【IC】SP SA Rain drop

[Niomosy]

I would dare argue that a keyset is merely a part of the useful article; the keyboard itself.  Without the caps, the keyboard is a much less functional item similar to a lamp lacking a switch or bulb.  The legends are also useful so you know what you're typing. 

As to the law articles.  That's an incorrect term.  That information I liked is straight from the US Copyright Office.  That is official legal copyright information from the US government, not an article.

That said, where is the line drawn on what is claimed as art?  If what you're saying is true, T0mb3ry, would not other sets that have already been copied fall under copyright?  If not, I'm wondering why not.

And, yes, they're just keycaps to me and art to you.  The problem is, you have not defined how they do not meet the uncopyrightable material sufficiently.  That it's a custom keyset is insufficient if it does not meet the minimum requirements to be considered copyrightable. The images may have more capability of copyright than the actual keysets themselves.  Even then, nothing is stopping a run of the colorway separate from the novelties.  In which case, it's still not an exact copy.

[Vigrith]

I've not bothered to read anything of what you've been saying about copyright and articles and US copyright offices.

It's pretty simple, really, if you copy someone's work 1:1 (asides changing profile?) and call it your own design and say it is an exclusive release, you're a ****. If SP allow that, that's on them. Your argument regarding copyright and other bull**** is completely irrelevant. If you copy something to this extent at least own up to it or don't pretend it's your doing.

It's got nothing to do with Copyright Laws. It's about human decency.

[T0mb3ry]

I would dare argue that a keyset is merely a part of the useful article; the keyboard itself.  Without the caps, the keyboard is a much less functional item similar to a lamp lacking a switch or bulb.  The legends are also useful so you know what you're typing. 

Keyboard without keycaps is not functional like the keycaps without keyboard. Though RainDrop is designed as keyset without keyboard, thus its not functional in that matter and a keyboard can also does not need RainDrop keyset to be functional. It can function the same just with other keyset. So in that case you cant say RainDrop keyset is necessary to make keyboard functional.

 
As to the law articles.  That's an incorrect term.  That information I liked is straight from the US Copyright Office.  That is official legal copyright information from the US government, not an article.

You have to study law to understand those laws properly and you are picking only those laws which suits your view on things. Laws are more complex as you might think. You really have to study them to make proper arguments. Anyway the laws you have called are not suitable since we are speaking here of art and not just keyset.

That said, where is the line drawn on what is claimed as art?  If what you're saying is true, T0mb3ry, would not other sets that have already been copied fall under copyright?  If not, I'm wondering why not.

The Art started from the point where the Autor gave it theme, colors and its novelties. He got his artificial vision of rainy weather keyset which is done pretty good giving all the limitations. I personaly consider this as Art. Its not just about picking a colorway. Its stands up from other default keysets, its original and unique. The novelties are also unnecessary keys. For example the raindrop novelty is not a default key you usually see on a keyboard. This is Art. Maybe you dont like particular RainDrop but i am sure you like some of other keyset which is also most probably is Art. Thus you are here because you like Art, else you would not be here like many of us.

And, yes, they're just keycaps to me and art to you.  The problem is, you have not defined how they do not meet the uncopyrightable material sufficiently.  That it's a custom keyset is insufficient if it does not meet the minimum requirements to be considered copyrightable. The images may have more capability of copyright than the actual keysets themselves.  Even then, nothing is stopping a run of the colorway separate from the novelties.  In which case, it's still not an exact copy.

I am talking about RainDrop keyset not the colorway.
Anyway i mentioned above already why RainDrop is art. Because its unique and original due to its theme, colorway and novelties. If you dont agree then its your personal view, but it does not change the fact of artificial expression of RainDrop autor and the fact that it is art done on a freaking keyset for a keyboard.

[Niomosy]

First, let me say thank you for engaging me in this discussion, T0mb3ry.  I find the topic fascinating and the discussion we're having engaging as it's great to read other thoughts on this topic. 

Let me see if I understand this from your side.  Please correct me if I'm not understanding something correctly.  It seems that you are saying that the completed set which includes the colorway, novelties, and general theme is the art work?  Do I have that right?  If so, it also seems as if the individual pieces might not receive protection while the completed set does?  At least it seemed as if you were alluding to such and if not, I apologize.

I will first say that I don't disagree with you on the potential for this.  My concern is that it has yet to be confirmed.  We've all simply assumed copyright without ever testing it by submitting a set for copyright.  I find this disconcerting in a way similar to a pre-mature victory celebration.

