geekhack

geekhack Marketplace => Vendor Forums => Signature Plastics / PimpMyKeyboard => Topic started by: Niomosy on Fri, 15 January 2016, 20:02:48

Title: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Niomosy on Fri, 15 January 2016, 20:02:48
Thanks for the update.

Could you please explain why PuLSE is listed as "ON HOLD" and Decked Out is not listed at all even though it ran before PuLSE?

"These keyset have not been approved for scheduling additional production runs."

Doesn't look like they'll be making more until they're allowed to do so (or have the resources to do so).

I'd like to get confirmation on something regarding that.  What happens if someone submits new paperwork / art for an existing colorway, naming it something else and either changing or eliminating novelties?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Fri, 15 January 2016, 20:48:57
I'd like to get confirmation on something regarding that.  What happens if someone submits new paperwork / art for an existing colorway, naming it something else and either changing or eliminating novelties?

Since you mentioned I'd like to give my input towards this subject, even though you asked OP and not me.

Taking PuLSE as an example, it featured black/cyan text legended alphas and modifiers with Signature Plastics' font. It also featured aqua and blue novelty keycaps with specific and customized icons. Any other sets that eventually present any of the above mentioned features is essentially (and consequentially) copying PuLSE and the concepts that define it as a custom keyset created by myself and therefore should not go through their system nor be allowed to happen without my strict permission. The premise is that such colorway, applied on keycaps created and manufactured by Signature Plastics is a design concept that I created. This logic obviously can't be applied to complex industrial manufactured products, due to their very detailed patent registration nature, but since we are discussing about a product that is defined by it's artistic appeal and belongs to a very specific niche (keyboard enthusiasts), such logic could be easily comprehended and be applied in my perception.

This is my perspective and I believe it should be taken into consideration given that, for many reasons, me and the Ctrl.Alt team are in the eye of this discussion. Mostly due to the popularity of projects created by us before new implementations and policies from Signature Plastics took place.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: neverused on Fri, 15 January 2016, 21:04:15
I'd like to get confirmation on something regarding that.  What happens if someone submits new paperwork / art for an existing colorway, naming it something else and either changing or eliminating novelties?

Since you mentioned I'd like to give my input towards this subject, even though you asked OP and not me.

Taking PuLSE as an example, it featured black/cyan text legended alphas and modifiers with Signature Plastics' font. It also featured aqua and blue novelty keycaps with specific and customized icons. Any other sets that eventually present any of the above mentioned features is essentially (and consequentially) copying PuLSE and the concepts that define it as a custom keyset created by myself and therefore should not go through their system nor be allowed to happen without my strict permission. The premise is that such colorway, applied on keycaps created and manufactured by Signature Plastics is a design concept that I created. This logic obviously can't be applied to complex industrial manufactured products, due to their very detailed patent registration nature, but since we are discussing about a product that is defined by it's artistic appeal and belongs to a very specific niche (keyboard enthusiasts), such logic could be easily comprehended and be applied in my perception.

This is my perspective and I believe it should be taken into consideration given that, for many reasons, me and the Ctrl.Alt team are in the eye of this discussion. Mostly due to the popularity of projects created by us before new implementations and policies from Signature Plastics took place.

You are so full of ****. Putting a couple colors together and using common, fairly derivative icons, and standard font, does not give you any authority over those concepts. You may feel entitled to Pulse, but beyond that you cannot legitimately take ownership of those colors used in conjunction. You used black and cyan? Big ****ing deal, so did every other set that used those colors, perhaps not exclusively, but they were used before. Did you ask everyone that had a black alpha or modifier in previous sets for permission? I assume not, because that would be retarded.

You didn't "create" anything, you matched colors and people liked it. Pulse is a nice looking set, but it is not art nor any sort of legitimate intellectual property. Get over yourself. That type of self entitled behavior is childish and arrogant.

Side note: your pulse icon looks like a QRS trace, did you ask for permission to use that? I doubt it, because no one ones the concept.

Second note: Tron (2010) made heavy use of black and cyan, did you ask Disney for permission? I doubt it, because that would be unreasonable.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Fri, 15 January 2016, 21:56:51

You used black and cyan? Big ****ing deal, so did every other set that used those colors, perhaps not exclusively, but they were used before. Did you ask everyone that had a black alpha or modifier in previous sets for permission? I assume not, because that would be retarded.


I never said that I own such colorway, please read my response more carefully and also watch your mouth since I never spoke with you before and I'm being civil. In response to your question, I'd definitely ask other Signature Plastics' designers for permission to use such color way, if any ever existed.


You didn't "create" anything, you matched colors and people liked it. Pulse is a nice looking set, but it is not art nor any sort of legitimate intellectual property. Get over yourself. That type of self entitled behavior is childish and arrogant.


I'd like to inform you, in case you didn't read such information anywhere before, that I personally dislike the keyset, it's colorway and its novelties. In retrospect, from my personal opinion and design experience I can honestly say (and already said it before) that the set could have used better ideas and in the end doesn't look that good. Please point to me where I was arrogant in my previous reply. If I sounded like that I apologize but it was never my intention and I'm not a native speaker.

However, despite of what you think I did create the set, since I spent many hours digitally painting a virtual keyboard layout and importing patially done sketched by hand drawings, to be used as novelty icons in the vector form. And according to my interpretation of the English language dictionary (below) what I did and what I do can be categorized as art, even though the set itself isn't my direct manual craft, but Signature Plastics'.

art; (noun)

1 - The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power;
2 - Works produced by human creative skill and imagination;

PuLSE was result of my creative skills and imagination.



Side note: your pulse icon looks like a QRS trace, did you ask for permission to use that? I doubt it, because no one ones the concept.


Such icon is a letter "M" meant to represent my nickname on this forum even though it resembles a QRS trace. It looks vibrant and full of energy, like myself, so I decided to name the set "PuLSE". The keyset was originally a personal print to be requested from WASD, but since others liked the idea I decided to develop it together with RMK and this community until it became a group buy. It's design went through many iterations, one of them featuring the Cherry Replica font which was discarded due to the steep price.


Second note: Tron (2010) made heavy use of black and cyan, did you ask Disney for permission? I doubt it, because that would be unreasonable.


Disney indeed used cyan and black in this beautiful movie, but again I never said that I own such color way or created it. I did however apply it to Signature Plastics' keycaps before anyone else. Below you can see highlighted exactly what I said on my reply:

The premise is that such colorway, applied on keycaps created and manufactured by Signature Plastics is a design concept that I created.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Steezus on Fri, 15 January 2016, 22:07:27
Edit: I have no need to get involved in drama
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: neverused on Fri, 15 January 2016, 22:55:42
Edit: I have no need to get involved in drama


Good.

MiTo handled his response quite well, there's no need to discuss any of it with you.


@MiTo - I stand by my opinion that no one should be able to pay claim to a colorway. You may have rights to the icons used, as you developed them, but the use of black and cyan should not be limited simply due to the fact that it is present in Pulse. Were someone to use the unique keys in the set without permission, that may be questionable if they are truly unique, but beyond that I do not see how anyone in good conscience lay claim to a colorway.


With respect to art,  I do not doubt that you spent many hours refining the set, but I do not consider it art. Many would choose to disagree with me and they certainly may do so, but art is subject to interpretation.


