When is a group buy ... (1 Viewer)

[sat guru]

As for creative ownership, I think the artists should weigh in here, but I feel the rights to replicate the art should belong to the entire group, provided it is used for other poker or gaming related supplies, and those supplies are made available as a GB here on PCF. Artists that supply art for GBs should be made aware that future use may occur, at no additional fee, so artists (or their beneficiaries) cannot hold up additional products.

We should be careful about "idea creator" and "artist" and "draughtsman." Purposefully not using "artist" as some people have vision, others have concept, others bring it together. So the identity of the "artist" is nebulous and project dependent. Whilst I agree that creativity should be rewarded, there is a bargain stuck. It's up to the creative to negotiate suitable value for services up front.

I'm interested in opinions, but absent further discussion, if I ask for a person's services and am quoted a price, then the work product is mine to do as I see fit as I own it. (Obviously this may change if a creative is involved in the GB process, but the terms should be negotiated appropriately.)

 

[BGinGA]

if I ask for a person's services and am quoted a price, then the work product is mine to do as I see fit as I own it.

Pretty sure that's not how most chip designers view it.

The fees charged are for the design creation and usage, but the intellectual property itself belongs to the designer. The cost of purchasing ownership of said property is many times higher than the fees charged for it's creation and subsequent use.

You may not agree, but that's how it has been explained to me by more than one designer.

 

[sat guru]

@BGinGA: Fair point, and apologies if I wasn't completely precise in my language, but you're committing the same error.

We're deep into a complex part of legal landia here, and, as in so many law related matters, there are a myriad of factors that come into play including, but not limited to, what was agreed to by the parties. Most likely (insert as many caveats as you want here) it's what the parties negotiate (assuming that it's a valid contract, arms length transaction, etc., etc., etc.).

Really basic intro from the US Copyright Office: LINK

Pretty sure that's not how most chip designers view it.

I hypothesize that that their answer really depends on, amoung other things, whether their work product was a "work for hire" or not. [/Edit:] Or whether they assigned those rights to someone. [/EndEdit]

[T]he intellectual property itself belongs to the designer.

Not necessarily: This is a question (typically) of copyright law, is highly fact dependent, and more often than not, will depend on, amoung other things, who is the "designer" (which I assume you mean to be synonymous with "author") and whether the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. [/Edit:] Or whether the author contractually assigns those rights to someone else. [/EndEdit]

The cost of purchasing ownership of said property is many times higher than the fees charged for it's creation and subsequent use.

Disagree: the value of property - real or intellectual - is always what the market will pay for it. Moreover, the value of property, and the rights thereto, can be fixed in an agreement between two parties assuming that it's a lawful binding contract.

 

[slisk250]

I value the three artists I've worked with so far (J5, p5, soon gear). I always pay them and never "bargain". I guess I'm kind of running two group buys but they are different. One is for my custom EOL DB. I really like Steve's production of my design as I have no Illustrator skills. If I did I'd be an artist here too. I'll pay him, then make the order. I might add $1 to the price to offset the art cost but since I did not mention it, if anyone if offended, that's fine too. The Stardust DB, T5, and Bounty art is a different project slightly. I'm going to pay gear to do the art of my design. I know what I want and just need his Illustrator skills to pull it off. After we are done, I'll roll it out and people can buy if they want. I'll add a bit to have everyone share in the art cost. It's no big deal. After this is done, if any chippers want the art for their use, They'll have to talk with gear. If they want something different, they can talk with gear. That's how I see that one. I feel like a project such as Stardust is different from my EOL customs and the artist should be treated fairly in each case.

If someone wanted to use the AI files that j5 and p5 created for my customs, I would have issues with that. I did the designs and they were my hired guns to clean them up and make it look right in Illustrator. If I were able to complete the Stardust project by myself and others wanted the files, I would deal with that differently. In that situation, I would consider sending the art directly to the label or chip manufacturer with the stipulation that others not get access to the files I guess.

 

[MoscowRadio]

So if a group buy organizer commissions a design for said group buy, does the organizer obtain intellectual property rights to the artwork?