That said, the colorway itself isn't protected as we've seen many a colorway reproduced with and without any approval from the original designer.  Many of the novelties would also fall into this - else I would expect Harmony Gold to be not very pleased with Skull Squadron and the use of various Robotech icons.  I would argue that some might fall under protection.  I would also argue most artisans meet protection requirements.

However, it seems to me that a colorway of a set could be rerun.  In the case of a set without novelties, it might be able to fully run as-is.  The caveat would likely be a name change to avoid trademark problems.  In addition, it seems that many sets could see novelties run separate from the main set should they not fall under separate protection.

In the end, the problem of protecting a set seems to be the set itself as multiple individual items that can be bought separately whereas a painting or sculpture is a single item.  I can, essentially, recreate an existing art piece through painting by numbers due to the simple nature of keyboards and their keycaps.  In the end, you might technically be right that the set can't run as-is but it still might not matter if the elements can be purchased separately and assembled by anyone into either an identical set or close enough set.

[zslane]

Vigrith makes a valid point here. There are two realms for consideration here: the legal and the ethical.

The legal issue is a potentially thorny one for which conclusive resolution can only be obtained in court, not through online discourse. The fact is that creators, manufacturers, and distributors are scattered all across the globe, with little to no agreement between nations when it comes to defining and enforcing intellectual property rights. In practice, IP violations are not a real "problem" until someone takes matters to court. Who in the mech community has the time, energy, and resources to take a copycat to court over their keyset design? The wording of the U.S. Copyright Act will have little persuasive power over Chinese copycats or budget-constrained customers, so I'm not entirely sure if there is much value in turning to it for its rhetorical power.

But beyond the (essentially impractical) legal argument, there is the ethical argument. Unfortunately, there are cultures where copying isn't demonized the way it is in the West. They simply don't understand what the big problem is. That may be (very slowly) changing. As I see it, this community polices itself as best it can, and if the pitchforks being branded look especially pointy it is because designers are something of cherished resource around here. It may not be illegal to copy a novelty legend in China, but that doesn't mean you won't get crucified for doing it by community members who grew up with a very different cultural view of "creative labor" (and labor in general).

[amnesia0287]

Would copyright even apply here? Wouldn't this be new molds either way given the change to SA? They don't look the same to me (the umbrella for example), but more importantly even if they were the same molds somehow, would this this not be considered derivative work? The legends are different. The profile is different. There are new novelties. The modifiers are different. The arrows are different. It's totally the same concept, but it's a fundamentally unique interpretation of it. The only actual similarities are the colors and rain theme.

To be clear, I absolutely agree it was ****ty to not ask and it's morally wrong. But legally? No case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LunarisDream]

Does anyone know whether this applies to the run of DCS Raindrop in China? Did it receive permission from the designer of the original Raindrop?

[Niomosy]

I would even argue that in the West, there are industries where copying isn't really frowned upon.  My wife's an art design major and background before moving into programming.  Copying is not uncommon.  Hell, I can look to the auto industry for lots of copycatting going on.  If anything, the frowning seems more circumstantial; we frown on copying with things more like homework or Big Co copying the little guy.  Of course, then we get universities that don't frown on blatant copying; sister-in-law had one student working on her PhD and copied straight out of one of SIL's published books.  The school let it slide.

As to ethics, yes, I do think the copying here is more an ethical issue than a legal one, honestly.  That gets us into an interesting situation.  In general, it is preferred to receive approval from the original set designer if you're trying to run a previously-run colorway.  However, we get ambiguous in these things.  While it might be claimed to be unethical to copy without permission, it's also problematic to simply sit on a set and grant no permission despite doing nothing.  At some point, I feel that it's simply a matter of best effort; if you try and no permission is given but nothing is being done with the set, it's open season.  Similarly, what happens with abandoned set colorways, etc. that were given only mockups but have yet to be produced?  I'd also argue that, at some point, those are free reign for someone else to take up as well.  If the original creator comes back, the new creator can always back down but we've seen many designs simply abandoned for many reasons.

[T0mb3ry]

First, let me say thank you for engaging me in this discussion, T0mb3ry.  I find the topic fascinating and the discussion we're having engaging as it's great to read other thoughts on this topic. 

Let me see if I understand this from your side.  Please correct me if I'm not understanding something correctly.  It seems that you are saying that the completed set which includes the colorway, novelties, and general theme is the art work?  Do I have that right?  If so, it also seems as if the individual pieces might not receive protection while the completed set does?  At least it seemed as if you were alluding to such and if not, I apologize.

