[KS] Super Suits Playing Cards from Undefined Knowledge

[Nurul]

Super Suits



Just came across these. Company is based in Brooklyn, NY.

They have had 3 successful KS projects in the past, 2 of them being playing card projects, most notably Stained Glass Playing Cards
(Cats! is one of the other projects  )

Cards are being printed in China.
"The manufacturer we use lists the material as 310gsm French casino quality card stock with black core (linen finish)"

A $3000 goal, near half way there with a little over 3 weeks to go.

[Nurul]

more images

[Justin O.]

I'm offended on behalf of DC

[Don Boyer]

I'm sorry, but when you take a design and ADD things to it, you don't get to call it "minimalist".  It's like calling a tarot deck a "minimalist" poker deck.

It's minimalist compared to the superhero characters the company is trying to rip off.  It's NOT minimalist when compared to other decks of cards, except perhaps the Ornates!  (Hey, I like the Ornates, but you have to admit they're pretty much the polar opposite to minimalism!)  Compared to a standard deck, these AREN'T minimalist - a term that's becoming way too overused in playing card design as well as this paragraph!

I consider this a no-brainer - PASS.

[undefinedknowledge]

Other than the semantic use of the word 'minimalist' is there any other feedback. We are very proud of the design and we understand there is a lot of subjectivity to backing a certain project, especially when it comes to how the project looks.

In addition please know we made some changes to the back of the cards in order to have a mirrored effect which in turn makes them more useful. This was information gleaned from another card forum. So your feedback, both positive and negative is greatly, appreciated.

Happy Friday and we look forward to learning more from your wealth of knowledge.
Andy and Erik
UKI

[Will W.]

Well, one small critique.  You say only 100 black decks will be available but if you tally your pledges they will equal 150 decks.

[Fess]

I am currently backing these due to the change in the card backs. While there are still some things I don't particularly like, the improvement in the back is a show of effort and I like them enough to encourage effort. Hence my pledge. Here's the new card back.



On to the critiquing aspect to further what you've already heard from me on UC. I absolutely do not even for a half a second like the international shipping charge. =_= lol, broken record on that. The Tucks, I don't like your regular tuck much. To me it looks like you guys got lazy and decided to just slap the original card back all over it. That's all fine and good for an amateur deck and really that's what these are, but after your successful KS's I really do expect see more growth. Your Stained glass tuck was far worse than this, so I didn't make much comment about it before. Now that you're inviting it however, yea this tuck is rubbish. The black tuck is better if only just.

For the tuck it should say the name of your deck minimally. It should have the card back on the back of the tuck and some inventive use of your creativity on the front. Your smiley face logo is charming in a smiley face logo kind of way, you have it located in interesting places and I do like that. Tucks are important stepping it up so you have something that's interesting to look at, inspires people to want to use the cards inside that tuck.

Your custom pips are fun, I like them, however I feel you chumped out on the Diamond. you could have made some pretty amazing and interesting facets on them. Would have been very cool. They feel like you guys decided it was enough, so call it done. Rather than actually finishing. I feel like this avenue was taken with the courts as well. While they're alright, they're also boring in a hurry. I absolutely do not like the same stamp for each of the courts. The thing that saved them for me, was the king of hearts slamming that dagger into it's head.

I don't feel this is a minimalist deck as much as a minimal effort deck. Just enough to get by on the idea and hope it works kind of thing. Your previous deck was better, sans the one way back.

[Don Boyer]

Other than the semantic use of the word 'minimalist' is there any other feedback. We are very proud of the design and we understand there is a lot of subjectivity to backing a certain project, especially when it comes to how the project looks.

In addition please know we made some changes to the back of the cards in order to have a mirrored effect which in turn makes them more useful. This was information gleaned from another card forum. So your feedback, both positive and negative is greatly, appreciated.

Happy Friday and we look forward to learning more from your wealth of knowledge.
Andy and Erik
UKI

First of all, I should be addressing Andy OR Eric - the board rules prohibit more than one person to use an individual account.  We do have company accounts - ask me about them in private if you're interested.

The basic idea is good - but you're borrowing very heavily off of ideas you don't own and haven't licensed instead of doing something more original and unique (or simply making yours a licensed product).  Granted, you're work would pass the sniff test of being different enough to not constitute a stolen idea, but if it was my IP, I'd be less than happy about it.

Actually, as a licensed product, you'd have to pay a percentage to the company owning the licenses involved.  But you'd also be able to push this project into something huge instead of something with such a small distribution.  Done your way, your project might clear a few hundred in profit - done the other way, you could be clearing several thousands or more, especially if your product became a hit.

And while you're not directly infringing on another company's trademarks, you could be close enough that you'll want to keep your head low - they can smother your project in enough legal entanglements that wrong or right, you'd lose either way, unable to afford a proper legal defense.  I've seen great project die because of IP issues - let's cross our fingers that yours isn't one of them.

