Playing card copyrights?
Glenn Kuntz
jaf...@pobox.com (Alan Jaffray) wrote:
>I'm writing a computer card game, and need high-quality card images.
>I'm not impressed by the standard Windows cards, or by the cards I've
>seen in various shareware games, regardless of whether or not it'd
>be legal to use them.
>
>Scanning real cards, though, has produced some very nice images; but
>I'm not sure if copyright is a problem. The "Bee" cards box says
>"since 1892". Are the images on the cards the same as those that
>were used in 1892? If so, it'd be out of copyright; copyright only
>lasts 75 years.
>
>Do any current brands of cards have copyright prior to 1923? If not,
>where could I find a sufficiently old deck (in very good condition)
>that looks "modern" enough that the user might not notice? How much
>would I have to pay?
>
>I'm mainly concerned with the royals; I have some images for ace
>through ten that, with a little cleaning up, should look okay.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alan
>
>
>--
>Alan Jaffray <jaf...@pobox.com>
>there's nothing you can do that can't be done
Alan,
I am *not* an attorney.
My layperson's understanding of current copyright law is that
it lasts for 75 years *following* the death of the copyright
holder. If that happens to be a corporation, it could be
indefinite.
You might better ask this type of question in a group
pertaining to computer games or legal issues (like copyrights
and trademarks). Some very distinctive playing card patterns
may not only be copyrighted, but trademarked - ace of
spades/jokers in-particular.
Best of luck. If your game is good enough for commercial
viability, these will be laughable details in the cosmic
scheme. ;-)
--
http://www.frontiernet.net/~crokinol
Matthew Montchalin
In a previous article, crok...@frontiernet.net (Glenn Kuntz) says:
Alan Jaffray may have written:
>>I'm writing a computer card game, and need high-quality card images.
<snipping out his comments on digitizing>
>>Do any current brands of cards have copyright prior to 1923? If not,
Glenn Kuntz commented:
>and trademarks). Some very distinctive playing card patterns
>may not only be copyrighted, but trademarked - ace of
>spades/jokers in-particular.
Glenn is on the right track. The programmer that treads on the toes of
the trademark is much more likely to be nailed (and severely, at that)
than one that treads on the toes of the copyright holder. After you
retain an attorney, you ought to advise him to research "unlawful trade
practices" to see what kind of luck you are going to have. -Rest assured
the corporation currently doing business with the "distinctive" trademark
is going to be doing the same thing.
But if you are looking for defenses for already having done the
infringement, consider 1) the possibility that the trademark was abandoned
long ago, 2) you are just an ordinary person, and would be reduced to
bankruptcy if the court requires you to pay the named statutory damages,
3) there were no common law damages to speak of, 4) the market that you
are attempting to penetrate --- computer games --- is not currently
associated with the parlor-market, and you have a common law right to
penetrate distinct markets not already entered by the plaintiff, and 5)
the trademark is actually generic, and ordinary people would not be able
to associate the mark employed, with the trademark in use, without
coaching and direction. A good trademark lawyer ought to be able to think
of additional defenses to help you out of the mess you got yourself in.
Consent is also a defense, but it ought to be in writing, after having
written the Playing Card Manufacturer first.
So, if you are digitizing various series of cards, you might consider
'morphing' them with those of other manufacturers. An "average" of all
of those supposedly unique designs might well be considered "generic"
and sufficiently distantly removed as to remove the possibility of adverse
litigation. -The best of all worlds would be to draw them yourself,
but if you can't, maybe you ought to call up your local community college,
throw a hundred bucks at a couple different students engaged in arts
programs, and obtain some original images that way. (And you could always
further morph them to genericize them, too.)
--
At enim vela pendent liminibus grammaticarum scholarum, sed non illa magis
honorem secreti quam tegimentum erroris significant. -Confessiones St. Aug.
Maikeru Long
Alan Jaffray <jaf...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Scanning real cards, though, has produced some very nice images; but
> I'm not sure if copyright is a problem. The "Bee" cards box says
> "since 1892". Are the images on the cards the same as those that
> were used in 1892? If so, it'd be out of copyright; copyright only
> lasts 75 years.