I do however apologize for my word choice. Perhaps it was colored by irritation towards the concept of owning a colorway or the general impression I have developed in seeing your posts in the past, but I did not need to express myself that way. I do not agree with anyone laying claim to an aesthetically pleasing color scheme nor the concept that certain sets must be under scrutiny because of its color choice (siso and dusk are prime examples). This mindset is pervasive and undermining to the development and proposal of other sets in the future.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Niomosy on Sat, 16 January 2016, 00:32:13
I'm simply we can get an answer to the question :)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Sat, 16 January 2016, 11:52:09
In the United States, where SP is located, there is no legal protection for a colorway. It does not fall under copyright, trademark, or patent. I guarantee you that no court in the US would hear a case involving another black/cyan colorway as IP infringement. The novelty icons are (potentially) a different matter, but I don't think anyone would copy those and try to get away with it.

Having said all that, SP can elect to enforce their own IP protection policies, completely independent of what formal IP law has to say about it. They simply reject any proposed project that violates their own sense of fairness to previous/existing designers who have worked with them. They may also reject any project that has graphics which they deem too close in appearance to known trademarks (a bat logo, for instance).

MiTo wouldn't receive US copyright protection for his keycap designs if he claimed it in court, but he doesn't need it. SP will provide a good enough equivalent, and there's not much anyone can do about that except try to persuade Melissa to change the company policies. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: neverused on Sat, 16 January 2016, 11:57:22
SP does what is in their best interest, which is what I would expect any other company to do. If that means catering to diva keyset designers (not naming names or pointing to anyone in particular before someone gets butt hurt), then so be it.

Barring a company refusing a colorway, which is their prerogative, there should be no expectation of exclusivity for any colorway. If people don't like it, don't buy it, but no one owns it.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Sat, 16 January 2016, 12:21:33
There should be no expectation of colorway ownership from a legal sense, no. However, there are expectations of de facto ownership endowed by the mech keyboard/custom keycap culture cultivated by this community. If someone were to post an interest check for a keycap design too close in appearance to PuLSE, it wouldn't be the court of law that would step in, but the court of public ridicule within this community (and then SP themselves, if it ever got that far).

MiTo's sense of entitlement is endorsed by nearly everyone on GH, DT, and /r/mech. That's an awful lot of positive reinforcement. Keycap designers are treated a little bit like rock stars around here, and they're allowed to get away with being a diva now and then. Like you, I think it is mostly nonsense, but we're vastly outnumbered by the legions who built this community into what it is.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Sat, 16 January 2016, 12:23:27
MiTo's sense of entitlement is endorsed by nearly everyone on GH, DT, and /r/mech.

Wasn't he basically run out of GH for this (among other things)?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: neverused on Sat, 16 January 2016, 12:24:53
MiTo's sense of entitlement is endorsed by nearly everyone on GH, DT, and /r/mech.

Wasn't he basically run out of GH for this (among other things)?
Yeah he made a bug huge deal about it, said goodbye, and then came back.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Sat, 16 January 2016, 12:33:13
MiTo's sense of entitlement is endorsed by nearly everyone on GH, DT, and /r/mech.

Wasn't he basically run out of GH for this (among other things)?

MiTo, the individual, may have had a tumultuous relationship with this community, but his perspective on colorway/design ownership, no matter how obnoxiously defended, is nevertheless the community norm.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: neverused on Sat, 16 January 2016, 12:33:59
MiTo's sense of entitlement is endorsed by nearly everyone on GH, DT, and /r/mech.

Wasn't he basically run out of GH for this (among other things)?

MiTo, the individual, may have had a tumultuous relationship with this community, but his perspective on colorway/design ownership, no matter how obnoxiously defended, is nevertheless the community norm.
Which is unfortunate in my opinion.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sat, 16 January 2016, 12:36:13
If anyone here is interested in knowing the story behind my decision to quit and my decision to return to the keyboard communities, I'd like to kindly ask you to speak directly with me in private. I never ignored anyone and I'm always open to a conversation. Don't act like you know everything and don't act like you know me or have spoken with me in the past if you really didn't. There are lots of misinformation going around, not only here in this thread/community, and such happenings hurt and deviate from the main topic of discussion. This is already going on in this particular thread and such replies have already been reported.

This reply of mine is not directed to any particular individuals, but to everyone in this forum who will eventually read this reply and the entire thread.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: neverused on Sat, 16 January 2016, 12:40:53
Discussion regarding ownership or control of a colorway are relevant to a tracking system for colorways and their release. Discussion of your history with the community is not, though it is tied to subject there isn't much value in discussing it. All one has to do is search on the forums.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Sat, 16 January 2016, 12:47:58
I agree. What is past is merely prologue. I'm not the least bit interested in all that past drama.

However, here we are, and the same issues continue to provoke debate, namely, who "owns" a colorway and should that even be allowed/tolerated? Does it make sense? Why or why not?

I don't feel colorways ought to be "protectable", nor do I feel the community ought to promote the idea that picking colors constitutes a work of art, or even a challenging design effort in and of itself. The fact that the weight of (community) history is behind such a perspective doesn't persuade me of its merit. Rather, in this case I think the community got it wrong. But lobbying for change around here is like shouting at a hurricane.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Niomosy on Sun, 17 January 2016, 00:39:53
If colorways are somehow protected, what's the limitations on that?  Multiple existing sets have been reproduced; Space Cadet twice, Commodore 64 via DSA Retro, Selectric, Dolch in its various iterations, and probably others.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Sun, 17 January 2016, 01:03:31
Indeed. The issue is murky at best.

For instance, I doubt SP is going to extend prior art consideration to Tom Knight (original designer of the Space Cadet keyboard), or defunct companies like Commodore or Dolch. Since these designs are inherited from history, in a sense, SP seems content to treat them like public domain works.

However, when SP has an existing working relationship with a contemporary designer, they are clearly willing to extend a form of IP ownership to them as a "good faith" gesture. At least as long as that relationship remains a cordial and healthy one. It may even be written into the contracts for designs sold through PMK, I don't really know.

I think we'll need a test case stronger than, say, Think Different to really give us a clearer picture of what the possibilities are.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: neverused on Sun, 17 January 2016, 15:30:37
Just to beat a dead horse some more, if anyone has any questions about why I was so irritated about MiTo's initial reply, please see the following examples of him throwing a tantrum about Classic Space, because he 'could not allow' it to happen after all the work he put into Cospar. It is this type of entitlement that I can't stand. At the time that he threw a fit and threatened to take action (whatever that was), Cospar was cancelled and Classic Space was similar but still not the same.

By MiTo's logic, one could simply design a group of sets that would encompass most colorways and slap some custom icons on it and then claim origination and control of the colorway. Someone should really do that quick so that they can have a monopoly on all sets through SP.


https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=74350.msg1833485.msg#1833485

https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=74350.msg1833543.msg#1833543

https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=74350.msg1833665.msg#1833665
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: user 18 on Sun, 17 January 2016, 18:33:54
This line of conversation has been split from New Launchpad & Status Page (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=78730) as it was off-topic for that thread.

While the question of who owns a colourway, and how protectable that colourway may be is an interesting one, I ask that we please keep the discussion about colourways, rather than individuals. Please remember that personal attacks are against the geekhack terms of service.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: PunksDead on Sun, 17 January 2016, 19:14:32
MITO nor signature plastcs ever trademarked the colorways. remember how tao hai gratuitously ripped off ctrlalt.ios colors in their "new" keysets? no trademarks filed for a particular colorway means its fair game

mod edit: removed personal attack
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: azhdar on Sun, 17 January 2016, 19:27:49
If anyone here is interested in knowing the story behind my decision to quit and my decision to return to the keyboard communities, I'd like to kindly ask you to speak directly with me in private. I never ignored anyone and I'm always open to a conversation. Don't act like you know everything and don't act like you know me or have spoken with me in the past if you really didn't. There are lots of misinformation going around, not only here in this thread/community, and such happenings hurt and deviate from the main topic of discussion. This is already going on in this particular thread and such replies have already been reported.

