View Full Version : Copyright on each card?
Hi there!
I have a "copyright dilemma".
I see that all the Usgames cards, have a short copyright on each and every card. Llwelyn and LoScarabeo are less fussy about it.
Legally , I know from my previous publishing experience, that you DO need to put in on... Even when doing books with stickers, each sticker (removable item) needed a short copyright on it...
The dilemma..
yes, it does look ugly, and there is hardly any space for it. Putting it at the back side, might need to be added twice otherwise you cn tell when a card is reversed? and putting it twice is a bit lame too...
I guess legal issues should win here...but...then...
i know that a copy notice won't stop anyone from misuse, BUT if that happens, and it goes further, there is protection?
Yes? No? hardly?
baba-prague
31-03-2004, 18:39
I think the issue of whether you need copyright on every card is not clear in fact. Many people are of the opinion that a copyright notice on the pack is enough - it is, after all, one piece of work.
I think that a copyright on each and every card is pretty ugly and personally I'd be reluctant to do it. It feels rather out of the spirit of tarot somehow (sorry, that probably sounds a bit vague, but you know what I mean?)
I'm also not sure that US Games does do this on every deck (I know they tend to do it on RWS clones, which they are particularly worried about protecting). Maybe we can all pull out our USG decks and take a look?
It'll be interesting to hear what others here think.
i TOTALLY understand when you say "out of the spirit of tarot"...
the problem is, that when theft is concerned, it is anyway out of that spirit...and it's when WE have to show we have another side, meaning "protect ourselves"...
I have many kinds of USGames decks, and they ALL have the short copyline...
So is this a dilemma of spirit or of legal issues? who will win...????
baba-prague
31-03-2004, 20:01
Well, I just took a look at the Knapp-Hall and that only has a copyright notice on the Fool card - not the others.
Have you looked at what Llewellyn do? Maybe we should ask Riccardo his opinion on this?
I have 2 Lwellyn decks (!), and they both have no copyline... (their Fool clean too...)
but they also don't have introduction cards.... (I usually don't throw such things out...). Well, one (Quest) has one mystery cars and one blank insread, but still no copyright...
Chronicle clean as well...
Yes, I would love to hear from Riccardo on this... we should turn him into a saint (like your fab link) as the patron of the "other" tarot creators...
;-)
Le_Corsair
31-03-2004, 22:31
My copy of Tarot: The Ancient Prophecy only has the circled letter C on the face of each card, rather than an entire line. That deck was from the early 70's, however, so standards, if any exist, may have changed.
Bob :THERM
My personal choice is to not worry about copyright on the individual cards, but copyright the deck only. Why? Because, strangely enough, I'm counting on the majority of people being pretty good when it comes to respecting copyright.
I know the minority is large, even so, but frankly I think that the main reason for putting a copyright notice on individual cards is to put people on warning that your lawyers are ready to take them to court. Not something I could afford under most circumstances, and having the copyright notice there really doesn't have that much effect on whether I can defend the cards, as long as I have an unbroken chain of creation.
What I did do, on each card, was to put my initials and the year in some moderately unobvious place, so each one is a "signed" piece of artwork. The Robin Wood deck also has a signature "RW" on each card (just checked to make sure), so at least I'm following one tradition.
There is a point there Astra (about not really being able to hunt anyone down...)
But I think that "signing" each card, IS putting copyright on it... It says "WHO" made it in oppose to a piece of art floating somewhere...
i'll have to think of that option... Thanks for bringing it up. The RWS has it too... as well as the Pre-Raphaelite paintings. You actually have to look hard to find it there...
Ouuuuf- I'm soooo 10 of Wands....
Originally posted by M-Press
Ouuuuf- I'm soooo 10 of Wands....
What? You mean that for every problem you solve, you find there are another dozen you need to look at? ;-) Yeah. I'd offer you some sympathy, but I gotta keep most of it for myself. Commiseration, I can offer freely. I just keep thinking about actually being able to pick up a deck and read from it...
Astra, you sure "read" right...
and consider yourself having a virtual hug from he right now, with LOTS of sympathy....
;)
Ironwing
31-03-2004, 23:51
Looking at a few decks:
Tarot of the Animal Lords (Lo Scarabeo):
No copyright notices on the cards. Only the Fool card is signed.
Celtic Wisdom (Inner Traditions/Destiny Books):
No copyright notices or signatures.
Chinese Tarot (US Games): Tiny "Copyright U.S. Games" notice on the front of every card.
Motherpeace Tarot (US Games edition - the first edition was self-published): "Copyright by Motherpeace" on the front of every card.
A notice on the front of every card seems excessive (and intrusive) - you don't see a notice on ever page of a book! But I can see why it's done, especially with widely-distributed decks. A lot of copyright violation is done by well-meaning people who don't know that there is a problem with copying a card or two for a magazine or book...just as there are people who don't see anything wrong with creating collage cards using images "found" on websites.
My preference (and the way I'll go with my deck) is for a copyright notice and signature on the title card, and no text at all on the cards themselves.