> Do any current brands of cards have copyright prior to 1923? If not,
> where could I find a sufficiently old deck (in very good condition)
> that looks "modern" enough that the user might not notice? How much
> would I have to pay?
It doesn't quite work like that. Copyright lasts for the lifetime
of the author PLUS 50 years. In the case of your cards, the copyright
belongs to the company that produces Bee Playing Cards. Since the
company is still "alive", it still holds the copyright. Scanning them
and redistributing them would be a copyright infrigement.
If you want to use the cards to scan, you'll either 1) have to get
permission from the copyright holder, or 2) use the cards from a
company which got disincorporated before 1948. I recommend option 1.
--
- M. Long - ml...@u.arizona.edu - http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mlong/
Christian Joachim Hartmann
jaf...@pobox.com (Alan Jaffray) wrote:
>I'm writing a computer card game, and need high-quality card images.
>I'm not impressed by the standard Windows cards, or by the cards I've
>seen in various shareware games, regardless of whether or not it'd
>be legal to use them.
>
>Scanning real cards, though, has produced some very nice images; but
>I'm not sure if copyright is a problem. The "Bee" cards box says
>"since 1892". Are the images on the cards the same as those that
>were used in 1892? If so, it'd be out of copyright; copyright only
>lasts 75 years.
I'm sure that the copyright on the "Bee" cards refers to the
brandname and any trademarks like the Ace of Spades, the back,
the design of the case and maybe the Joker.
I'm sure that those copyrights have been renewed several times
in the meantime.
The faces of the cards as such however have undergone some changes
since 1892 and nobody seems to bother.
I think that copyrights on "normal" playing cards refer only to
Ace of Spades, Joker, back, brand and not to the design of the
court cards. This is pretty old and has been already copied by
other playing card makers.
I'd definitely make myself an own Ace of Spades, e.g. from a 3
of Spades. And you should make your own Joker.
>Do any current brands of cards have copyright prior to 1923? If not,
>where could I find a sufficiently old deck (in very good condition)
>that looks "modern" enough that the user might not notice? How much
>would I have to pay?
It should be no problem finding an old pack of cards which looks like
todays playing cards. Some of the normal US playing cards haven't
changed till ca. 1910.
But there are easier ways. Try to find a deck of cards from a maker
which is out-of-business. Many makers from the 30s till the 50s are
no more.
Even easier, get yourself a pack of Chinese playing cards. These are
mostly quite cheap. They're cheaply made, too, but this doesn't show
on a scan. You should be pretty save from any copyright charges from
them since they're using themselves copies of patterns of US makers
with only the smallest of differences.
Good luck,
Christian Joachim Hartmann <luk...@Null.net>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Maikeru Long
Matthew Montchalin <mmon...@orednet.org> wrote:
> So, if you are digitizing various series of cards, you might consider
> 'morphing' them with those of other manufacturers.
I just have to say that THIS is an excellent idea.. and one definately
worth looking into.
Paul McCarl
My company makes a lot of card games. We have taken three different
approaches: We have drawn them; we have rendered them in 3-D; and we
have used the cards found on a Corel photo CD that we purchased. The
photo CD did not include the ace of spades, but the rest were obviously
scanned from someone's printed cards. Our legal take was that since
Corel, a multi-million dollar company was selling them as part of a
royalty-free, fully licensed and released image content library, that
they were responsible for the copyright infringement, if any existed.
What's more, they have significantly deeper pockets than us if a law
suit ever was started.
You can check out our results in our games (we have seven shareware
solitaires featuring the "photo CD" face card deck) at
http://www.wyvern.com.
Good Luck with your game.
Paul McCarl, President
Wyvern Studios Incorporated
David Manthey
According to the book obtained from the U.S. copyright office, a
copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the copyright holder, if
the copyright holder is a person, or 75 years after the copyright is
initiated if the copyright holder is a company.
If you examine a box of U.S.Playing Card Co. cards (specifically my
deck of "Bee" playing cards, it says that they claim rights to "...
the various names, numbers, back designs, case designs, ace of spades,
jokers, and other distiguishing characteristics ...". Not explicitly
mentioned are the royals' images or the pip design, but these may be
included under "distinguising chracteristics".