This reply of mine is not directed to any particular individuals, but to everyone in this forum who will eventually read this reply and the entire thread.

open to a conversation


open to a conversation

open to a conversation

open to a conversation

topest kek. You were indeed trully open to a conversation last time we exchanged pms.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: PunksDead on Sun, 17 January 2016, 20:32:28
MITO nor signature plastcs ever trademarked the colorways. remember how tao hai gratuitously ripped off ctrlalt.ios colors in their "new" keysets? no trademarks filed for a particular colorway means its fair game

mod edit: removed personal attack

I don't approve this mod edit as there were no personal attacks

I would like to speak with the council on this matter
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: lucaslink on Sun, 17 January 2016, 20:42:51
However, despite of what you think I did create the set, since I spent many hours digitally painting a virtual keyboard layout and importing patially done sketched by hand drawings, to be used as novelty icons in the vector form.

Such icon is a letter "M" meant to represent my nickname on this forum even though it resembles a QRS trace. It looks vibrant and full of energy, like myself, so I decided to name the set "PuLSE".

I'm just gonna leave this here. I've found a bunch of the other icons you've used as well. I hope in the very least you're compensating the original designers of these icons whether by attribution or paying for a license to use.

https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=pulse&i=27272

As a designer myself, had you actually drew these icons I might have backed some of your sentiment. Time and again I've seen you post some very arrogant and ignorant statements to others in the community who want to create keysets. Since for the majority this is purely a hobby and not something we make a living at doing I would hope that we would encourage each other and not make bold claims about copyrights for colorways, etc. If we boycott a guy for wanting to design a keyset loosely similar to calm depths, should we not boycott 7bits honeywell sets? or how about the use of kalih, gateron, or any other clone cherry switch for ripping off the original? I don't think we should. All of the work that gets put into our keyboards, whether it be new switches, keysets, custom plates, cases or pcbs, only furthers innovation and creativity. To state ownership over a color combination that you might have been the first to come up with is, in my opinion, immature and ignorant.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: user 18 on Sun, 17 January 2016, 20:44:39
MITO nor signature plastcs ever trademarked the colorways. remember how tao hai gratuitously ripped off ctrlalt.ios colors in their "new" keysets? no trademarks filed for a particular colorway means its fair game

mod edit: removed personal attack

I don't approve this mod edit as there were no personal attacks

I would like to speak with the council on this matter

If you have a concern, please send me a PM.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: absyrd on Sun, 17 January 2016, 20:45:16
However, despite of what you think I did create the set, since I spent many hours digitally painting a virtual keyboard layout and importing patially done sketched by hand drawings, to be used as novelty icons in the vector form.

Such icon is a letter "M" meant to represent my nickname on this forum even though it resembles a QRS trace. It looks vibrant and full of energy, like myself, so I decided to name the set "PuLSE".

I'm just gonna leave this here. I've found a bunch of the other icons you've used as well. I hope in the very least you're compensating the original designers of these icons whether by attribution or paying for a license to use.

https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=pulse&i=27272

As a designer myself, had you actually drew these icons I might have backed some of your sentiment. Time and again I've seen you post some very arrogant and ignorant statements to others in the community who want to create keysets. Since for the majority this is purely a hobby and not something we make a living at doing I would hope that we would encourage each other and not make bold claims about copyrights for colorways, etc. If we boycott a guy for wanting to design a keyset loosely similar to calm depths, should we not boycott 7bits honeywell sets? or how about the use of kalih, gateron, or any other clone cherry switch for ripping off the original? I don't think we should. All of the work that gets put into our keyboards, whether it be new switches, keysets, custom plates, cases or pcbs, only furthers innovation and creativity. To state ownership over a color combination that you might have been the first to come up with is, in my opinion, immature and ignorant.

Beyond rekt.

And I own every colorway. Called dibs on them all.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: linkshine on Sun, 17 January 2016, 20:51:54
However, despite of what you think I did create the set, since I spent many hours digitally painting a virtual keyboard layout and importing patially done sketched by hand drawings, to be used as novelty icons in the vector form.

Such icon is a letter "M" meant to represent my nickname on this forum even though it resembles a QRS trace. It looks vibrant and full of energy, like myself, so I decided to name the set "PuLSE".

I'm just gonna leave this here. I've found a bunch of the other icons you've used as well. I hope in the very least you're compensating the original designers of these icons whether by attribution or paying for a license to use.

https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=pulse&i=27272

As a designer myself, had you actually drew these icons I might have backed some of your sentiment. Time and again I've seen you post some very arrogant and ignorant statements to others in the community who want to create keysets. Since for the majority this is purely a hobby and not something we make a living at doing I would hope that we would encourage each other and not make bold claims about copyrights for colorways, etc. If we boycott a guy for wanting to design a keyset loosely similar to calm depths, should we not boycott 7bits honeywell sets? or how about the use of kalih, gateron, or any other clone cherry switch for ripping off the original? I don't think we should. All of the work that gets put into our keyboards, whether it be new switches, keysets, custom plates, cases or pcbs, only furthers innovation and creativity. To state ownership over a color combination that you might have been the first to come up with is, in my opinion, immature and ignorant.

(http://31.media.tumblr.com/b7afadfc92c28d0f66fc42c0f7016e26/tumblr_ndlp7szgZN1qz9nvbo1_400.gif)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 20:54:30

https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=pulse&i=27272


That's indeed very interesting. The PuLSE icon is indeed created by Nico and wasn't one of the ones that I created and vectorized. The PuLSE icon was the result of a Google search (don't remember exactly what I googled) but I was looking for a pulse trace that would more closely resemble a letter "M".

Do you have other sources for graphics that I used?

Because the printer, the house and the RMK keycap (keyboard icon) ones were created by hand. The megaphone also is not my creation and it was the result of a Google search too (don't remember the exact word I used). All of the icons used on Sci-Fi are my creation too, but they are a combination of hand drawing and Microsoft Paint geometric forms combination.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: 27 on Sun, 17 January 2016, 20:55:07
However, despite of what you think I did create the set, since I spent many hours digitally painting a virtual keyboard layout and importing patially done sketched by hand drawings, to be used as novelty icons in the vector form.

Such icon is a letter "M" meant to represent my nickname on this forum even though it resembles a QRS trace. It looks vibrant and full of energy, like myself, so I decided to name the set "PuLSE".

I'm just gonna leave this here. I've found a bunch of the other icons you've used as well. I hope in the very least you're compensating the original designers of these icons whether by attribution or paying for a license to use.

https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=pulse&i=27272

As a designer myself, had you actually drew these icons I might have backed some of your sentiment. Time and again I've seen you post some very arrogant and ignorant statements to others in the community who want to create keysets. Since for the majority this is purely a hobby and not something we make a living at doing I would hope that we would encourage each other and not make bold claims about copyrights for colorways, etc. If we boycott a guy for wanting to design a keyset loosely similar to calm depths, should we not boycott 7bits honeywell sets? or how about the use of kalih, gateron, or any other clone cherry switch for ripping off the original? I don't think we should. All of the work that gets put into our keyboards, whether it be new switches, keysets, custom plates, cases or pcbs, only furthers innovation and creativity. To state ownership over a color combination that you might have been the first to come up with is, in my opinion, immature and ignorant.

(http://i.imgur.com/zDOtVRv.gif?gifm)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: heedpantsnow on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:05:32
It always seemed to me that Pulse was just a modification of Calm Depths (SA, cyan on dark alphas, same font?).
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:08:16
Also, since this thread was moved from other thread, I'd like to make clear (answering the title) that I do not believe that anybody can claim ownership over a color scheme.