[undefinedknowledge]

I have a lot to respond and I am glad to have read each comment.  @Will W. You are correct Sir, and we have corrected the typo.  Originally, we were only going to have 100 decks, but we felt there might be a larger demand.  Great eye and thank you.

@Fes,
Wow.  Let me start with thank you for rewarding our willingness to change.  We do not claim to know it all.  We do however try to improve with each project.  I agree that we will skip the conversation about international shipping.  Erik and I have both discussed this topic and plan to make changes.  As far as Tuck Boxes, this current project will have the NEW back on one side, we have always done that with each deck project (…had the back of the card on one side of the tuck box).  And, the other side, we agree, we could do better.  The pips (specifically the Diamond) is something we both like; it appealed to our aesthetic.  I can say, we didn't rush or look at each other and say, oh… that's good enough.  Both my partner and I are very perfectionistic and try to do everything to the highest standard.  So please know, Undefined Knowledge holds itself to a high standard.  Hence why we appreciate and seek feedback.  It makes us better, so we can be better.

Lastly,
@Don Bayer
We did not know there were specific corporate accounts.  I sign my partner's name, though I am the only one commenting, to be fair and clear that two people are involved in every decision made.  We will discuss the change.  I want to thank you for your Legal insight.  You mentioned more original concepts.  Our first project (Draw Blood) was a game with iconic monsters.  The second, Cats.  The third, Stained Glass.  We feel these were original and unique.  This current project, with the Super Heroes, is something we like and enjoy as well.  Some might feel it is too similar and dislike it.  Others might dig it, and support our project.  Nevertheless, all feedback is welcomed.  And, we thank you for yours.

We are trying to answer and address concerns.  But, more importantly, thanks for taking time to dialogue.  Enjoy your weekend,

Andy and Erik
UKI

[Don Boyer]

Lastly,
@Don Bayer
We did not know there were specific corporate accounts.  I sign my partner's name, though I am the only one commenting, to be fair and clear that two people are involved in every decision made.  We will discuss the change.  I want to thank you for your Legal insight.  You mentioned more original concepts.  Our first project (Draw Blood) was a game with iconic monsters.  The second, Cats.  The third, Stained Glass.  We feel these were original and unique.  This current project, with the Super Heroes, is something we like and enjoy as well.  Some might feel it is too similar and dislike it.  Others might dig it, and support our project.  Nevertheless, all feedback is welcomed.  And, we thank you for yours.

We are trying to answer and address concerns.  But, more importantly, thanks for taking time to dialogue.  Enjoy your weekend,

Andy and Erik
UKI

I still don't know if I'm addressing Andy or Erik.  You didn't quite identify yourself, other than to say that you sign your partner's name.  And my name is Don BOYER.  The "r" is silent; it's French.  At least you got the first name right - that's the one that everyone else seems to screw up when they misspell my name!

The fact that you have completed original concepts before is PRECISELY the reason why it practically seems out of character now.  I don't have to love your concepts to know they're original and commercially viable - with the notable exception of this one.  Commercially viable, sure - but if you had made a proper licensed product, you'd have a greatly decreased legal risk and a greatly increased financial potential.  That's really all I'm trying to say.

[undefinedknowledge]

mr. boyEr,

i am Andy.  It has been very enjoyable dialoging with you about the deck.  And, I appreciate your perspective.  It definitely gave both Erik and me something to discuss.  We hope you will continue to offer your perspectives, especially in our future projects.  Thanks again,

Andy and Erik
UKI

[rousselle]

I, for one, see a lot of cleverness in the design, but I also realize that different folks will have different tastes.

Regarding the intellectual property issue: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (heh, get it? repurposing other people's intellectual property? Oh, never mind), but from what I know as a content creator myself, I'd be willing to wager that as Don says, the holders of the DC IP rights would probably not *win* a lawsuit claiming infringement, but they nonetheless could have enough of a case to get that litigation started, and they have deeper pockets than you in that regard.

I don't know where DC falls in the spectrum of companies that do that sort of thing; I know that Lucas (before his IP was bought by Disney) used to allow -- even give a wink and a nod to -- people playing in his Star Wars universe, as long as they were not encroaching upon his sole right to make money off of it, while Disney would sue everybody and anyone if they so much as even *thought* about referencing a Disney property in their works. DC might let this one slide, and I'm confident enough to back the project, but I hope y'all will be setting this money aside against the possibility of needing to reimburse our pledges in case you or the card manufacturer/printer receive a Cease and Desist letter. If you receive one of those, just give up.