Interestingly, this claim is the almost the same on the box of
Pinochle cards, but doesn't mention "distiguishing characteristics".
It does, however, mention the joker, even though Pinochle cards don't
include a joker.
A box of Hoyle cards, on the other hand, claims trademark rights "to
the Ace of Spades, Joker, name, back design, face design, case design,
and name of finish...", which would seem to imply that they have
copyrights on both the royals and the pips (under the category of face
design).
David Manthey
man...@orbitals.com
Author of Carte Primus Cribbage http://www.orbitals.com/cp
Author of Graphic Viewer http://www.orbitals.com/gv
Author of Orbital Viewer http://www.orbitals.com/orb
Matthew Montchalin
>A box of Hoyle cards, on the other hand, claims trademark rights "to
>the Ace of Spades, Joker, name, back design, face design, case design,
>and name of finish...", which would seem to imply that they have
>copyrights on both the royals and the pips (under the category of face
>design).
Although cards are cards are cards, do the pips really differ that much
from manufacturer to manufacturer? Do they still use Bells and Leaves and
Cups and stuff like that in Europe? Or have cards become so commonplace,
and manufacturers churning out more and more of the same indistinguishable
mish mash of cards, that pips are, finally, generic?
I can understand why Royals and Figures (e.g., Joker) are trademarkable,
but I find it difficult to see how the Pips can be...
Christian Joachim Hartmann
In article <35217b0e...@news.albany.net>,
cpr...@albany.net (David Manthey) wrote:
>
> According to the book obtained from the U.S. copyright office, a
> copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the copyright holder, if
> the copyright holder is a person, or 75 years after the copyright is
> initiated if the copyright holder is a company.
Well, let's take an example:
Dougherty of New York is no more since 1910 (I believe). That would
fit the 75 years.
Thus, the special Doughery kind of court faces hasn't been
used since.
BUT, apparently, the United Playing Card Co is using Dougherty
brands and trademarks until this day, e.g. 'Tally Ho' and I
believe also 'Bee'.
But they never produced these brand with the Dougherty faces.
How's the legal situation. Are the Dougherty copyrights _partly_
preserverd and partly gone?
Are all Dougherty copyrights still in force due to this maker having
a 'legal succesor' i.e. USPCCo?
Are the courts' pattern subject to copyright at all?
Puzzled,
Nick Wedd
In article <6fuiem$5...@ednet2.orednet.org>, Matthew Montchalin
<mmon...@orednet.org> writes
>Although cards are cards are cards, do the pips really differ that much
>from manufacturer to manufacturer? Do they still use Bells and Leaves and
>Cups and stuff like that in Europe?
They sure do. Not as much as they use "standard" French suit symbols,
admittedly. But it is easy to find Spanish-, Italian-, Swiss-, and
German-suited packs in ordinary small shops in the appropriate
countries. Also various tarock packs, which are intended for games, not
for divination.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.demon.co.uk
Glenn Kuntz
cpr...@albany.net (David Manthey) wrote:
<snip>
>A box of Hoyle cards, on the other hand, claims trademark rights "to
>the Ace of Spades, Joker, name, back design, face design, case design,
>and name of finish...", which would seem to imply that they have
>copyrights on both the royals and the pips (under the category of face
>design).
This paragraph implies that Trademarks and Copyrights are the
same thing - they are *not*. They are completely different
forms of legal protection with different definitions, scopes,
rules, time limitations, etc., etc.
Matthew Montchalin
David Manthey may have written:
>>A box of Hoyle cards, on the other hand, claims trademark rights "to
>>the Ace of Spades, Joker, name, back design, face design, case design,
>>and name of finish...", which would seem to imply that they have
>>copyrights on both the royals and the pips (under the category of face
>>design).
Glenn Kuntz wrote:
>This paragraph implies that Trademarks and Copyrights are the
>same thing - they are *not*.
Exactly! (People listen up to what Glenn is writing!)
>They are completely different forms of legal protection with different
>definitions, scopes, rules, time limitations, etc., etc.
This is correct. I really wish people would stop mixing these terms up.