Premium German Rider Waite with Pam A crackle brown back and 1909 colouring

The Happy Squirrel

Lisa Myobun said:
Here's The Lovers from one of my 1970s RWS decks. Note the pretty red eyelids...

Looking at the scribbling in front of Eve's face that is part of the angel, I would agree that this is very probably based on Pam A

(again, judging from images as presented on wopc.co.uk). Having said that, I do maintain, that images with USG copyrights on them, published as "The Original Rider Waite" very closely resembles those of Pam C.

So I am wondering, if it is indeed the case, that USG prior to 1971 copyright reproduced Pam A, and afterwards, Pam C? Again, I do not own any USG RWS, and I do not know if USG's copyright covers more than one variant

Lisa Myobun

The Happy Squirrel said:
Looking at the scribbling in front of Eve's face that is part of the angel, I would agree that this is very probably based on Pam A (again, judging from images as presented on wopc.co.uk). Having said that, I do maintain, that images with USG copyrights on them, published as "The Original Rider Waite" very closely resembles those of Pam C.

So I am wondering, if it is indeed the case, that USG prior to 1971 copyright reproduced Pam A, and afterwards, Pam C? Again, I do not own any USG RWS, and I do not know if USG's copyright covers more than one variant

This is so interesting!!!
Makes me want to pull out all my RWS decks and do some comparing with the wopc website! I think that all the USG decks are based on the same lithographic reproductions - but could be wrong. And - I'm not sure how they compare to Rider Co versions of the deck...
Eager to hear more of yr thoughts, HS!

Wheel of Fantastic

The information I picked up regarding the 1971 deck is that the lithographic plates were recreated by AG Muller and Cie of Switzerland with the co-operation of Sybil Waite. The linework of my 1st print run early '70s deck is identical to that of the Centennial RWS which is the 1909 Roses and Lilies deck (the second print run in 1910 is the Pam A).

So yep, the early '70s RWS (and all of the standard tarotee back printings up to now) are based on the Rose and Lilies/Pam A decks. The colours have changed since the '70s but the linework is the same.

The Original Rider Waite linework is frankly awful and is NOT Pixie's work. If I want an 'old looking' RWS with Pixie's lettering, I'd use the Centennial over the Original everytime.

The Happy Squirrel

Wheel of Fantastic said:
The information I picked up regarding the 1971 deck is that the lithographic plates were recreated by AG Muller and Cie of Switzerland with the co-operation of Sybil Waite. The linework of my 1st print run early '70s deck is identical to that of the Centennial RWS which is the 1909 Roses and Lilies deck (the second print run in 1910 is the Pam A).

So yep, the early '70s RWS (and all of the standard tarotee back printings up to now) are based on the Rose and Lilies/Pam A decks. The colours have changed since the '70s but the linework is the same.

The Original Rider Waite linework is frankly awful and is NOT Pixie's work. If I want an 'old looking' RWS with Pixie's lettering, I'd use the Centennial over the Original everytime.

I think by now most of us do NOT believe that "The Original" is the original. I am still curious to actually see a more recent USG RWS images. And also curious, as to why, the copyrighted 1971 USG images on "The Original" is as they are now

I have another "Original" by Riders dated 1993 which lines are much cleaner that the more recent "Original". Both have USG copyright on them. But they don't resemble Pam A from what I can see on wopc.co.uk I could be wrong of course

JohnKaartunen

I wish I could help, but I don't own any of the RWS with the copyrights on them. Honestly, I'm not sure why USG would use more than one set of plates for the printing? You figure from a money making stand point, they would stick with their original plates? Maybe they tried to make the lines clearer or they use a different printing process? Could be the old card stock vs. the new glossy? I wonder if someone reached out to USG, they would respond about to it?

JohnKaartunen

Well, it's for sure not taken from the Pam B. Pam B on the right.

Wheel of Fantastic

The Happy Squirrel said:
I think by now most of us do NOT believe that "The Original" is the original. I am still curious to actually see a more recent USG RWS images. And also curious, as to why, the copyrighted 1971 USG images on "The Original" is as they are now

I have another "Original" by Riders dated 1993 which lines are much cleaner that the more recent "Original". Both have USG copyright on them. But they don't resemble Pam A from what I can see on wopc.co.uk I could be wrong of course

I own several '80s Purple Box RWS with copyright plus one current deck bought this year; linework is identical to the early 70s RWS; therefore based on Roses and Lilies/Pam A. My Belgium printed Original circa 2004 has horrible thick lines and, nope, aren't supposed to copy the Pam A, rather the Pam C. I don't know which hack created the Pam C/Original but they were pretty rubbish.

I believe US Games policy is to copyright any RWS deck they put out; the Albano Waite is the only USG RWS that does not have copyright on the cards. So this means the Original; the Centennial; Radiant; Universal; Standard etc are all copyrighted. The Albano Waite is copyrighted as well which I guess is one reason US Games may have changed the colours to create a different deck.

I'm no copyright lawyer but I believe the Original and Standard decks have 1971 copyright because Stuart Kaplan may have placed copyright on ALL the original Pam A, B, C, D images back in '71. I'm sure a copyright lawyer could explain why the Original has 1971, not 1993.