I will first say that I don't disagree with you on the potential for this.  My concern is that it has yet to be confirmed.  We've all simply assumed copyright without ever testing it by submitting a set for copyright.  I find this disconcerting in a way similar to a pre-mature victory celebration.

That said, the colorway itself isn't protected as we've seen many a colorway reproduced with and without any approval from the original designer.  Many of the novelties would also fall into this - else I would expect Harmony Gold to be not very pleased with Skull Squadron and the use of various Robotech icons.  I would argue that some might fall under protection.  I would also argue most artisans meet protection requirements.

However, it seems to me that a colorway of a set could be rerun.  In the case of a set without novelties, it might be able to fully run as-is.  The caveat would likely be a name change to avoid trademark problems.  In addition, it seems that many sets could see novelties run separate from the main set should they not fall under separate protection.

In the end, the problem of protecting a set seems to be the set itself as multiple individual items that can be bought separately whereas a painting or sculpture is a single item.  I can, essentially, recreate an existing art piece through painting by numbers due to the simple nature of keyboards and their keycaps.  In the end, you might technically be right that the set can't run as-is but it still might not matter if the elements can be purchased separately and assembled by anyone into either an identical set or close enough set.

Again i am talking about RainDrop keyset. Not the colorway. So yes the combination of colorway, novelties and theme define RainDrop keyset. I think i am pretty much clear here.

Zslane described it pretty well, that its not as easy to make things clear. Each country has its own laws. And if you want to make things clear then you need enough money to pay a Lawyer which can explain you the situation. Laws are very complex. They do have many and probably more specific cases which might and might not apply in a particular case. Because the laws are complex, people study laws. But in gererall amost every western country has laws which protects autor rights. RainDrop is here the clear case.

Would copyright even apply here? Wouldn't this be new molds either way given the change to SA? They don't look the same to me (the umbrella for example), but more importantly even if they were the same molds somehow, would this this not be considered derivative work? The legends are different. The profile is different. There are new novelties. The modifiers are different. The arrows are different. It's totally the same concept, but it's a fundamentally unique interpretation of it. The only actual similarities are the colors and rain theme.

To be clear, I absolutely agree it was ****ty to not ask and it's morally wrong. But legally? No case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure. Despite its different profile, it does not change the fact its a RainDrop keyset.

[amnesia0287]

First, let me say thank you for engaging me in this discussion, T0mb3ry.  I find the topic fascinating and the discussion we're having engaging as it's great to read other thoughts on this topic. 

Let me see if I understand this from your side.  Please correct me if I'm not understanding something correctly.  It seems that you are saying that the completed set which includes the colorway, novelties, and general theme is the art work?  Do I have that right?  If so, it also seems as if the individual pieces might not receive protection while the completed set does?  At least it seemed as if you were alluding to such and if not, I apologize.

I will first say that I don't disagree with you on the potential for this.  My concern is that it has yet to be confirmed.  We've all simply assumed copyright without ever testing it by submitting a set for copyright.  I find this disconcerting in a way similar to a pre-mature victory celebration.

That said, the colorway itself isn't protected as we've seen many a colorway reproduced with and without any approval from the original designer.  Many of the novelties would also fall into this - else I would expect Harmony Gold to be not very pleased with Skull Squadron and the use of various Robotech icons.  I would argue that some might fall under protection.  I would also argue most artisans meet protection requirements.

However, it seems to me that a colorway of a set could be rerun.  In the case of a set without novelties, it might be able to fully run as-is.  The caveat would likely be a name change to avoid trademark problems.  In addition, it seems that many sets could see novelties run separate from the main set should they not fall under separate protection.

In the end, the problem of protecting a set seems to be the set itself as multiple individual items that can be bought separately whereas a painting or sculpture is a single item.  I can, essentially, recreate an existing art piece through painting by numbers due to the simple nature of keyboards and their keycaps.  In the end, you might technically be right that the set can't run as-is but it still might not matter if the elements can be purchased separately and assembled by anyone into either an identical set or close enough set.

Again i am talking about RainDrop keyset. Not the colorway. So yes the combination of colorway, novelties and theme define RainDrop keyset. I think i am pretty much clear here.

Zslane described pretty well, that its not as easy to make things clear. Each country has its own laws. And if you want to make things clear then you have need enough money to pay a Lawyer which can explain you the situation. Laws are very complex. They do have many and probably more specific cases which might and might not apply in a particular case. Because the laws are complex, people study laws. But in gererall amost every western country has laws which protects autor rights. RainDrop is here the clear case.