In case anybody here want to use this as a backup for their argument, note that I never said that.

I do however claim that I was the first person to use a particular color scheme with Signature Plastics, also combining with it icons - all of them done by myself but the main logo/megaphone, together with their own font and particular profile (SA).
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: beehatch on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:11:08
I do however claim that I was the first person to use a particular color scheme with Signature Plastics, also combining with it icons - all of them done by myself but the main logo/megaphone, together with their own font and particular profile (SA).

kk so something no one cares about

gotcha
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:21:07
kk so something no one cares about

gotcha

I believe that some people care about that, otherwise we would had Penumbra 2 made by somebody else instead of Ctrl.Alt. Note that the set doesn't have graphic novelties and it's a pure combination of colors and legends (and one of the most likable ones, since the set is pretty popular). It's a very well made set and I don't think it should be reproduced by anyone other than Ctrl.Alt. One can be lead to believe that Godspeed/Cospar is a set that resembles Penumbra, but so does Jukebox with it's beige accents. Jukebox however has its own theme (like Godspeed/Cospar) and therefore is a completely different project. Note that none of the sets share color chips, if you are speaking about manufacturing.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Glenmael on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:23:14
Great documentary (if you can sit through it and not punch your screen):

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: beehatch on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:23:59
kk so something no one cares about

gotcha

I believe that some people care about that, otherwise we would had Penumbra 2 made by somebody else instead of Ctrl.Alt. Note that the set doesn't have graphic novelties and it's a pure combination of colors and legends (and one of the most likable ones, since the set is pretty popular). It's a very well made set and I don't think it should be reproduced either. One can be lead to believe that Godspeed/Cospar is a set that resembles Penumbra, but so does Jukebox with it's beige accents. Jukebox however has its own theme (like Godspeed/Cospar) and therefore is a completely different project. Note that none of the sets share color chips, if you are speaking about manufacturing.

literally no one cares if you are the first or the last to use a color(s)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: lucaslink on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:27:36

https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=pulse&i=27272


That's indeed very interesting. The PuLSE icon is indeed created by Nico and wasn't one of the ones that I created and vectorized. The PuLSE icon was the result of a Google search (don't remember exactly what I googled) but I was looking for a pulse trace that would more closely resemble a letter "M".

Do you have other sources for graphics that I used?

Because the printer, the house and the RMK keycap (keyboard icon) ones were created by hand. The megaphone also is not my creation and it was the result of a Google search too (don't remember the exact word I used). All of the icons used on Sci-Fi are my creation too, but they are a combination of hand drawing and Microsoft Paint geometric forms combination.

Overall I don't really care which icons you did or didn't create. And yes, I do have other sources for graphics you've used but I don't think it's worth either of our time in me posting them or calling you out on it, because in the end it doesn't really matter. Making an icon isn't really that difficult (I've made hundreds myself.) Nowadays with the influx of sites like nounproject, 8icon, etc, I don't expect that many of the 'novelties' I see in keysets are created by the set designers unless explicitly stated so. In this particular instance, while you didn't explicitly state you designed the pulse icon, you certainly alluded to it. Keysets AREN'T art. They're functional things that are meant to be used and enjoyed.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:29:07
It always seemed to me that Pulse was just a modification of Calm Depths (SA, cyan on dark alphas, same font?).

I understand your point of view, but the only thing they (CD and PuLSE) share is a somewhat similar cyan tone. Dark alphas is a bit too general in my opinion and at this point we might as well limit the use of SA profile altogether. Of course limiting the profile usage wouldn't make sense. Also, in the PuLSE discussion (Interest Check) people wasn't worried about Calm Depths but Midnight (from Matt3o), since the set was originally meant to be on DCS/Cherry profile.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: jaffers on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:31:52
Also, since this thread was moved from other thread, I'd like to make clear (answering the title) that I do not believe that anybody can claim ownership over a color scheme.

In case anybody here want to use this as a backup for their argument, note that I never said that.

I do however claim that I was the first person to use a particular color scheme with Signature Plastics, also combining with it icons - all of them done by myself but the main logo/megaphone, together with their own font and particular profile (SA).


... the concepts that define it as a custom keyset created by myself and therefore should not go through their system nor be allowed to happen without my strict permission. The premise is that such colorway, applied on keycaps created and manufactured by Signature Plastics is a design concept that I created...

(http://i.imgur.com/BRLDkTO.jpg)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: beehatch on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:38:39
brb going to IC my new sweet custom keyset now

PuLSE 2 - The second person to ever use this color scheme
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: jaffers on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:40:29
brb going to IC my new sweet custom keyset now

PuLSE 2 - The second person to ever use this color scheme


(http://i.imgur.com/3gc0TvO.jpg)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:45:44

Overall I don't really care which icons you did or didn't create. And yes, I do have other sources for graphics you've used but I don't think it's worth either of our time in me posting them or calling you out on it, because in the end it doesn't really matter. Making an icon isn't really that difficult (I've made hundreds myself.) Nowadays with the influx of sites like nounproject, 8icon, etc, I don't expect that many of the 'novelties' I see in keysets are created by the set designers unless explicitly stated so.


I agree that some icons are a bit too general (like the PuLSE trace) and aren't hard to create, but credit must be given to whoever created it. When looking for inspiration you can see that many graphics and drawings share angles, lines and curves. I do not claim ownership over Nico's trace nor the megaphone from (probably) somebody else. There wasn't a name or a source on the image I used so it was impossible to tell who created such general symbol. I searched for the closest trace that could resemble a letter "M", out of hundreds, reproduced it on Paint and went with it.

But I don't think you really have a source for "other icons that I used" since absolutely all of them but the trace/megaphone were done by me. And since you are a designer, you'll agree that wouldn't take too long to make them either. However there was a complex thought process behind their creation and usage.

In this particular instance, while you didn't explicitly state you designed the pulse icon, you certainly alluded to it. Keysets AREN'T art. They're functional things that are meant to be used and enjoyed.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, but as discussed by others here "art" is a subjective term and I believe that keysets fit into its literal description. Since you are speaking about functional things being used and enjoyed, note that many artisan keycaps fit into such description and are recognized as art. Many of them, are manufactured instead of hand crafted.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: bocahgundul on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:48:41
Also, since this thread was moved from other thread, I'd like to make clear (answering the title) that I do not believe that anybody can claim ownership over a color scheme.

In case anybody here want to use this as a backup for their argument, note that I never said that.

I do however claim that I was the first person to use a particular color scheme with Signature Plastics, also combining with it icons - all of them done by myself but the main logo/megaphone, together with their own font and particular profile (SA).


... the concepts that define it as a custom keyset created by myself and therefore should not go through their system nor be allowed to happen without my strict permission. The premise is that such colorway, applied on keycaps created and manufactured by Signature Plastics is a design concept that I created...

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/BRLDkTO.jpg)

Top kek
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: beehatch on Sun, 17 January 2016, 21:58:58
should change the title of this thread to:

An exclusive in-depth interview with Mito (who is not the owner of any colorways)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: demik on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:00:09
should change the title of this thread to:

An exclusive in-depth interview with Mito (who is not the owner of any colorways)

way better interview here:

https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=69023.0
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: tbc on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:04:31
Mito...

Just a word of advice.

Practice your legalese before putting it on a public forum.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:09:14
Another thing to note, given the material provided by lucaslink is that the PuLSE icon is under the CC 3.0 license that states:

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.


The terms being:

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.