 

[stocky]

So if a group buy organizer commissions a design for said group buy, does the organizer obtain intellectual property rights to the artwork?

IMO art is always going to be a grey area. It's going to depend on the designer and the use for it.

Art has been discussed to death IMO and there never seems to be a clear answer. I think it's always best to discuss your requirements with the artist at the start so there is no confusion later.

 

[sat guru]

So if a group buy organizer commissions a design for said group buy, does the organizer obtain intellectual property rights to the artwork?

This can be a really complicated question, and like all good legal issues, the answer is invariably: "it depends."

US copyright law raises complex issues which are further confounded by using a non-US designer (e.g.: LINK). An author may assign all rights or only give you the right to use the copyrighted work for limited purposes (a "license" which can be exclusive or non-exclusive). E.g, the author might allow you to use the art on a single GB run or perhaps for a specific time period or only for chips to be sold in the US, but not to show it in the a movie (think Rounders).

I'm not dispensing legal advice, but in the US, to ensure that the future owner(s) actually acquire exclusive ownership of some/all rights to a copyrighted work (an "assignment"), then the copyrighted work's author and the prospective owners will need to sign a contract which clearly enunciates what they are agreeing to. In short, if there's going to be "real" money involved (whatever "real" means to you and the author), you're likely about to increase the cost of the GB because you're likely going to have to get a lawyer involved in a contract process. And to show how complicated it is, authors (and their heirs) have some rights that they can't give away: 35-40 years after a copyright transfer agreement is made, they have the right to terminate any/all assignments and/or license agreements.

For those who want more, I looked around, and this seemed like a reasonable primer: LINK.

I think it's always best to discuss your requirements with the artist at the start so there is no confusion later.

(And your lawyer.)

 

[links_slayer]

Did I miss something that spawned this discussion? I've found it quite interesting nonetheless

 

[sat guru]

Thought the discussion was warranted as a member started three matsui plaque GB discussions in the Group Buy forum, but ultimately disclosed that he had always intended/wanted to sell the the plaques for a profit. Once that happened, the member became a vendor and the three GB discussions were renamed and moved to the Marketplace forum. LINK

 

[links_slayer]

Gotcha - thanks. Makes a little more sense now. I've seen those threads in New Posts but clearly didn't play close enough attention to notice they were in the marketplace.

 

[Dwight87]

This can be a really complicated question, and like all good legal issues, the answer is invariably: "it depends."

US copyright law raises complex issues which are further confounded by using a non-US designer (e.g.: LINK). An author may assign all rights or only give you the right to use the copyrighted work for limited purposes (a "license" which can be exclusive or non-exclusive). E.g, the author might allow you to use the art on a single GB run or perhaps for a specific time period or only for chips to be sold in the US, but not to show it in the a movie (think Rounders).

I'm not dispensing legal advice, but in the US, to ensure that the future owner(s) actually acquire exclusive ownership of some/all rights to a copyrighted work (an "assignment"), then the copyrighted work's author and the prospective owners will need to sign a contract which clearly enunciates what they are agreeing to. In short, if there's going to be "real" money involved (whatever "real" means to you and the author), you're likely about to increase the cost of the GB because you're likely going to have to get a lawyer involved in a contract process. And to show how complicated it is, authors (and their heirs) have some rights that they can't give away: 35-40 years after a copyright transfer agreement is made, they have the right to terminate any/all assignments and/or license agreements.

For those who want more, I looked around, and this seemed like a reasonable primer: LINK.



(And your lawyer.)

<---- Yeah, but those lawyer fees are going to blow up your poker chip accessory GB costs!

 

[Poker Zombie]

While I don't think it would hurt to have a lawyer, I simply don't think it is necessary. In fact, requiring a lawyer for every GB would kill all future GB efforts. So let's keep this thread from wandering off onto the (much discussed) artist's rights path, and get it back to GB rules.

The rules of a GB should (IMO) allow for future use of the art for other poker or gaming related products, provided the future products are provided to the PCF community as a whole.