But, yeah, you can't copyright or register a trademark for a color combination (although it's been tried), and you're using standard pips instead of registered trademarked logos. It's like issuing an "Espionage Deck" featuring images of a man wearing a tuxedo and holding a pistol with a silencer on it. You can't copyright/TM that, but it instantly evokes the idea of James Bond. USPCC didn't seem to bothered by that when they released their Espionage Deck. My guess is, this would fly, for the same reasons.

That said, to Fes and others who see much to improve the design... throw your ideas out there! They've responded to our calls to modify the backs. That's part of what convinced me to pledge for this. Let's help them make it better!

Just my tuppence.

[undefinedknowledge]

Well said Rousselle.
Thanks for your support!

Andy
UKI

[Fess]

I did. Facets on the diamonds, letters on the tuck, etc. 

[Don Boyer]

I, for one, see a lot of cleverness in the design, but I also realize that different folks will have different tastes.

Regarding the intellectual property issue: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (heh, get it? repurposing other people's intellectual property? Oh, never mind), but from what I know as a content creator myself, I'd be willing to wager that as Don says, the holders of the DC IP rights would probably not *win* a lawsuit claiming infringement, but they nonetheless could have enough of a case to get that litigation started, and they have deeper pockets than you in that regard.

I don't know where DC falls in the spectrum of companies that do that sort of thing; I know that Lucas (before his IP was bought by Disney) used to allow -- even give a wink and a nod to -- people playing in his Star Wars universe, as long as they were not encroaching upon his sole right to make money off of it, while Disney would sue everybody and anyone if they so much as even *thought* about referencing a Disney property in their works. DC might let this one slide, and I'm confident enough to back the project, but I hope y'all will be setting this money aside against the possibility of needing to reimburse our pledges in case you or the card manufacturer/printer receive a Cease and Desist letter. If you receive one of those, just give up.

But, yeah, you can't copyright or register a trademark for a color combination (although it's been tried), and you're using standard pips instead of registered trademarked logos. It's like issuing an "Espionage Deck" featuring images of a man wearing a tuxedo and holding a pistol with a silencer on it. You can't copyright/TM that, but it instantly evokes the idea of James Bond. USPCC didn't seem to bothered by that when they released their Espionage Deck. My guess is, this would fly, for the same reasons.

That said, to Fes and others who see much to improve the design... throw your ideas out there! They've responded to our calls to modify the backs. That's part of what convinced me to pledge for this. Let's help them make it better!

Just my tuppence.

You have to remember that DC is a subsidiary of Warner Brothers Entertainment, itself a subsidiary of Time Warner, one of the larger corporations in the entertainment industry.  So it's not just some comic book company, it's a huge megacorp with some of the deepest pockets around and an army of lawyers waiting to unleash red tape Hell...

[Rose]

Regarding the intellectual property issue: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV (heh, get it? repurposing other people's intellectual property? Oh, never mind), but from what I know as a content creator myself, I'd be willing to wager that as Don says, the holders of the DC IP rights would probably not *win* a lawsuit claiming infringement, but they nonetheless could have enough of a case to get that litigation started, and they have deeper pockets than you in that regard.

I don't know where DC falls in the spectrum of companies that do that sort of thing; I know that Lucas (before his IP was bought by Disney) used to allow -- even give a wink and a nod to -- people playing in his Star Wars universe, as long as they were not encroaching upon his sole right to make money off of it, while Disney would sue everybody and anyone if they so much as even *thought* about referencing a Disney property in their works. DC might let this one slide, and I'm confident enough to back the project, but I hope y'all will be setting this money aside against the possibility of needing to reimburse our pledges in case you or the card manufacturer/printer receive a Cease and Desist letter. If you receive one of those, just give up.

But, yeah, you can't copyright or register a trademark for a color combination (although it's been tried), and you're using standard pips instead of registered trademarked logos. It's like issuing an "Espionage Deck" featuring images of a man wearing a tuxedo and holding a pistol with a silencer on it. You can't copyright/TM that, but it instantly evokes the idea of James Bond. USPCC didn't seem to bothered by that when they released their Espionage Deck. My guess is, this would fly, for the same reasons.

Exactly what I was thinking! Is this legal? 
Apart from that I like this a lot, it has color, geek appeal, the black deck is especially cool! 

[rousselle]

I did. Facets on the diamonds, letters on the tuck, etc. 

Whoops. Sorry; I missed that. Not sure how. Mea culpa, Fes!

Don: Agreed and understood. But again, I find this deck more comparable to the Espionage deck, which evoked, than to the Green Army Men Deck, which depicted.

And of course, it's all speculation until somebody at DC instructs one of their lawyers to get involved.

[sprouts1115]

@Dan - Why are you being so hard on Andy?  I don't think there is no way in hell they can be in legal trouble.  It is to distinct. I do however like the way the put the suit indicator on the chest.  I personally would have make batman the KoS, but oh well.