Therefore others are free to use the PuLSE icon in whatever they want and I have no control over that. Such symbol was even used on custom made wrist rests.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: inanis on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:13:56
Another thing to note, given the material provided by lucaslink is that the PuLSE icon is under the CC 3.0 license that states:

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.


The terms being:

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.


Therefore others are free to use the PuLSE icon in whatever they want and I have no control over that. Such symbol was even used on custom made wrist rests.
Bro, you take yourself way to ****ing seriously. It is painful to read sometimes. Just take a step back and look at the big picture. Have a sense of humor about yourself.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: nubbinator on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:16:21
You're not helping yourself Mito.  You did not credit the creator of the icon which is what the Creative Commons license states must be done.

Additionally, you cannot copyright a colorway or arrangements of color and colors can only be trademarked as part of trade dress.  A set using a colorway is not trade dress.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: lucaslink on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:22:17
I agree that some icons are a bit too general (like the PuLSE trace) and aren't hard to create, but credit must be given to whoever created it. When looking for inspiration you can see that many graphics and drawings share angles, lines and curves. I do not claim ownership over Nico's trace nor the megaphone from (probably) somebody else. There wasn't a name or a source on the image I used so it was impossible to tell who created such general symbol. I searched for the closest trace that could resemble a letter "M", out of hundreds, reproduced it on Paint and went with it.

so, you admit to tracing the pulse icon and not giving Nico credit and/or compensation? yet, its not ok for others to design keysets that slightly resemble others? i don't get it. googling an image doesn't give you the right to use it in something for commercial use. and yes, if you're making money from the sale of any of your keysets, its commercial. its part of the reason why SP charges what they do to use custom typefaces. they have to pay the original designers licensing fees to use it. (im certain you already knew this.)

But I don't think you really have a source for "other icons that I used" since absolutely all of them but the trace/megaphone were done by me. And since you are a designer, you'll agree that wouldn't take too long to make them either. However there was a complex thought process behind their creation and usage.

OK fine.. https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=leaf&i=27507 you have that in one or two of your keysets, don't you? I didn't see it attributed in your IC posts. like i said, i reaaaaaaally don't care whether or not you create the icons. you made a keyset that people like and want to put on their keyboards. you should be proud of that, but that pride doesn't give you the right to step on others or claim ownership over things that you simply don't or can't own.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: demik on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:23:56
(http://static.highsnobiety.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/oral-history-diamond-supply-co-nike-sb-tiffany-dunk-0.jpg)

nike, diamond, and tiffany & co would like to have a word with you about using their color scheme
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:25:51
You're not helping yourself Mito.  You did not credit the creator of the icon which is what the Creative Commons license states must be done.

Additionally, you cannot copyright a colorway or arrangements of color and colors can only be trademarked as part of trade dress.  A set using a colorway is not trade dress.

Nor did the person who shared his icon (if he/she was even the first). I used the general shape that I found in good faith. Since such happening took place, according to the license it seems that the actual creator, Nico, can revoke usage of such symbol for any kind of application, including commercial reproduction. And since you're mentioning that's something that's clearly way beyond me.

As a response to the second half of your reply, note that it was written under the premise that I'm intending in copyright a color way. Which is not what I'm planning to do nor something that I agree with. It's an invalid point.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: jaffers on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:26:08
Another thing to note, given the material provided by lucaslink is that the PuLSE icon is under the CC 3.0 license that states:

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.


The terms being:

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.


Therefore others are free to use the PuLSE icon in whatever they want and I have no control over that. Such symbol was even used on custom made wrist rests.

Reading the T&C after the fact

(http://i.imgur.com/1iH3JWx.jpg)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zapheo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:32:04
This thread has certainly been... eye opening to say the least.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: nubbinator on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:33:39
You're not helping yourself Mito.  You did not credit the creator of the icon which is what the Creative Commons license states must be done.

Additionally, you cannot copyright a colorway or arrangements of color and colors can only be trademarked as part of trade dress.  A set using a colorway is not trade dress.

Nor did the person who shared his icon (if he/she was even the first). I used the general shape that I found in good faith. Since such happening took place, according to the license it seems that the actual creator, Nico, can revoke usage of such symbol for any kind of application, including commercial reproduction. And since you're mentioning that's something that's clearly way beyond me.

As a response to the second half of your reply, note that it was written under the premise that I'm intending in copyright a color way. Which is not what I'm planning to do nor something that I agree with. It's an invalid point.

If you created it and you post it under your name, you don't attribute yourself outside of your name you post it under.  In other words, I don't know what you're trying to say with that since you are not the creator.  If you use the identical design in a non-transformative way without attribution, you're violating the Creative Commons copyright.  That's why I said that your Creative Commons argument was one against yourself since you did not attribute the creator.

While you did not state that you were intending on copyrighting a color way, you did state that it belongs to you, is your concept, and should not be able to be run by someone else.  I was stating that you have no legal grounds for blocking someone from running that colorway if they wanted to do so.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: jaffers on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:35:37
You're not helping yourself Mito.  You did not credit the creator of the icon which is what the Creative Commons license states must be done.

Additionally, you cannot copyright a colorway or arrangements of color and colors can only be trademarked as part of trade dress.  A set using a colorway is not trade dress.

Nor did the person who shared his icon (if he/she was even the first). I used the general shape that I found in good faith. Since such happening took place, according to the license it seems that the actual creator, Nico, can revoke usage of such symbol for any kind of application, including commercial reproduction. And since you're mentioning that's something that's clearly way beyond me.

As a response to the second half of your reply, note that it was written under the premise that I'm intending in copyright a color way. Which is not what I'm planning to do nor something that I agree with. It's an invalid point.

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:43:18

so, you admit to tracing the pulse icon and not giving Nico credit and/or compensation? yet, its not ok for others to design keysets that slightly resemble others? i don't get it. googling an image doesn't give you the right to use it in something for commercial use. and yes, if you're making money from the sale of any of your keysets, its commercial. its part of the reason why SP charges what they do to use custom typefaces. they have to pay the original designers licensing fees to use it.


I used a general shape of a pulse icon as inspiration to create mine based on images that showed up after Google search. I do believe that it's not ok for other to reproduce keysets that are direct copy of others.

You say that I'm making money out of "sales", note that I only ran two keyset group buys in my whole life. The first one being PuLSE and the second one being Sci-Fi. I didn't receive any royalties from PuLSE, but the keyset itself, which was sold and the money donated to a local asylum. Sci-Fi, which was entirely and absolutely my creation featured royalties that, again, were donated to humanitarian/environmental causes.


OK fine.. https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=leaf&i=27507 you have that in one or two of your keysets, don't you? I didn't see it attributed in your IC posts. like i said, i reaaaaaaally don't care whether or not you create the icons. you made a keyset that people like and want to put on their keyboards. you should be proud of that, but that pride doesn't give you the right to step on others or claim ownership over things that you simply don't or can't own.

I made a very similar, if not identical, leaf using shapes on Inkscape and it already existing is nothing but a coincidence. It's a general shape of a leaf and I won't be surprised if similar leaves are used anywhere.

I'm not proud in the slightest that I made a keyset that people like. It's just plastic.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: digi on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:44:36
but the keyset itself, which was sold and the money donated to a local asylum.

now it's starting to make sense..
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: jaffers on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:51:51
but the keyset itself, which was sold and the money donated to a local asylum.

now it's starting to make sense..

Is it? I'd love to see a reciept
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 22:58:00


If you created it and you post it under your name, you don't attribute yourself outside of your name you post it under.  In other words, I don't know what you're trying to say with that since you are not the creator.  If you use the identical design in a non-transformative way without attribution, you're violating the Creative Commons copyright.  That's why I said that your Creative Commons argument was one against yourself since you did not attribute the creator.

