I ran a dealer button group buy for a defunct casino (Mapes) a while back.. (not for profit.. took a loss)
artwork was done by a member here and obviously gleaned from the original Mapes artwork
Buttons had already been made with the artwork, but I tweaked a couple of things on the images for my GB.
wonder where this falls on the scale for unauthorized use of IP
Yeah, this is an interesting point and I'm sure there are wide and varied opinions. Taking Mapes as an example, I am a huge fan and made my first custom ceramics on chipco blanks through BRPro/ABC. I did the design from scratch and there are clear differences, not the least of which is that they are Apes but outside the inlay, the chips themselves all not even remotely similar.
I then did a cards mold tourney set where I used the Mapes chip designs but still Apes, no $ and I put Texas as the location.
Personally, I feel that I didn't cross the line and it's clear that these are "inspired by" and not intended to deceive. But I may be alone in that assessment.
The main argument from the naysayers is that "new chip collectors may not be able to tell the difference between genuine and fake" which I think is a tenuous argument at best for chips like mine but if I had similar ones made on scrown mold, then maybe... so then we come to my Money Trees...
The hundo is a straight copy but anyone who has seen a real Money Tree hundo would know that they have Reno and not Texas on the bottom. But has this crossed the line? CPC didn't think so (otherwise they would not have been made) and I don't think so. And as a defunct casino chip, the only people that could potentially be deceived are chip collectors. Given the current prices for genuine MT hundos (the main reason why I made them instead of buying), this could be a concern but a few years ago it would not be.
From an IP perspective, how much modification is required for the work to be considered new? Looking at the Ed Sheeran/Marvin Gaye court case, for music it seems that even a vague similarity is a no no, or at least enough to sue. Andy Warhol used tabloid photos of celebrities to make his famous prints - the original photographer seems to have no IP rights to the derived work. How much change is enough to qualify as new work?
Edit to add: There is currently a lawsuit at the Supreme Court over Warhol's use of a Prince photo by Lynn Goldsmith so it seems that it's still not clear!
Last edited: