Borderless Rider Waite Smith, help!

cSpaceDiva

Don't count on that. Kaplan posted not long ago that it is still under their copyright. ALL images - unless you scanned your very own Pam A.

Just because he says it doesn't make it true. Warner Music said they owned the copyright to the Happy Birthday song. A judge disagreed and now they are paying back $14 million in past licensing fees.

http://www.theguardian.com/business...thday-song-lawsuit-warner-chappell-settlement

I believe US Games does own the trademark on the name Rider Waite, as well as copyright on some changes they made to images/titles. This claim is somewhat sketchy though, because copyright law says changes have to be significant. If I were so inclined, I would feel confident using any pre-US Games images and changing the name (for example calling it the Colman Smith Tarot). There would be a risk that I could get sued and have to pay. But right now USG are benefitting from the confusion. As long as people think they have to pay to license the images some will, or be deterred from using them. If a lawsuit is brought, the matter will be settled publicly--and probably not in their favor. Think about it- why haven't they sued anyone who is putting out t-shirts, purses, jewelry, etc using these images?
 

FLizarraga

With the USG versions of the Rider Waite, the images aren't all the same size, so a trimmed deck won't be a consistent size.

True. You have to keep the titles on, then you'll be OK.
 

feynrir

Actually, in my experience, the most recent, high-gloss RWSes actually have uniformly sized images inside the borders! I have trimmed one of those, and I have trimmed one that seems to be from around 1990. The 1990 one was a rough decision; they are definitely uneven. (Still prettier though ;) ) But the very recent one (purchased new within the last year) turned out glorious :)

I highly recommend trimming any RWS that you want to ever because they are so beautiful without borders!
 

Le Fanu

True. You have to keep the titles on, then you'll be OK.
I have trimmed the LoS Centennial deck and removed the titles. All cards come out the same size if anyone was wondering. I recommend it as their version is - in my opinion - the most beautifully coloured one on the market. And that's not a U.S Games version one!
 

truelighth

Just because he says it doesn't make it true. Warner Music said they owned the copyright to the Happy Birthday song. A judge disagreed and now they are paying back $14 million in past licensing fees.

http://www.theguardian.com/business...thday-song-lawsuit-warner-chappell-settlement

I believe US Games does own the trademark on the name Rider Waite, as well as copyright on some changes they made to images/titles. This claim is somewhat sketchy though, because copyright law says changes have to be significant. If I were so inclined, I would feel confident using any pre-US Games images and changing the name (for example calling it the Colman Smith Tarot). There would be a risk that I could get sued and have to pay. But right now USG are benefitting from the confusion. As long as people think they have to pay to license the images some will, or be deterred from using them.



US Games will send a cease and desist notice as soon as they find out about someone producing a deck that is very close to the RWS. I know this from a friend, who produced a few facsimile Pam-A decks for some friends. US Games found out and send out a cease and desist.

However, US Games does not own the copyright on the RWS. They actually licenced it from Rider in the UK. They may own the trademark, but not the copyright themselves.
 

gregory

Thanks truelighth - I was hoping you'd show up !

USG do enforce with monotonous regularity - someone here wanted to use the images in a book - black and white yet - and the bill was going to be terrifying - even though it was a reprint of a book for which he had purchased a licence for the first print run. He ended up using a different deck. USG - while I recognise their value to the tarot community - do seem determined to do everything they can to continue to enforce "their"copyright.

There are many threads about this - here; here; here

and there's this website.

and SOMEONE has been enthusiastically editing wikipedia to say that it still holds up. And it seems to me that not long ago someone here pointed to a recent interview with Kaplan, who was saying EXACTLY how long he believed the copyright held up - adn there was no suggestion it had expired.

And from Mary Greer's newsletter AGES ago:

There’s also a fascinating interview with Stuart Kaplan by Dr. Stephen Winick, Folklore Specialist for the Library of Congress. What will be of great interest to many in the tarot world is Kaplan’s discussion of the controversy over the rights to Waite’s deck. Kaplan explains, “The copyright protection on the Rider-Waite Tarot runs to 2021, which is seventy years after the date of death of the artist [Pamela Colman Smith].” While many will want to argue this—that U.S. copyright places works around the world prior to 1923 in the public domain, or that the art was a “work for hire” and so copyright ends in 2012 (seventy years after the death of Waite)—Kaplan has sued twice and won both cases. The 2021 date and the creative rights of Pamela Colman Smith have yet to be tested in court.

There's also an article by Holly Voley, discussing it in passing in an 2009 Tarosophy magazine.
http://www.tarotassociation.net/magazine/TarosophistIntv1i5.pdf
 

cSpaceDiva

In case it wasn’t clear before, I am talking only about US copyright law, following from this post:
In the United States, the images of the Rider Waite deck are in public domain (Europe in 2027). What is still in copyright are the versions published by US Games Systems. So far there hasn't been a case of USG prosecuting various private card creators using images from the deck or creating derivations. If they do attempt it and are successful, well...there goes all those private Kickstarter decks.
Since I and USG are both located in the United States, that is where a lawsuit against me (in the hypothetical situation where I actually wanted to make a deck with these images) would need to be brought.