While you did not state that you were intending on copyrighting a color way, you did state that it belongs to you, is your concept, and should not be able to be run by someone else.  I was stating that you have no legal grounds for blocking someone from running that colorway if they wanted to do so.

I don't remember if the image I used as reference was from some fancy unrealistic beat monitor (of course not a real one as no real wave/trace can have such pattern), a tattoo, an ambulance or whatever other kind of representation of a general symbol you can come up with after a Google search. One thing that I know is that it didn't have a source nor the ownership was claimed anywhere, and I understand what you're saying. It was never my intention to rip off the original creator. I was inspired by the symbol, thought it looked like an "M" and created one using circles and lines in such way that it represented a wave and an "M".

You are completely right, blocking someone from running such colorway by copyright is beyond my powers (if I have any) and it's up to Signature Plastics to decide what to do. I'm merely here displaying my opinion that keyset designs should be protected by them, since somebody else designed similar stuff in the past.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: lucaslink on Sun, 17 January 2016, 23:35:24
I don't remember if the image I used as reference was from some fancy unrealistic beat monitor (of course not a real one as no real wave/trace can have such pattern), a tattoo, an ambulance or whatever other kind of representation of a general symbol you can come up with after a Google search. One thing that I know is that it didn't have a source nor the ownership was claimed anywhere, and I understand what you're saying. It was never my intention to rip off the original creator. I was inspired by the symbol, thought it looked like an "M" and created one using circles and lines in such way that it represented a wave and an "M".

I used a general shape of a pulse icon as inspiration to create mine based on images that showed up after Google search. I do believe that it's not ok for other to reproduce keysets that are direct copy of others.

(http://i.imgur.com/SSiA8dv.gif)

I made a very similar, if not identical, leaf using shapes on Inkscape and it already existing is nothing but a coincidence. It's a general shape of a leaf and I won't be surprised if similar leaves are used anywhere.

You know, if you had just said 'oh yeah i used those icons' I think most of us would've been like 'ok cool whatever who cares.' but now you're claiming to have made the leaf?!

below are 2 screenshots from this http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png (http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png) godspeed IC image with the original icons overlaid.

(http://i.imgur.com/nhuvKoW.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/UZppjpV.gif)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Sun, 17 January 2016, 23:36:30
It might be helpful, at this point, to reiterate two salient facts:

1. You can not copyright, trademark, or patent a color scheme unless it is combined with other distinctive elements that, together, form a corporate identity (e.g., magenta and orange, with the right typeface, combine to form the Dunkin' Donuts "identity"). It is possible that the graphics for individual keys could be copyrighted, but that protection would not extend to the set as a whole, and certainly not the color scheme.

2. Signature Plastics has their own policies with regard to honoring claims of creative ownership over keycap designs submitted to them for manufacture. These policies have no connection with actual law, are arbitrary in their entirety, and subject to change at any time. It would be a mistake to think that because SP extends a facsimile of protection, it is the same as protection under U.S. copyright law (or trademark law, or patent law).

Nobody has control over keycap designs. Not really. Designers may feel entitled to control, and much of the mech keyboard community may be willing to indulge that entitlement, but it is really pretty illusory when you get right down to it.

I myself plan to begin an interest check campaign for a dual-blue colorway based on the old Data General Dasher keyboards. I'm not the first to think of this: facetsame embarked on a much more elaborate project involving this color scheme, which has stalled, and in a perfect world my project will not step on his toes. And in a perfect world, nobody else will beat either of us to the punch, but anything can happen.

Most of the world would find this conversation bewildering, and I can't say I blame them.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: linkshine on Sun, 17 January 2016, 23:44:11


You know, if you had just said 'oh yeah i used those icons' I think most of us would've been like 'ok cool whatever who cares.' but now you're claiming to have made the leaf?!


(http://www.thenug.com/sites/default/pub/091313/thenug-P8JsRLcYWk.gif)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: 27 on Sun, 17 January 2016, 23:49:46
MiTo

(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/i-made-this-comic.jpg)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: nmur on Sun, 17 January 2016, 23:51:44
More
I don't remember if the image I used as reference was from some fancy unrealistic beat monitor (of course not a real one as no real wave/trace can have such pattern), a tattoo, an ambulance or whatever other kind of representation of a general symbol you can come up with after a Google search. One thing that I know is that it didn't have a source nor the ownership was claimed anywhere, and I understand what you're saying. It was never my intention to rip off the original creator. I was inspired by the symbol, thought it looked like an "M" and created one using circles and lines in such way that it represented a wave and an "M".

I used a general shape of a pulse icon as inspiration to create mine based on images that showed up after Google search. I do believe that it's not ok for other to reproduce keysets that are direct copy of others.

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/SSiA8dv.gif)


I made a very similar, if not identical, leaf using shapes on Inkscape and it already existing is nothing but a coincidence. It's a general shape of a leaf and I won't be surprised if similar leaves are used anywhere.

You know, if you had just said 'oh yeah i used those icons' I think most of us would've been like 'ok cool whatever who cares.' but now you're claiming to have made the leaf?!

below are 2 screenshots from this http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png (http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png) godspeed IC image with the original icons overlaid.

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/nhuvKoW.gif)

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/UZppjpV.gif)

wow! what a crazy coincidence! they're exactly the same!
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Sun, 17 January 2016, 23:54:47

You know, if you had just said 'oh yeah i used those icons' I think most of us would've been like 'ok cool whatever who cares.' but now you're claiming to have made the leaf?!

below are 2 screenshots from this http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png (http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png) godspeed IC image with the original icons overlaid.

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/nhuvKoW.gif)

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/UZppjpV.gif)


About the PuLSE icon, it looks exactly the same and it's clearly from Nico. The diameter of the edges and angles are in fact identical and this is not a surprise, since I used an image featuring his icon as reference to create a logo for the set.

I can't say anything but repeat that the the leaf is an incredible coincidence. Not a surprise though, since it's a general shape with an closed angle cut. Anyone can do this is less than five minutes and I created the one I used from scratch.

The planet is a scan from a newsletter from my university, they used this icon as a tag for highlighting their website on the back of the newsletter. They also have the Facebook iconic "f" and a small phone to highlight their telephone number.

At this point you guys discussing ownership of everything might as well discuss the ownership of the shape of our planet and a leaf. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: 27 on Sun, 17 January 2016, 23:55:55

You know, if you had just said 'oh yeah i used those icons' I think most of us would've been like 'ok cool whatever who cares.' but now you're claiming to have made the leaf?!

below are 2 screenshots from this http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png (http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png) godspeed IC image with the original icons overlaid.

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/nhuvKoW.gif)

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/UZppjpV.gif)


About the PuLSE icon, it looks exactly the same and it's clearly from Nico. The diameter of the edges and angles are in fact identical and this is not a surprise, since I used an image featuring his icon as reference to create a logo for the set.

I can't say anything but repeat that the the leaf is an incredible coincidence. Not a surprise though, since it's a general shape with an closed angle cut. Anyone can do this is less than five minutes.

The planet is a scan from a newsletter from my university, they used this icon as a tag for highlighting their website on the back of the newsletter. They also have the Facebook iconic "f" and a small phone to highlight their telephone number.

At this point you guys discussing ownership of everything might as well discuss the ownership of the shape of our planet and a leaf. Good luck with that.

Bull
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: linkshine on Sun, 17 January 2016, 23:58:03

You know, if you had just said 'oh yeah i used those icons' I think most of us would've been like 'ok cool whatever who cares.' but now you're claiming to have made the leaf?!

below are 2 screenshots from this http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png (http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png) godspeed IC image with the original icons overlaid.

