House of Cards Playing Cards (KS)

[badpete69]

Wonder if netflix gave the go ahead for this. Copyrights baby

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/464096646/house-of-cards-playing-cards

[popetown]

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.

[badpete69]

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!

[RandyButterfield]

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

[Shebhnt]

That excuse will be great until they get the cease and desist letter.

[Paul Carpenter]

And the lawyer black helicopter descends in 5...4...3...2...

[bhong]

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.

[Anthony]

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.

[BiggerDee]

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! ;-)

[Mike Ratledge]

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.

[S. Carey]

Who's their lawyer? Saul Goodman?

[BeDoubleYou]

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?

[Rob Wright]

So they have removed "House of Cards" from the title of the project, and the tuck box.



A quote from the FAQ section of the project

Copyright or trademark concerns?

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

[Mike Ratledge]

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...

[Don Boyer]

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...

[Mike Ratledge]

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.

[badpete69]

Hey Mike  nice to see you around hehe

[BiggerDee]

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!

[PRM19XX]

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.

[Don Boyer]

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?!?"

[bamabenz]

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

[bamabenz]

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

[bamabenz]

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/

[Mike Ratledge]

Pretty simple, Bama.

I got a DMCA takedown notice from the right full owner with documentation.

[Don Boyer]

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/

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?