/bama
-
Obviously Jackson is the one that proved the infringement on his exclusive rights. You must not be up on DCMA, it is pretty cut & dry. If he didn't care, I would have to assume he would not have flagged the thread and provided period of infringement on his exclusive rights to produce playing cards for five years worldwide. I don't know why you are arguing frankly.
-
You mentioned that you are or were a lawyer, is that true or was it a joke?
If so, in which area did you specialize?
That's not a dig or nothing, I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I have no wish to argue with someone in their field of expertise.
That would be dumb!
-
You mentioned that you are or were a lawyer, is that true or was it a joke?
If so, in which area did you specialize?
That's not a dig or nothing, I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I have no wish to argue with someone in their field of expertise.
That would be dumb!
"WAS" being the key word. IANAL any more, but I was, and member of the state bar for 15 years and their technology advisor for 20. I worked for the US Department of Justice for eight years. That I consider legalized stealing any more, I decided to get an honest job...
It's all in my Introduce Yourself thread. I am a Cyber Security Officer at Military Health System's Global Network Security Operations Center, have been for 18 years with a detour back to DOJ at the Executive Office for US Attorneys NSOC.
-
Gosh, now I remember reading your post.
I'm troubled that you state what you received proved infringement.
Will you post the takedown notice so we can discuss what it actually states, what was proven and what was demanded that be taken down?
/bama
-
Gosh, now I remember reading your post.
I'm troubled that you state what you received proved infringement.
Will you post the takedown notice so we can discuss what it actually states, what was proven and what was demanded that be taken down?
/bama
Can't. That was the one thing that I agreed not to do when I asked to see it. I can assure you that I had no choice but to do what I did and what he has is legal and signed by all parties and unequivocal in the language - and signed by their attorney as well. Honestly, if I have what I think is a legitimate DCMA takedown request, I can't ignore it without putting myself and UC in jeopardy. Just for example check out eBay's DCMA takedown request requirements. Easy to find...
-
Can't. That was the one thing that I agreed not to do when I asked to see it.
You had to ask to see the takedown notice?
That doesn't make sense. I guess I wasn't clear. Just post the actual takedown notice, not any accompanying documentation.
That can't be private. Otherwise no one could ever dispute a takedown notice, or know what is being alleged.
-
This and Sherlock are night and day. This is not only a living breathing IP it also has a full cast of actors who each own the rights to their faces and likenesses.
Old Game Dev Story:
Any body remember the Nintendo Game NBA Jams? I cheerleader from a NBA team sued the creators because the 8 bit cheerleader in the game had her likeness. AND SHE WON! Fan art or no this creator will get glassed if they don't watch it.
-
This and Sherlock are night and day. This is not only a living breathing IP it also has a full cast of actors who each own the rights to their faces and likenesses.
Old Game Dev Story:
Any body remember the Nintendo Game NBA Jams? I cheerleader from a NBA team sued the creators because the 8 bit cheerleader in the game had her likeness. AND SHE WON! Fan art or no this creator will get glassed if they don't watch it.
No argument there.
The character likeness's really make your decks stand-out.
I'm waiting on 40 of your decks to be delivered -- this week I hope!
I didn't pledge for the Museum decks.
The original thread died a good death here at the Discourse, but then he accused her of copyright violation again in this thread, and I hate to see a young kid just starting out getting the bum's rush out the door.
Let's agree to kill the conversation.
-
Don,
I totally agree. The House of Playing Cards is a blatant rip-off. Time will tell if the folks who own the copyright actually care. If they do then KS will pull the project and publish the DMCA takedown notice.
/bama
I think you meant "Deck of Cards/House of Cards" rather than "House of Playing Cards", since HOPC isn't involved! :))
If it's a Hollywood studio making a project driven by a major player (the lead actor is also the producer), then yes, the gears may move slowly but they will move.
Pretty simple, Bama.
I got a DMCA takedown notice from the right full owner with documentation.
Say what?
From UC:
"Jackson has provided notice on the A C Doyle Estate letterhead sufficient for enforcement that both his and their IP (Intellectual Property) rights are being infringed.
Thread locked pending legal process."
New to me is that this was an official DMCA notice. Its sort of curious in that I believe the law states only the Copyright holder or their agent can file a notice.
Jackson has subsequently stated that he doesn't care, and I believe him. I'm guessing that this was sort of a knee-jerk reaction.
But it does point-out the need to have multiple independent forums for discussing playing cards.