Would copyright even apply here? Wouldn't this be new molds either way given the change to SA? They don't look the same to me (the umbrella for example), but more importantly even if they were the same molds somehow, would this this not be considered derivative work? The legends are different. The profile is different. There are new novelties. The modifiers are different. The arrows are different. It's totally the same concept, but it's a fundamentally unique interpretation of it. The only actual similarities are the colors and rain theme.

To be clear, I absolutely agree it was ****ty to not ask and it's morally wrong. But legally? No case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure. Despite its different profile, it does not change the fact its a RainDrop keyset.

That would be important if this were a Trademark and the style was considered trade dress. You cannot label the original a work of art and then ignore the differences. That is not how copyrights work.

This is the literal definition of derivative work. It would be thrown out of court immediately.

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Note: Art REPRODUCTION

To be honest, keycaps don't really fit the bill for copyright to begin with. Trademark however could be argued. For example were Honeywell still making keyboards, I imagine they could exert a trademark claim to the colorway itself. Because they could claim it was part of their brand identity.

By your logic there is only 1 person allowed to paint pictures of dogs playing cards.

I totally think it's bull****. I won't buy one. I'm glad zfrontier pulled it. But there is no way anyone could win a legal claim here. None.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[T0mb3ry]

First, let me say thank you for engaging me in this discussion, T0mb3ry.  I find the topic fascinating and the discussion we're having engaging as it's great to read other thoughts on this topic. 

Let me see if I understand this from your side.  Please correct me if I'm not understanding something correctly.  It seems that you are saying that the completed set which includes the colorway, novelties, and general theme is the art work?  Do I have that right?  If so, it also seems as if the individual pieces might not receive protection while the completed set does?  At least it seemed as if you were alluding to such and if not, I apologize.

I will first say that I don't disagree with you on the potential for this.  My concern is that it has yet to be confirmed.  We've all simply assumed copyright without ever testing it by submitting a set for copyright.  I find this disconcerting in a way similar to a pre-mature victory celebration.

That said, the colorway itself isn't protected as we've seen many a colorway reproduced with and without any approval from the original designer.  Many of the novelties would also fall into this - else I would expect Harmony Gold to be not very pleased with Skull Squadron and the use of various Robotech icons.  I would argue that some might fall under protection.  I would also argue most artisans meet protection requirements.

However, it seems to me that a colorway of a set could be rerun.  In the case of a set without novelties, it might be able to fully run as-is.  The caveat would likely be a name change to avoid trademark problems.  In addition, it seems that many sets could see novelties run separate from the main set should they not fall under separate protection.

In the end, the problem of protecting a set seems to be the set itself as multiple individual items that can be bought separately whereas a painting or sculpture is a single item.  I can, essentially, recreate an existing art piece through painting by numbers due to the simple nature of keyboards and their keycaps.  In the end, you might technically be right that the set can't run as-is but it still might not matter if the elements can be purchased separately and assembled by anyone into either an identical set or close enough set.

Again i am talking about RainDrop keyset. Not the colorway. So yes the combination of colorway, novelties and theme define RainDrop keyset. I think i am pretty much clear here.

Zslane described pretty well, that its not as easy to make things clear. Each country has its own laws. And if you want to make things clear then you have need enough money to pay a Lawyer which can explain you the situation. Laws are very complex. They do have many and probably more specific cases which might and might not apply in a particular case. Because the laws are complex, people study laws. But in gererall amost every western country has laws which protects autor rights. RainDrop is here the clear case.

Would copyright even apply here? Wouldn't this be new molds either way given the change to SA? They don't look the same to me (the umbrella for example), but more importantly even if they were the same molds somehow, would this this not be considered derivative work? The legends are different. The profile is different. There are new novelties. The modifiers are different. The arrows are different. It's totally the same concept, but it's a fundamentally unique interpretation of it. The only actual similarities are the colors and rain theme.

To be clear, I absolutely agree it was ****ty to not ask and it's morally wrong. But legally? No case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure. Despite its different profile, it does not change the fact its a RainDrop keyset.

That would be important if this were a Trademark and the style was considered trade dress. You cannot label the original a work of art and then ignore the differences. That is not how copyrights work.

This is the literal definition of derivative work. It would be thrown out of court immediately.

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Note: Art REPRODUCTION

To be honest, keycaps don't really fit the bill for copyright to begin with. Trademark however could be argued. For example were Honeywell still making keyboards, I imagine they could exert a trademark claim to the colorway itself. Because they could claim it was part of their brand identity.

By your logic there is only 1 person allowed to paint pictures of dogs playing cards.

I totally think it's bull****. I won't buy one. I'm glad zfrontier pulled it. But there is no way anyone could win a legal claim here. None.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am not lawyer who is specialized on US laws to confirm this...

Anyway i dont think Signature Plastics would have supported this here either.

[Niomosy]

Trademarks and colors are extremely limited.  You can get a single color and that's it.  IBM has their blue, Target has their red, UPS has their brown, GAP has their different blue, and so on.  Trying to get multiple colors trademarked is difficult enough that even big shops get a single uniquely-identifying color and then it's only applicable within their industry.

That said, I still agree that I'm not seeing colorways as protected and have yet to be convinced they would fall under art within at least the US copyright system.  As I've noted, any protection that might be offered is easily enough circumvented due to the nature of keycaps themselves so it doesn't seem to tremendously matter if people have interest in things being run.  Individuals have often enough done their own copies via companies like WASD.  If we could simply get to the point where you could custom order a 1-off colorway, that would be particularly interesting.

[lovetree]

Sincere apologies for the misunderstanding. I was not aware of any IP issue during the IC process, and an official price quotation from SP was provided. So I presumptuously assumed that the authorization of the design was provided, and moved directly onto the group buy.

I was therefore shocked to see the recent discussion. If I had known about this, I would not have started the GB. I have notified zFrontier regarding the issue immediately, and saw that the GB has been taken off.

Also, I noticed that there was a previous GB of Raindrop in DSA Profile in 2015, which was fulfilled by SP. (http://www.waishechina.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=895&extra=page%3D1)

Show Image

Show Image

This fulfilled GB partly misled me into thinking that there would be no problem with the authorization of this design. Again, apologies for the misunderstanding.

You said zFrontier took off the GB form there site, but GB is still going at thier Chinese site. 
https://www.zfrontier.com/m/2255

It seems that they drew their post only form their English site.

I am wondering whether SP would produce this keyset finally.

[zslane]

The only way to know for sure if a novelty legend would be granted copyright protection in the U.S. is for a potential copycat violation to be taken to court and a judgment found in favor of the original artist. Until that happens, this is all idle speculation. And largely irrelevant anyway since the vast majority of keyset/novelty copying is being done in a country over which U.S. Copyright law has no power.

As for SP, they have established their own policies regarding copying, and it is up to them to enforce them (or ignore them) as they see fit. They aren't "honoring" the work of original designers because they fear legal reprisals if they don't. They do it because they have their own ethical standard they operate under. And not everyone agrees with every aspect of SP's policies. Some feel those policies are too restrictive, and others feel they aren't restrictive enough. But the law isn't really of any help here since SP's rules are their own and only vaguely intersect with U.S. IP law. More importantly, it's an intersection that has yet to be tested in court.

And as I've said before, the law is only useful to those with the means to use it as a weapon against competitors. I've yet to meet a keyset designer with the financial means to take a copycat to court. Hell, I've yet to hear of a movie studio who has yet to hunt down and prosecute all the blatant violations within the artisan community, and they definitely have the resources. The fact is that violations will proceed unhindered by any threat of legal reprisal simply due to the impracticality/inconvenience/cost of following through on that threat.

Which really only leaves us with the ethical considerations. The only meaningful weapon against copying that I've witnessed has been peer pressure and community outrage/ostracism. However, as the hobby continues to grow, I believe that weapon will lose its effectiveness. At which point the only real remedy against the copying of old designs is to come up with exciting new designs. Yes, that puts the onus on designers, but I sort of feel that's where it belongs anyway. No artist should just rest on his or her laurels and expect continued success without continued effort. But that's merely my philosophy towards art and commerce. I'm sure a lot of artists will vehemently disagree with me (and many have, in other arenas).

[aggiejy]

To be clear, I could care less if someone copies the colorway. (Though, if I had to do it over, I'd have selected a more vibrant blue.)

The things that seem wrong to me are using the name "Rain Drop" without permission, and using the molds for my legends. (I paid to have them made.)

Now that said, if you pay for your own molds and just copy the design with some similar artwork... that's just poor taste. Be original. Call it Bluebird and make a bird nest, bird, birdhouse, egg, etc.

And if you do make your own molds, make sure the artwork is licensed for reproduction. I paid for my artwork, so if you copy it you're not just in violation of my copyright.