I would also willingly comply with any rule(s) Tommy thought were necessary. This is his forum, we're just his guests.

 

[Puggy]

Methinks it would be helpful to list all the members, who have run a GB at some point. I'm available for advice, if someone wants to run a GB and needs some.
I've only run a GB once and most likely I will never do it again. But it was, well, interesting. And draining. But also fun

 

[atomiktoaster]

The rights issue is important (and overlooked a bit too often in my estimation), but it's sort of secondary to the GB rules discussion. A group buy may or may not involve acquiring assets that exist after the group buy is completed. @sat guru is correct that copyright law can create a variety of different asset transfer situations (limited or unlimited licenses, wholesale assignments, whatever). There are much less complicated forms of group buy assets, though (hot stamp dies, for example). In the abstract, whatever form the asset might take, this question remains: "who retains that asset going forward?"

 

[atomiktoaster]

The rules of a GB should (IMO) allow for future use of the art for other poker or gaming related products, provided the future products are provided to the PCF community as a whole.

Why join the original group buy, especially if you're on the fence? Minimums aren't always a constraint for future use.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Why join the original group buy, especially if you're on the fence? Minimums aren't always a constraint for future use.

GBs usually bring about a reduction in cost. I Don't think there were many "on the fence" with the Matsui buy, it was just a short lived thread that didn't catch the eyes of many people. Threads do that all the time.

If you were to try to organize a 2nd GB of any product (still available today) I doubt that you would ever exceed the interest found in the 1st round, unless the thread is cut short again - thus allowing the GB organizer to turn it into a for-profit venture on the 2nd round, which is exactly what I would want to avoid in the future.

How do we normally treat those that join a GB, then immediately turn around and sell their chips on Feebay?

 

[manamongkids]

How do we normally treat those that join a GB, then immediately turn around and sell their chips on Feebay?

I'd say its fair game now, imo of course. Apache is ordering a ton of them plaques, will probably make a buck or two reselling them (capitalism at its finest). So if a vendor can purchase from a GB for reselling, why cant the average joe?

 

[catalyzeme]

I'd say its fair game now, imo of course. Apache is ordering a ton of them plaques, will probably make a buck or two reselling them (capitalism at its finest). So if a vendor can purchase from a GB for reselling, why cant the average joe?

I agree. It's annoying when chips that are limited in supply are purchased only for resale, but if it's a production run anyway, buying some for resale doesn't cost anyone extra, can sometimes save money for others by reducing the unit cost, and then more of them are available to the community after the buy. There is no downside to this.

 

[atomiktoaster]

GBs usually bring about a reduction in cost. I Don't think there were many "on the fence" with the Matsui buy, it was just a short lived thread that didn't catch the eyes of many people. Threads do that all the time.

If you were to try to organize a 2nd GB of any product (still available today) I doubt that you would ever exceed the interest found in the 1st round, unless the thread is cut short again - thus allowing the GB organizer to turn it into a for-profit venture on the 2nd round, which is exactly what I would want to avoid in the future.

How do we normally treat those that join a GB, then immediately turn around and sell their chips on Feebay?

I was on the fence about the Matsui buy, until I saw the finished product. I think the pr0n sold those much better than the mockups. Cutting a group buy short doesn't seem like it's the issue to me. You're never going to saturate demand forever with one GB.

@manamongkids and @catalyzeme Bring up a good point about resellers that also applies to members in general. It really hurts if as a member you pay for part of a shared asset that is given away for free later on (lowering the resale value of the GB items).

 

[sat guru]

I would also willingly comply with any rule(s) Tommy thought were necessary. This is his forum, we're just his guests.

@Tommy - Any thoughts/guidance that you want to share at this time?

 

[Tommy]

I've been following. I like seeing the collaboration among the members on this. (y) :thumbsup: Many great suggestions made so far. @dennis63 came up with a good basis to start with a while back.
The only thing I would add right now is having a set of GB guidelines that are simple and easy to follow. Whatever we come up with will get added to the current TOS under a new 'Group Buy' section and a sticky in the GB forum. Some of the info already there may assist in establishing the GB guidelines too.