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/nhuvKoW.gif)

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/UZppjpV.gif)



About the PuLSE icon, it looks exactly the same and it's clearly from Nico. The diameter of the edges and angles are in fact identical and this is not a surprise, since I used an image featuring his icon as reference to create a logo for the set.

I can't say anything but repeat that the the leaf is an incredible coincidence. Not a surprise though, since it's a general shape with an closed angle cut. Anyone can do this is less than five minutes and I created the one I used from scratch.

The planet is a scan from a newsletter from my university, they used this icon as a tag for highlighting their website on the back of the newsletter. They also have the Facebook iconic "f" and a small phone to highlight their telephone number.

At this point you guys discussing ownership of everything might as well discuss the ownership of the shape of our planet and a leaf. Good luck with that.


you expect us to believe you just created that EXACT shape down to the angles and curves???
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:10:45
you expect us to believe you just created that EXACT shape down to the angles and curves???

You're talking about the beat icon I suppose, so I break down the process:

1. I searched for a wave/beat shape that would resemble a letter "M";
2. Found one represented on either a fancy (unrealistic) sound beat monitor or something else, don't remember exactly what it was since I ran through hundreds of pictures;
3. Used Paint circles and lines tool to make such shape in plain black color so I could export it;
4. Applied it to the mockups.

For the leaf I created it from scratch and again, the planet was a scan from a printed paper. I have absolutely no idea about who created the planet, but it is on the newsletter which is released every semester. I don't have pictures of such print as I'm on mobile, but can provide if requested.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: nmur on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:12:45

For the leaf I created it from scratch

I'm having a lot of trouble believing this

it's literally exactly the same. the style, the curves, the scale...
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: linkshine on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:13:31
you expect us to believe you just created that EXACT shape down to the angles and curves???

You're talking about the beat icon I suppose, so I break down the process:

1. I searched for a wave/beat shape that would resemble a letter "M";
2. Found one represented on either a fancy (unrealistic) sound beat monitor or something else, don't remember exactly what it was since I ran through hundreds of pictures;
3. Used Paint circles and lines tool to make such shape in plain black color so I could export it;
4. Applied it to the mockups.

For the leaf I created it from scratch and again, the planet was a scan from a printed paper. I have absolutely no idea about who created the planet, but it is on the newsletter which is released every semester. I don't have pictures of such print as I'm on mobile, but can provide if requested.

im talkin about the leaf...
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: 27 on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:15:03
you expect us to believe you just created that EXACT shape down to the angles and curves???

You're talking about the beat icon I suppose, so I break down the process:

1. I searched for a wave/beat shape that would resemble a letter "M";
2. Found one represented on either a sound beat monitor or something else, don't remember exactly what it was since I ran through hundreds of pictures;
3. Used Paint circles and lines tool to make such shape in plain black color so I could export it;
4. Applied it to the mockups.

For the leaf I created it from scratch and again, the planet was a scan from a printed paper. I have absolutely no idea about who created the planet, but it is on the newsletter which is released every semester. I don't have pictures of such print as I'm on mobile, but can provide if requested.

The leaf you made by scratch, I highly doubt that... Just own up already, you took the icons and didn't  attribute.  Stop lying when all the facts are out.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: NiceAndCreamy on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:22:09
you expect us to believe you just created that EXACT shape down to the angles and curves???

You're talking about the beat icon I suppose, so I break down the process:

1. I searched for a wave/beat shape that would resemble a letter "M";
2. Found one represented on either a fancy (unrealistic) sound beat monitor or something else, don't remember exactly what it was since I ran through hundreds of pictures;
3. Used Paint circles and lines tool to make such shape in plain black color so I could export it;
4. Applied it to the mockups.

For the leaf I created it from scratch and again, the planet was a scan from a printed paper. I have absolutely no idea about who created the planet, but it is on the newsletter which is released every semester. I don't have pictures of such print as I'm on mobile, but can provide if requested.

All THREE are identical and you expect us to believe this was all coincidence. You've been had, it's time to stop digging the hole deeper. just my 2c
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:24:07

For the leaf I created it from scratch

I'm having a lot of trouble believing this

it's literally exactly the same. the style, the curves, the scale...

It's the only style that I know how to work with. I'm no master when it comes to drawing complex forms or shapes, all I know is how to combine geometric elements. For the leaf I used circles and kept changing the curvature until I had a natural shape. After that, I used the "Ink pen" tool from Inkscape to make the part that sticks in the branch (tail? don't know the proper name in English) and a negative of this same shape, in order to complete the form of a leaf.

It's a general shape, very easy to make and an unfortunate coincidence, whether you believe it or not.

If you take Sci-Fi icons, weapons and grenades you will see the same kind of style, curvature and shapes. Again, it's the only style I can make as I'm not talented enough to make complex things like a sloth with hair, eyes and stuff like that.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: 27 on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:31:00

For the leaf I created it from scratch

I'm having a lot of trouble believing this

it's literally exactly the same. the style, the curves, the scale...

It's the only style that I know how to work with. I'm no master when it comes to drawing complex forms or shapes, all I know is how to combine geometric elements. For the leaf I used circles and kept changing the curvature until I had a natural shape. After that, I used the "Ink pen" tool from Inkscape to make the part that sticks in the branch (tail? don't know the proper name in English) and a negative of this same shape, in order to complete the form of a leaf.

It's a general shape, very easy to make and an unfortunate coincidence, whether you believe it or not.

If you take Sci-Fi icons, weapons and grenades you will see the same kind of style, curvature and shapes. Again, it's the only style I can make as I'm not talented enough to make complex things like a sloth with hair, eyes and stuff like that.

You aren't talented at all MiTo, as shown by the theft of your icons.  3/3 icons perfectly match, and that is no coincidence.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: nmur on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:31:57

For the leaf I created it from scratch

I'm having a lot of trouble believing this

it's literally exactly the same. the style, the curves, the scale...

It's the only style that I know how to work with. I'm no master when it comes to drawing complex forms or shapes, all I know is how to combine geometric elements. For the leaf I used circles and kept changing the curvature until I had a natural shape. After that, I used the "Ink pen" tool from Inkscape to make the part that sticks in the branch (tail? don't know the proper name in English) and a negative of this same shape, in order to complete the form of a leaf.

It's a general shape, very easy to make and an unfortunate coincidence, whether you believe it or not.

If you take Sci-Fi icons, weapons and grenades you will see the same kind of style, curvature and shapes. Again, it's the only style I can make as I'm not talented enough to make complex things like a sloth with hair, eyes and stuff like that.

it's not a general shape though. that would be a circle or a square, something that has very few dimensions and variables

that leaf looks simple, but it could easily vary in many aspects, especially the curvatures

why you always lyin
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:46:49
Keep arguing about icons that were used on a mockup which is secondary and won't even be produced with the Godspeed keyset.

I created a general leaf, despite of what you all think but I didn't create the planet, the PuLSE icon and the cosmonaut helmet. The cosmonaut helmet was also featured in the newsletter so I assume it has the same origins from the planet.

Two sets of my making went into production already. All of their legends and icons are my absolute creation from scratch, but the PuLSE logo. The only icon featured on Godspeed is a combo between the hydrogen atom structure and the curved shape from NASA's logo. I created it from scratch and absolutely nobody else did.

Use your own judgement to witch hunt on me, with all the facts on the table.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: 27 on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:49:12
Keep arguing about icons that were used on a mockup which is secondary and won't even be produced with the Godspeed keyset.