Either way, it's just keycaps. Running the buy was fun. It took a lot of time, a ton of effort, and I lost money. So it's just kind of sad to see it copied exactly. xoxoxo

PS: The first two three posts of the buy are good historical reading material. https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=40520.0 It was long ago, but I'm still happy with how it went and the (relatively) fast pace. Good old fashioned community-led buys are good for the community. (Nothing wrong with responsible venders either though.) For those who were on Geekhack in 2011/2012 should remember - it was difficult to get custom keys at all. Now we're in the golden years.

[zslane]

... if you pay for your own molds and just copy the design with some similar artwork... that's just poor taste. Be original. Call it Bluebird and make a bird nest, bird, birdhouse, egg, etc.

This.

I've been singing this song since I first got into this hobby (which, granted, only goes as far back as Fall 2015, but still). I think that most folks within the community get this, but outside of it maybe not so much. I suspect that participating in our GBs is rather challenging for a lot of folks in China where economic and technical restrictions abound. For those who can't get custom sets any other way, a Chinese copy surely feels like their only viable solution. I'm not condoning it, but I can understand the motivation behind it (in some cases). I mean, the proxies that buy through MD can only do so much to help matters over there.

[climbalima]

The things that seem wrong to me are using the name "Rain Drop" without permission, and using the molds for my legends. (I paid to have them made.)

I think they are using new molds because of the new profile. Still kinda lame to do a rip of an old set and claim ownership. They should at least buy the icons same as you did.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[livingspeedbump]

To be clear, I could care less if someone copies the colorway. (Though, if I had to do it over, I'd have selected a more vibrant blue.)

The things that seem wrong to me are using the name "Rain Drop" without permission, and using the molds for my legends. (I paid to have them made.)

Now that said, if you pay for your own molds and just copy the design with some similar artwork... that's just poor taste. Be original. Call it Bluebird and make a bird nest, bird, birdhouse, egg, etc.

And if you do make your own molds, make sure the artwork is licensed for reproduction. I paid for my artwork, so if you copy it you're not just in violation of my copyright.

Either way, it's just keycaps. Running the buy was fun. It took a lot of time, a ton of effort, and I lost money. So it's just kind of sad to see it copied exactly. xoxoxo

PS: The first two three posts of the buy are good historical reading material. https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=40520.0 It was long ago, but I'm still happy with how it went and the (relatively) fast pace. Good old fashioned community-led buys are good for the community. (Nothing wrong with responsible venders either though.) For those who were on Geekhack in 2011/2012 should remember - it was difficult to get custom keys at all. Now we're in the golden years.

I couldnt agree with this attitude or approach more.

[Niomosy]

The things that seem wrong to me are using the name "Rain Drop" without permission, and using the molds for my legends. (I paid to have them made.)

I think they are using new molds because of the new profile. Still kinda lame to do a rip of an old set and claim ownership. They should at least buy the icons same as you did.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I believe Melissa at SP has stated previously that mold usage requires permission from the mold owners.

[Puddsy]

The things that seem wrong to me are using the name "Rain Drop" without permission, and using the molds for my legends. (I paid to have them made.)

I think they are using new molds because of the new profile. Still kinda lame to do a rip of an old set and claim ownership. They should at least buy the icons same as you did.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I believe Melissa at SP has stated previously that mold usage requires permission from the mold owners.

When I wanted to run Yolch, I was asked by SP to get permission for some of the legends I wanted to use.

[zslane]

I believe Melissa at SP has stated previously that mold usage requires permission from the mold owners.

Yes, but SP's policies allow you to submit artwork (and payment) for a new custom legend plate that looks the same as a previous legend plate. They may refuse a submission if the artwork infringes on a trademark they recognize (e.g., the Superman symbol), but whether or not they refuse on the basis that it looks like a previous customer's legend is entirely at their discretion. Moreover, their decision on such matters may not be consistent from case to case (as is the nature of discretionary policies).

[creactive]

From my standpoint, my fault is that  I could not  be aware of novelty used in this IC and GB. I accept the wrongs and I have learnt lots from the discussion from Mr tombery , Mr Puddsy, Mr zslane,  Mr Niomosy and other buddies.
I really sorry for all the unconvenience and other troublesome on novelty permission and right property for Mr aggiejy. And I pay my hugest respect to Mr aggiejy.
Last. I don't know why livingspeedbump alway pour useless words even very subjective words on other ICs and this IC. Please don't do that again.