If you have any questions, please ask. Thx!

 

[Tommy]

This is his forum, we're just his guests.

This place is nothing without its guests. :

 

[jjabbb]

I was made aware of this thread by a member so thought I'd weigh in (jjbcentral from CT here, not sure why I registered here with this username)...
If a GB is using custom artwork and the entire GB is paying for that artwork, each should own a piece of that artwork.
If the GB organizer wants to own the rights to the artwork, he/she should cover the costs of the artwork. This though allows them to make a profit later by selling or renting the design for later use by members of that GB, later GB's or small personal runs.

As far as ownership goes, I am professional graphic designer and in my contract (for a logo for example) is a simple couple lines that gives copyright ownership to my client of my designs upon final payment and transfer of final files. I'm not sure if this is completely legal but I'm pretty sure it would hold up in court (and have yet to run into a problem in the almost 10 years it's been in my contract). And when/if more is needed, we both sign a standard transfer of copyright. And when even more is needed, their lawyers draft a transfer of copyright (I've had that a few times over the years).

I don't know how chip designers work and if their process is different so I can only let you know how I work in my business.

So far, with the personal chip designs I've done, the work for chip resellers and the GB I've done, none have been done with a contract or transfer of copyright. However, Most of those jobs have given permission in one way or another for those clients to use those designs however/whenever they want. I worked. I got my payment (whatever it might have been since I often "work for chips" when it comes to this hobby), I'm out of the picture.

 

[Mental Nomad]

All costs aren't completely public or knowable at this stage, but make a few reasonable assumptions (primarily around shipping to US, and shipping via USPS to members (paid by vendor)), rework a spreadsheet, and well, sumtimes maff actually is easy: LINK.

Maff may be easy, but assumptions may be hard.

Where did you get your figures for the base price per plaque?
For how much p5woody gets?
For how much other tax/VAT/import/other fee shows up on the invoice?

You didn't include anything for his materials (lots of packaging), nor anything for his time - how much time per order/plaque?

And when you divide the remaining money over his time, does it seem like such a great profit?

 

[Mental Nomad]

My opinion on the general matter...

On right to the artwork - I think that is something that can and should be settled between the artist and the person that pays the artist. The "generic" answer may be difficult, but the written one is clear, and there should be a written understanding when you hire an artist. In my (meaningless) opinion, @jjabbb is doin' it right.

EDIT: It's hard for an artist to sign an agreement with a group, but if the group organizer wants, it's easy enough for them to open-source the design. A couple of open licensing methods exists, thanks to the open-source software movement.

On the GB - I think the main thing that caused the consternation here was the lack of transparency. If more detail had been shared earlier, I don't think emotions would have gotten so riled up. They were offered at $18 per, and people were willing to buy from him at that price. A lot of the emotion is sensitivity to the use of the term "Group Buy."

I get why this has been moved from "Group Buy" to "vendor, but it's also not like he's a true vendor, charging anyone sales tax, and he's probably not reporting this as income - he is not really a full-time vendor any more than this was a "true cost-pass-through Group Buy."

On the classified ads, people sometimes make a nice profit (or loss) on chips they sell. I don't see this sort of emotional response... people who think a price is outrageously high simply don't buy.

 

[ssanel54]

Am I wrong to think that every group buy can have its own set of rules, and that maybe the only requirement for a group buy is for the organizer to be clear about a few of the standard questions around cost and future orders? If we collectively define a "group buy" then does that mean we won't be able to organize chip buying as a group on this site unless we adhere to all of the standards in the definition, or we just can't call it an official "group buy"

 

[Zippity]

I'm pretty sure that if I approached J5 asking for permission (or purchasing permission) to use his artwork on the Matsui Zens set to reproduce some plaques or higher denom chips through Matsui, that the original GBers would pitch a fit.

Obviously the artist does not have sole rights. I'm not sure how or why that train got started.

 

[sat guru]

Maff may be easy, but assumptions may be hard.