Lorena
baba-prague
01-04-2004, 00:08
Originally posted by Ironwing
just as there are people who don't see anything wrong with creating collage cards using images "found" on websites.
I have no problem really with people taking some images for their websites as long as they leave them intact and say where they are from. It's in fact nice to see the images being used and enjoyed. But I do agree, that people who take images as a quick and easy way of making "their own" collages is a real copyright violation. I also agree with you that many people still don't realise this.
(Some time I will tell the story here of the Bulgarian publishers who came to see us - they do an Egyptian deck which to me is far far too similar to the Nefartari - in my books it's a bootleg and I don't like the ethics of this, and told them so. But I honestly don't know if they understood why I was so offended - or so reluctant to sell them a ToP!)
I don't want to put copyright notices on every card. You know that everything you do automatically has copyright anyway, so the notice is really just about saying "you've been warned" - and I don't want to have this on every card. It IS intrusive. I love the idea of a tiny signature though, that's much nicer, though I'm fairly sure legally it doesn't make the image any more copyright than it is anyway.
Like a sponge, I'm taking it all in... thank you...
I agree that many people DON'T realise what copyright violation really means, and even in AT I hear many times about "photocopying a favorita card", enlarge it and make it the cover of a tarot journal...
but what can you do? This is really harmless, and even though we don't have to see it as "flattery" only, it really doesn't do any bad, maybe even advertise a bit...
I also hate that little copy in every card...will look in a monogram at least, something that gives each card "origin of birth"...
I must say that I really get much insight with this discussion, and I can see my own issues with it, and inspite the struggle, it IS enlightening to take a moment (well...more than that...), and look how you feel about your art being out in the world, and what that means to you, on every aspect...
baba-prague
01-04-2004, 00:57
Originally posted by M-Press
Like a sponge, I'm taking it all in... thank you...
I agree that many people DON'T realise what copyright violation really means, and even in AT I hear many times about "photocopying a favorita card", enlarge it and make it the cover of a tarot journal...
but what can you do? This is really harmless, and even though we don't have to see it as "flattery" only, it really doesn't do any bad, maybe even advertise a bit...
Oh, I would never worry about that sort of thing - in fact it's great. I'm currently hoping to send someone a small piece of the antique Japanese silk we used for The Emperor card (BBCT) so that she can co-ordinate some of the pieces she is doing - for her own pleasure or VERY small scale commerce. It's fantastic to me that anyone would even want to do this - really nice.
I'm not even sure this kind of thing does contravene copyright anyway if it's for study purposes LOL!
It's the real copyright violation for commercial gain (or to pass something off as yours that isn't - similar thing) that worries me. As we discovered, the people who do this for a living won't be detered by a copyright notice anyway. They have ways around that, and that's what's more worrying in the end.
HudsonGray
01-04-2004, 08:35
Well, the copyright is done as a unit on the entire deck, so the act of copyrighting is only needed on the set. But you do have the choice of putting the words 'copyright' on each and every card if you want (even though they haven't had to be filed with the Copyright office as separate cards). Asthetically, it's only needed on one card and on the little white booklet. Choosing to stamp each card with the words would be a personal choice. However, if the individual cards were done up as prints, then each copy of the print would need a copyright symbol/notice on it, as it's a unit of one at that point.
I think, personally, that sticking the notice one each card in the deck would be too distracting.
Hykaiaxgun
14-04-2004, 02:34
Copyright belongs to you upon creation, notice or not. Of course, if you suspect infringement, you will need to prove you created the art and the best way to do that is by registering your copyright. You can register the deck as a whole with images of each card submitted to the Copyright office. I would also suggest taking pictures of the creation process as well as keeping all sketches and thumbnails. It shouldn't be hard to prove if you have this. If someone is considering stealing your image, they either are knowledgable about copyrights or they are not. If they are, they know that just because an image does not have a copyright notice on it, DOES NOT mean it is not copyrighted. If they are ignorant of copyright law, a notice might not make a difference anyway.
full deck
04-05-2004, 15:57
There are issues of "fair use" or the fair use of copyrighted material for ones own use, for example, if one scanned a copyrighted image and made a Tarot journal cover out of it, that *might* be considered fair usage of the image if the cover was for personal usage only, however, if one used the same image to produce something for sale, that would be clear violation of copyright. Most deck creators will never need to worry about such, still the fact that US Games uses this mark on every card is why I do not own any of their decks and it does speak volumes about the company as well since it is not really needed on every card to enforce copyright infringement laws so long as the entire collection is duly registered.
(I asked a lawyer too)
Actually, it IS needed by a company like US Games. Think about all the times you've seen someone use one or two Tarot cards in a photo or other graphic - or on something that's not at all Tarot related. We generally think in terms of working with a full deck, but when you're likely to have one or two cards pulled out of context, you want to make sure that the copyright shows on any card that's used.
Just because they have (rightly) paranoid lawyers doesn't mean their decks aren't worth buying.
For what it's worth, I've addressed this problem both ways.
One deck has a microscopically tiny © notice on each card. I was told at the time by a legal authority I trust that it was "a good idea" to do so. I dislike it, because it somehow becomes a part of the image, an *unnecessary* part, in my opinion. It's not pretty.
Another deck has no © on the card, but only on the box and LWB. I figured I could live without the ironclad assurance of a copyright notice on individual images that time around, and simply deal with any issues of future image appropriation if they occurred.
The copyright protection is the same in either case.
Many people have asked to use card images for one thing or another, with links and attribution, and I was happy to give permission. I see it as a sort of advertising, and take it as a compliment that they're interested. I don't think I'd see a problem unless someone took an idea for moneymaking purposes.
Can anyone here tell us how long copyright protection lasts?
according to the Chicago Manual of Style (paragraph 4.22)...
copyright length for creators: "Life plus seventy"
meaning, the life of the author plus seventy years. if join authors, then the 70 is added after the death of the last to go.
WORKS MADE FOR HIRE-if you illustrate something for a publisher, and get an one-time fee, which makes THE PUBLISHER the owner of the copyright): 95 years from date of publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever is shorter.
there is TONS of significantly important material there, i reccomend this book to anyone who wishes to self-publish, or ever do work for hire...
M-Press, one significant exemption to what you quoted is when you're working "for hire" under contract with a publisher and have enough clout to be able to get a clause which either reserves certain rights to the work or specifies reversion of rights after a period of years, or both.
Granted, this usually doesn't happen unless an artist is relatively famous in his/her own right, and it generally takes a good lawyer working with the artist, but it's an accepted thing in many areas, including paperback cover illustration.
bighairymonster
21-06-2004, 22:17
You don't need to register something or print it on the box to enjoy copyright. It comes into existence the moment you put your ideas into tangible form.
Some people do put such notices on their box for their own reasons, probably to emphasise the point or whatever.
(I know this 'coz I just wrote a 20,000 word dissertation on copyright. *shudders*)
baba-prague
21-06-2004, 22:37
I think people put a copyright notice on partly to make it clear - otherwise you could get the headache of someone copying then saying "oh, I didn't know". Okay, legally maybe it's silly, but it's so easy to put on a copyright notice that maybe better safe than sorry?
Recently I've used copyright notices less on the images - after all, soon the deck will be out - and it is nice to show work without copyright notices all over it. But I do try to put in something to remind people that it IS copyright.
blackroseivy
23-06-2004, 07:05
Hi, I have a whole other problem when it comes to my deck; I have celebrity faces in it. I figure I should just "publish" the deck myself, i.e. sell it from my website - *my* deck is a work of art directly speaking, like a series of lithographs. I could number however many copies I do of it. The other thing is, however, my *own* copyright; I can see needing to copyright the images! However, mere *prints* are not the final stage; these are to become *holograms*! I wouldn't be able to do very much at one time unless I got a grant; but all 22 majors, at least, is my ambition. My question is: Where do I put the copyright? Right in the holographic image, or elsewhere?
Anyone have any insights? ;)
Hi danubhe!
I'm not sure I understood *exactly* your process, but the copyright does not have to be ONSIDE teh hologram, but on the side, or on the back side too-as long as it is an insaparatable piece from the art (on the final product-whether a card, a book, a pillow).
About the celebrity faces, i don't know what to add.
Good luck!
HudsonGray
23-06-2004, 10:08
If you've got a frame border around the card, you can always stick it in there & it'd be easily readable, as M-Press says. Don't forget to include it in the LWB too.
danubhe, you'll actually have a different problem with copyright than most of us, because since you're using celebrity faces, you'll need to abide by whatever terms you agree to when you get permission to use them. Usually this is fairly strict, and includes having a line specifying the original copyright holder for each item. And each one's going to be different - oh,joy.
HudsonGray
23-06-2004, 16:31
If they're live celebrities, I think you go through their agent. If they're dead (like John Wayne, John Ritter, etc.) then you go through their estate. But each would have to give signed permission before you could reproduce them. You can contact the agent through the studios of the last movie each one made. It'd take time, so best to plan things out way beforehand.
Danubhe, have you found a local printer that can do holograms? If you have a hard time locating one, take a trip down to the local comic book store, find something with holograms on there & check to see who the publisher was, then look them up on the internet & send a request to find out who their printer was on the item you saw. You can get in at lower cost that way by using the publisher as a reference for a job, that'll get you a discounted quote.
I'm not sure what the learning curve is on researching the ways & means of doing hologram printing. You'll have to be at least a bit familiar with it to ask the right questions of the printer & get good, clear color images. I've seen some really sloppy jobs on cheap holograms.
blackroseivy
24-06-2004, 04:39
I find myself wondering what the results will be... I would like to have this piece be "artistic license" - *not* mass produced, only produced by the artist. That makes a difference in cyber-art. *If* a publisher were to be interested, that would be different! Guess I'd better wait 'til the damn deck (scoosie!!) is done...