Designers may fail on their first attempt in KS, yet try again and be successful. What's the likelihood that she'll come back to UC to discuss her next project when the discussion of her first deck gets locked?
/bama
I don't know - depends on the person, really.
I can't see how a public discussion of the deck is a DMCA violation - it's like saying a newspaper report about the deck also violates the DMCA, and there's no way the law reaches that far into free speech territory. As newspapers move to the digital world and leave the print world behind, the rights extended to them in the print world don't suddenly stop at the modem connecting them to the Internet. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! (Then again, I've never been issued a DMCA for anything and I'm not the board's owner, so...)
And no, I'm not a lawyer, and I've never played one on TV...
-
Latest (last?) update from the Project:
Apr 28 2014
Cease and Desisted!
Hello everybody!
We have just received a cease and desist request from the big man, Director of Business and Legal Affairs at MRC II Distribution Company L.P. Elizabeth A. Miller who respectfully asked us to remove any copyrighted material.
We have complied by taking down the project.
This is disappointing for us as, after extensive research, we were sure that this project -- given that it did not overlap with any official merchandising and was on a very small scale -- fell under fair use law and the Visual Artists Rights Act. We still believe that it does, but have no interest in arguing about it. After attempts to contact Netflix et al. and Kickstarter's approval of the project, we were sure that there was no trouble (especially given that there are many fan art projects on Kickstarter). But we were wrong and we apologize for any disappointment y'all may feel!
Be aware that all of the money pledged returns to backers, don't worry.
Also, we'd ask you to take this as an opportunity to ask Netflix to put out some official merchandise (especially a deck of cards) for House of Cards. We'd love to see it on the market, and love to have a deck of our own!
Thanks for your support, and sorry for the disappointing end to this project!
-No Reply Team
-
Lucky for them this happened before the project closed, and backers credit cards were charged. That letter may have saved this guy thousands.
-
Don, Jackson asked us to kill it, but last comment - there were pictures that clearly violated his rights.
-
Don, Jackson asked us to kill it, but last comment - there were pictures that clearly violated his rights.
Mike,
You got the wrong topic.
/bama
-
Actually, if they were indeed asked to remove the infringing images, they technically haven't complied with the DMCA notice! They didn't remove a single image as far as I can see.
-
...and can't. Kickstarter locks the project for historical purposes just like it does when any project "over".
-
...and can't. Kickstarter locks the project for historical purposes just like it does when any project "over".
I know that, but before closing the project, they could have edited it to remove the infringing images. It's not impossible that KS will receive a similar letter telling them to take the project our of their search results, rendering it effectively invisible - they'd done that many times before when forced to close a project. They have made projects disappear as if they weren't even there - just look for the Lego-based "Steampunk Heroes" deck project. We have an article for it here, with links to the project, but the project is gone without a trace, last time I looked, 'cause Lego is very fond of their copyrights and trademarks. The creator was using hobbyist-altered Lego minifigs for all the characters in his deck.
http://www.playingcardforum.com/playing-card-plethora/steampunk-heroes-deck-now-in-legal-limbo/?all
-
Being Danish in roots, I have been to the Lego Museum. They are rather fond of them... Legoland.dk (http://Legoland.dk) for anyone interested. Billund is a small town that used their influence to create a big draw there.
Perhaps a defensive move on their part will come today? They just closed it within the past 24 hours. I would not be surprised if it does evaporate. Godt for dem! (dansk 101 isn't that hard)
I predict a quick death for the "Breaking Bad" project, now that we have the legal beagles attention.
-
I found the old page - it's a bit different these days...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/406037970/steampunk-heroes-lego-inspired-bicycle-playing-car
"Sorry, this project is no longer available." That's it, nothing else.
Using the terms "X-inspired" or "inspired by X" doesn't generally hold up as an adequate legal defense in an infringement case...
You can get away with something like this under very limited circumstances. Look at "Cards of Legend", based on the Legend of Zelda videogame series from Nintendo. They used likenesses that weren't perfect likenesses, they used logos from the game that were generic enough that prior art could apply, and nowhere did they make mention of any character names, the title of the videogame, name of the game manufacturer, etc. No "Inspired by" jack squat. It provided enough "reasonable doubt" territory that they could squeak it by without getting legally hassled. Either that or Nintendo let it slide so as to not annoy the fanboys and fangirls.
http://www.fangamer.net/products/cards-of-legend
I feel bad about taking the thread into such a tangent, but then I remember is that this deck is presently dead in the water and unlikely to rise to the surface again...