US Games will send a cease and desist notice as soon as they find out about someone producing a deck that is very close to the RWS. I know this from a friend, who produced a few facsimile Pam-A decks for some friends. US Games found out and send out a cease and desist.

USG do enforce with monotonous regularity - someone here wanted to use the images in a book - black and white yet - and the bill was going to be terrifying - even though it was a reprint of a book for which he had purchased a licence for the first print run. He ended up using a different deck. USG - while I recognise their value to the tarot community - do seem determined to do everything they can to continue to enforce "their"copyright.

This is why I included the recent court ruling and settlement regarding the Happy Birthday song. Warner was doing both of these things. Other creators who wanted to use the song went along with it for a long time. But when it was finally challenged in court, Warner did not prevail. I will also note that it took a class action to proceed because it is not worth it for any individual to mount an extensive and expensive legal challenge, even if they are in the right. This is especially true for someone who is just making a few copies for friends.

There are many threads about this - here; here; here

and there's this website.

Everything I see in these actually confirms my original opinion. For example:
Various people have various opinions, but nothing can be said for certain unless there is a court decision. Within that ambiguity you need to form your own judgement about the risks.

The US generally recognizes the EU copyright, but not for works with original publication prior to 1923. Most of the rest of the world recognizes the EU copyright.

US Games has sued various entities and won, mostly in the 1970s. None of those cases were recent enough to refer to/clarify the reasoning they are currently depending on for their copyright claim.

To me is seems fairly clear that there is a good argument that the US copyright expired long ago, and in fact that's what the text I reinstated says. It's equally obvious that the UK/EU copyright is, a) determined by the date of Colman-Smith's death, and b) is thus still in force until the end of 2021.

All that said, it was only when looking closely today at how the 1911 Act deals with pre-existing commissioned works that I realised that it is probable that any copyright assigned to Waite in 1910 actually reverted to Colman-Smith's estate in 1952. On that basis, while US Games/Stuart Kaplan may be correct in asserting that the UK/EU copyright is still in force, they would probably have a tough time proving that they themselves are actually entitled to exploit it.


and SOMEONE has been enthusiastically editing wikipedia to say that it still holds up. And it seems to me that not long ago someone here pointed to a recent interview with Kaplan, who was saying EXACTLY how long he believed the copyright held up - adn there was no suggestion it had expired.
Anyone can update Wikipedia, just like anyone can send a cease and desist letter. Kaplan has an interest in promoting the idea that copyright is still enforceable. He is not an unbiased source.

And from Mary Greer's newsletter AGES ago:

MKG herself said,
PKT and the RWS deck is out of copyright in the US (published before 1923). However, any work that re-prints this material cannot be sold in parts of the world that have different copyright laws that extend copyright - i.e., the UK, EU, etc. <snip> Random House bought out Rider & Co. They, along with Waite's heirs, assigned the copyright to USGames to uphold. I'm not sure about Smith's heirs - if there are any.

So if USG want to enforce copyright on the basis of when PCS died and that she still owned the rights, they will need to prove that they obtained the rights from her heirs or her estate. Does anyone believe they did, and that they can prove it?

There's also an article by Holly Voley, discussing it in passing in an 2009 Tarosophy magazine.
http://www.tarotassociation.net/magazine/TarosophistIntv1i5.pdf
I skimmed Holly’s article, but I didn’t see a discussion of copyright. Can you point me to the relevant portion?

***

Whew! After all that, I think we need a fun little break. This is not related to tarot, but an amusing, informative, and relatively short video arguing for why limiting the length of copyright terms is a good thing.
Copyright: Forever Less One Day

Edit: And sorry for hijacking the thread! I did make a copy of this post in case it gets deleted for being off-topic :(
 

rwcarter

The borderless RWS on Wen's page were created by her alone. Send her an inquiry email, if she still has them on her upload site, she may be able to send you a link.

Don't count on that. Kaplan posted not long ago that it is still under their copyright. ALL images - unless you scanned your very own Pam A.
I've spoken to Benebell and that's what she did. And that's what she told USG when they contacted her about it.
 

truelighth

So if USG want to enforce copyright on the basis of when PCS died and that she still owned the rights, they will need to prove that they obtained the rights from her heirs or her estate. Does anyone believe they did, and that they can prove it?

That is the interesting thing. There is a lot of talk about US Games owning the copyright. But they don't! US Games has been licenced by Random House to publish the deck, which bought Rider and is acting on behalf Waite's estate. Ok, so Random House has assigned US Games to uphold the copyright. But I wonder if it really came to a court case, if Random House would not have to act themselves instead of US. Games.

Anyway, I wonder how they want to prove this about the rights of Pixie's estate. If Random House clearly owns the copyright and acts on behalf of the estate of Waite. Where does Pixie's estate come in?

That won't prevent them from enforcing their rights by all means nessesary. But still...

Btw, I understood that the black&white images are in the public domain. Just not the coloured versions of the RWS.
 

reall

oh! borderless version look fantastic regardless copyright!^^ wish they print it mass!XD ;))