Absolutely true. The question was posed by another member, my curiosity piqued, and the model pretty much existed already. (As you can probably tell, I do love me some spreadsheets!) The model is purposefully downloadable if you want to play with it. I did nothing more than aggregate information in threads and made it available via a link. Think of it as a curiosity: if someone's not interested then they won't click the link. If someone can make it more accurate post or PM me, I'll certainly update it.

Where did you get your figures for the base price per plaque?

LINK

For how much p5woody gets?

LINK

For how much other tax/VAT/import/other fee shows up on the invoice?

Great question, but let me suggest that the assumption has to be none. (I was a little surprised that there was no line item for it myself.) However, I thought it reasonable not to include it as a line item based on two hypotheses: (a) if there had been tax/VAT/import/other fee then the participants in then the GB#1 participants would likely have heard about those extra costs and (b) any such additional cost would have been taken into account and incorporated into the price of the next two sales. I can easily add them in if you think I should adjust it. Just PM me to let know what you think it should be.

You didn't include anything for his materials (lots of packaging)?

True: That should probably be accounted for. If someone PM'ed me their best guess, I will incorporate that into the model. (No need to tie up thread.)

You didn't include ... anything for his time - how much time per order/plaque?

True, but there is both fact (the vendor has disclosed expenses and costs for the first transaction and clearly did not have a line item for his time), and a reasonable extrapolation that time shouldn't be included (the vendor didn't change the price in the subsequent sales so there was no reason to add a line item for time).

And when you divide the remaining money over his time, does it seem like such a great profit?

That's a subjective judgment that only the vendor can make and I have nothing to say about it. But, the model currently anticipates that the profit from these three ventures has an order of magnitude of $1,500.00. (This number was edited to reflect economics at the time of the post.) In chipper terms: that could be a pretty nice custom set at CPC wouldn't you agree?

On the GB - I think the main thing that caused the consternation here was the lack of transparency. If more detail had been shared earlier, I don't think emotions would have gotten so riled up. They were offered at $18 per, and people were willing to buy from him at that price. A lot of the emotion is sensitivity to the use of the term "Group Buy."

Agreed on the lack of transparency. I (and maybe others) apparently misunderstood "Group Buy" to mean costs shared equally while the vendor interpreted "Group Buy" to be "for profit." As the three sales progressed it occurred to me that there might be a difference in thinking, and as someone who thought they were a member of a GB, rather than a customer in the initial transaction, I was interested in understanding what was going on. And I agree with you, transparency could have been more forthcoming. Luckily we were able to discover that we had two different interpretations of "Group Buy." Super! Transparency, and everyone knows where they are. And the best part: as a community, we have the opportunity to talk about what "GB" means so that we can avoid similar misunderstandings and manage expectations (on all sides of a GB) going forward.

I get why this has been moved from "Group Buy" to "vendor, but it's also not like he's a true vendor, charging anyone sales tax, and he's probably not reporting this as income - he is not really a full-time vendor any more than this was a "true cost-pass-through Group Buy."

Who knows?: That's their business. Still it's a $15,000+ venture (based on his $18 per unit price), which some could believe is venturing into "true vendor" landia. I don't have an opinion either way. Importantly, the board moderators have concluded that he's a vendor and that's all that really matters.

Interestingly, you focused on transparency which is as much about information exchange as anything else. I think that the misunderstanding that happened would have transpired at some stage. On the upside, it has created the opportunity to create this lively discussion, and collaborate (as Tommy put it) to create a repository of ideas and information for future GB organizers and participants. Hopefully some of this discussion can provide insight, and help avoid future GB misunderstandings and divergent expectations. .

On the classified ads, people sometimes make a nice profit (or loss) on chips they sell.

Absolutely nothing wrong with profit at all. However, I think this point is irrelevant as that's a "classified ad" (which I assume believe people see as an arms length transaction between two independent parties) rather than in the GB section (where things are obviously more murky).

On the GB - I think the main thing that caused the consternation here was the lack of transparency.

...​

I don't see this sort of emotional response... people who think a price is outrageously high simply don't buy.