This business with copyright is exactly the reason why the Premium Tarot of A.E. Waite is pulled for now (except Germany).

The Happy Squirrel

Wheel of Fantastic said:
I own several '80s Purple Box RWS with copyright plus one current deck bought this year; linework is identical to the early 70s RWS; therefore based on Roses and Lilies/Pam A. My Belgium printed Original circa 2004 has horrible thick lines and, nope, aren't supposed to copy the Pam A, rather the Pam C. I don't know which hack created the Pam C/Original but they were pretty rubbish.

I believe US Games policy is to copyright any RWS deck they put out; the Albano Waite is the only USG RWS that does not have copyright on the cards. So this means the Original; the Centennial; Radiant; Universal; Standard etc are all copyrighted. The Albano Waite is copyrighted as well which I guess is one reason US Games may have changed the colours to create a different deck.

I'm no copyright lawyer but I believe the Original and Standard decks have 1971 copyright because Stuart Kaplan may have placed copyright on ALL the original Pam A, B, C, D images back in '71. I'm sure a copyright lawyer could explain why the Original has 1971, not 1993.

This business with copyright is exactly the reason why the Premium Tarot of A.E. Waite is pulled for now (except Germany).

I am a cynical old woman and believe that although it is about copyright, it is not. If you know what I mean. Something green this way come. Something rotten in NY.

Also, from my understanding, the AGM English edition is not available only in the UK, US, and Canada for now. Everyone else in the world can get it. At least the last time I looked.

JasonLion

Wheel of Fantastic said:
I'm no copyright lawyer but I believe the Original and Standard decks have 1971 copyright because Stuart Kaplan may have placed copyright on ALL the original Pam A, B, C, D images back in '71. I'm sure a copyright lawyer could explain why the Original has 1971, not 1993.

U.S. Games Systems has a license to the copyright on the original 1909 cards. All subsequent editions are derivative of the originals, so their license covers all of the subsequent editions.

There is a strong argument that the original copyright has expired in the US. It is possible that it has also expired in the UK, however that is far less likely due to changes in EU copyrights that retroactively extended the copyright term of older works. Most of the rest of the world honors the UK copyright. Both the US copyright and the UK copyright are debatable, and subject to clarification by a court ruling. We can guess which way a court might rule, but unless/until they do so it is an open question. Getting a clear court ruling would be expensive.

Separately, U.S. Games Systems holds a copyright on the changes they made when releasing the 1971 edition, mostly the new card back. This only applies to versions that are derivative of the 1971 edition. This second copyright does not apply to works derivative of older editions. This copyright is clearly still applicable worldwide.

Copyright notices are no longer required, and may be incorrect. They are essentially reminders that a work is copyrighted, and no longer have any legal meaning on their own. The Original Rider Waite Tarot Pack is copyright as of its publication and separately covered by the copyright on the original work and the copyright of anything else from which it is derived. There is no reason to believe that it is copyright 1971. While it is conceivable that it is derivative of the 1971 edition, there are no visible signs of that I can see. None the less, it is fine for them to say copyright 1971, and it has a valid and enforceable copyright regardless.

Wheel of Fantastic

JasonLion said:
U.S. Games Systems has a license to the copyright on the original 1909 cards. All subsequent editions are derivative of the originals, so their license covers all of the subsequent editions.

There is a strong argument that the original copyright has expired in the US. It is possible that it has also expired in the UK, however that is far less likely due to changes in EU copyrights that retroactively extended the copyright term of older works. Most of the rest of the world honors the UK copyright. Both the US copyright and the UK copyright are debatable, and subject to clarification by a court ruling. We can guess which way a court might rule, but unless/until they do so it is an open question. Getting a clear court ruling would be expensive.

Separately, U.S. Games Systems holds a copyright on the changes they made when releasing the 1971 edition, mostly the new card back. This only applies to versions that are derivative of the 1971 edition. This second copyright does not apply to works derivative of older editions. This copyright is clearly still applicable worldwide.

Copyright notices are no longer required, and may be incorrect. They are essentially reminders that a work is copyrighted, and no longer have any legal meaning on their own. The Original Rider Waite Tarot Pack is copyright as of its publication and separately covered by the copyright on the original work and the copyright of anything else from which it is derived. There is no reason to believe that it is copyright 1971. While it is conceivable that it is derivative of the 1971 edition, there are no visible signs of that I can see. None the less, it is fine for them to say copyright 1971, and it has a valid and enforceable copyright regardless.

That was an excellent explanation, thank you. We need someone with very deep pockets to challenge US Games in court. When pigs fly; snowball's chance in hell etc, etc.

I can see US Games playing Whack-a-Mole with all the RWS 'restoration' copies that seem to be appearing now.

Premium German Rider Waite with Pam A crackle brown back and 1909 colouring

The Happy Squirrel

Lisa Myobun

Wheel of Fantastic

The Happy Squirrel

JohnKaartunen

JohnKaartunen

Attachments

Wheel of Fantastic

The Happy Squirrel

JasonLion

Wheel of Fantastic