Can you explain what you mean by "consternation" and "emotional response," please? It's not clear what you mean.

And I agree with you, people are clearly voting with their feet: There are over 750 plaques ordered! (I'm a buyer! I've got 25 in transit (they arrive tomorrow), 60 on order, and am seriously considering getting more depending on what they look like when I get them.)

Great points!

 

[Mental Nomad]

LINK

If that's where you got the base price per plaque, you should know that the link shows $13, whereas your spreadsheets show $12.65. At 881 chips total, you've missed $308.35 in costs. Is there another source?

LINK

If that's where you got the p5woody figure, then your spreadsheet is mistaken, showing $150 instead of $300 for him. This implies your $20 Plaque tab is short $150 in costs, and the $100 Plaque tab is short by $150.

With just these two sets corrections, there's already $608.35 less profit.

Regarding packaging and time:

True, but there is both fact (the vendor has disclosed expenses and costs for the first transaction and clearly did not have a line item for his time), and a reasonable extrapolation that time shouldn't be included (the vendor didn't change the price in the subsequent sales so there was no reason to add a line item for time).

It's one thing to donate your time to a first Group Buy which enables you to get something you otherwise couldn't. It's another to run another two group buys for things you may not personally need... why should that time be donated, necessarily?

If he's a vendor, none of this applies. He just said $18, it's $18. But we're talking about your spreadsheets, which are really made from the question of how much it's profiting/costing him if it's a Group Buy, and which was made before he was declared a vendor.

For reference, I just did a tiny GOCC group buy for a Nine Dragons add-on. I only had to ship to three people. It took me just over an an hour to pack them, and I f*cked up the shipping, anyway. I don't want to think about how much time I spent managing the order thread, following up on the payments with everyone, running the questions and the order with GOCC... and I didn't need to talk to anyone about art or revisions. I still f*cked up the order. And then I spent an hour to pack the stuff tightly into SFRBs, trying to save people a few dollars in shipping... which I then sent to the wrong addresses, so I refunded them double the shipping. In the end, I paid for double shipping their chips, and I paid hugely in my time.

If everybody lost a a comparable amount of time and money on regular group buy as I did on my tiny one, nobody would run a second group buy.

Still it's a $15,000+ venture (based on his $18 per unit price), which some could believe is venturing into "true vendor" landia. I don't have an opinion either way. Importantly, the board moderators have concluded that he's a vendor and that's all that really matters.

If the mods have concluded he's a vendor and that's all that matters, then the spreadsheet doesn't matter; but you posted the spreadsheet in this thread, anyway. So maybe you do think it matters.

You projected a $1,819.00, or 13.33%, profit on $15,473.00 in sales. Although you labelled it a "Minimum Profit," it was apparently overstated by at least $608.35, so it's only 7.8% profit - and that's before accounting for materials (minor) and labor (in my mind, major) or settling discrepancies, damage, loss (hopefully, those will be minor for him, unlike my f*ck ups.) And there may still be other fees we're not aware of. He wasn't posting any invoices, that I saw.

Or maybe your assumptions are actually right, and he's been cagey with his posts on the details. I can't truly tell.

To be clear - I'm not actually defending him. I don't agree with several of the calls he made. And I'm not complaint-free on the outcome. But I know that it's all too easy to make a few wrong assumptions in a spreadsheet, and come out making some erroneously inflated claims... I can also make some only-slightly-silly assumptions and make it look like he has a loss. The margin here is fairly thin.

Meanwhile, he has done a ton of work and will do a ton more. And people are happily lining up to pay $18 per for the plaques. I was offered plaques at $18 per, I was one of the first to sign on to make for a group big enough to hit the minimum, I paid $18 per, and I got them. Without him running this buy for the group, I would not have a set of very, very lovely plaques.

I'd rather this thread had stayed on the subject you opened it with, but I guess it was inevitable that people would end up asking why the question... Now I'm feeling guilty about taking it further down the road. Sigh. I feel post-committed, though.

 

[BGinGA]

I feel post-committed, though.

You win the Fun Saying of the Day contest. Congrats!