I created a general leaf, despite of what you all think but I didn't create the planet, the PuLSE icon and the cosmonaut helmet. The cosmonaut helmet was also featured in the newsletter so I assume it has the same origins from the planet.

Two sets of my making went into production already. All of their legends and icons are my absolute creation from scratch, but the PuLSE logo. The only icon featured on Godspeed is a combo between the hydrogen atom structure and the curved shape from NASA's logo. I created it from scratch and absolutely nobody else did.

Use your own judgement to witch hunt on me, with all the facts on the table.

Can you provide any sort of proof of these claims?  Witch hunts are without basis, and I think we have plenty of basis.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: jaffers on Mon, 18 January 2016, 00:54:33
Q. If a man and a half digs a hole and a half in an hour and a half, how long does it take for one man to dig one hole?

A. Scenario # 1:

As stated before, there is no such thing as half a hole (as half a hole is still a hole) and there is no such thing as half a man (as half a man cannot dig). Making these two assumptions, the original problem simplified to:

If a man digs a hole and a half in an hour and a half, how long does it take to dig one hole?

Assuming constant digging rate and through linear interpolation we can state that the answer is 1 hour

Scenario  # 2:

Lets assume:
There is such a thing as half a hole; If a hole is of dept X, then half a hole is of dept [X/2].
There is such a thing as half a man. However, this half-man, does not work at the same rate as a full-man (as explained later).
Both half-man and full-man work at a constant rate.

Making these assumptions the original question still stands.
 
Solution:
Lets take into consideration the various cases as illustrated in figure 1 below:

(https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-edf9bbd0f6df0023031c15a5adf07e0b?convert_to_webp=true)

                 [Figure 1: Case breakdown]  - In accordance to assumption 2

* Operational efficiency = Rate of work where a full-man is used as control. A full-man's operational efficiency is 1.

Case 1 calculations:

As per the figure 1(case 1), 2 men can dig 1.5 hole in 1.5 hour
Hence, 1 man in 1.5 hour digs 0.75 hole (=1.5/2; linear interpolation and in accordance to assumption 3)
Hence, 1 man in 1 hour digs 0.5 hold (=0.75/1.5 linear interpolation and in accordance to assumption 3)
Therefore, 1 man in 2 hours digs 1 hole (linear interpolation and in accordance to assumption 1 and assumption 3)

Case 2 calculations:

As per the figure 1(case 2), 1 men can dig 1.5 hole in 1.5 hour
Hence, 1 man in 1 hour digs 1 hole (same as answer # 1 and in accordance to assumption 3)

Case 3&4 calculations:

As per the figure 1(case 3 and case 4), 1.5 men can dig 1.5 hole in 1.5 hour
Hence, 1 man in 1.5 hour digs 1 hole (=1.5/1.5; linear interpolation)

Case 5 calculations:

Case specific assumption - this half man is half the size as a full man. Hence, he works at half the rate (or half the operational efficiency).

As per the figure 1(case 5), 1.5 men can dig 1.5 hole in 1.5 hour
Hence, 1 man in 1.5 hour digs 1 hole (=1.5/1.5; linear interpolation)

Overall:
Given that all cases are mutually exclusive we need to take an expected average.
Expected average = 0.2(2 hour) + 0.2(1 hour) + 0.4(1.5 hour) + 0.2(1.5 hour) = 1.50 hour


Final Answer:

Given that scenario # 1 and scenario # 2 are mutually exclusive events but both scenarios are equally likely,

Total expected time = Probability of scenario 1*(time of scenario 1) + Probability of scenario 2*(time of scenario 2)
                             = 0.5(1hour) + 0.5(1.5hour)
                             = 1.25 hour

Hence, I expect 1 man to dig 1 hole in 1.25 hour
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 01:14:27
Can you provide any sort of proof of these claims?  Witch hunts are without basis, and I think we have plenty of basis.

We already know who created the PuLSE logo. The planet and the cosmonaut are from the newsletter, sadly I don't have any picture of it with me right now but I can search for one on the campus once my classes start again. Regardless, we already know that it is from some symbol/icon database.

The leaf was created on Inkscape and I can provide screenshots of each ink/shape element that gives it its form separately and also the final result. All of the Sci-Fi icons and Godspeed's logo were created like that. PuLSE icons were also done like that too but in Paint. The forms lucaslink gifed were vectors from a paper print but the leaf, which again I created.

Don't expect an answer anytime soon though, since I'm heading to college finals tomorrow and will only browse the internet casually/address to more important things than proving myself to doubters, whether they have reason to do that or not.


Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: azhdar on Mon, 18 January 2016, 01:30:37
lucaslink I love u. I want you to carry your babies.

@MiTo I hope you realise we are not on your butt just to be annoying to you, but like inanis said perfectly :


Another thing to note, given the material provided by lucaslink is that the PuLSE icon is under the CC 3.0 license that states:

You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.


The terms being:

Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.


Therefore others are free to use the PuLSE icon in whatever they want and I have no control over that. Such symbol was even used on custom made wrist rests.
Bro, you take yourself way to ****ing seriously. It is painful to read sometimes. Just take a step back and look at the big picture. Have a sense of humor about yourself.

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: 27 on Mon, 18 January 2016, 01:33:01
How's it smell up there MiTo? Youre so far up your own ass it's scary.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Niomosy on Mon, 18 January 2016, 03:13:13
Looks like the mods split off the discussion I ended up starting within the other thread and we have this bit of entertainment.

My question originally started with the policies of SP specifically.  What has been said explicitly is that SP will remove the set from regular production if requested.  They have not explicitly stated beyond that as far as I'm aware which is why my question came up.

But as we're getting into legal discussions here, let's bring that information out.

Reading into this, the pulse symbol in discussion would seem to fall under unprotected status via the first statement, 202.1 / 906.2 as a familiar symbol or design.  Those symbols are readily available and readily used; I've seen Red Hat use it on their site as well and it pretty much looks like that same pulse symbol.  In fact, I would dare say a fair number of novelty caps might fall under this category to be honest.  So while I disagree with MiTo with regard to sets and colorways, it looks like that pulse symbol is free and clear to use as it seems to be unprotected. 


Quote
http://www.copyright.gov/title37/202/37cfr202-1.html (http://www.copyright.gov/title37/202/37cfr202-1.html)
§202.1   Material not subject to copyright.
The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:
(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;
(b) Ideas, plans, methods, systems, or devices, as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing;
(c) Blank forms, such as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in themselves convey information;
(d) Works consisting entirely of information that is common property containing no original authorship, such as, for example: Standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, schedules of sporting events, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources.
(e) Typeface as typeface.


----------


906 - uncopyrightable material.  Including some highlights  http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf (http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf)

906.1 Common Geometric Shapes
The Copyright Act does not protect common geometric shapes, either in twodimensional or three-dimensional form. There are numerous common geometric shapes, including, without limitation, straight or curved lines, circles, ovals, spheres, triangles, cones, squares, squares, cubes, rectangles, diamonds, trapezoids, parallelograms, pentagons, hexagons, heptagons, octagons, and decagons. Generally, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a work that merely consists of common geometric shapes unless the author’s use of those shapes results in a work that, as a whole, is sufficiently creative.

906.2 Familiar Symbols and Designs
Familiar symbols and designs are not protected by the Copyright Act. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a). Likewise, the copyright law does not protect mere variations on a familiar symbol or design, either in two or three-dimensional form. For representative examples of symbols or designs that cannot be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, see Chapter 300, Section 313.4(J). A work that includes familiar symbols or designs may be registered if the registration specialist determines that the author used these elements in a creative manner and that the work as a whole is eligible for copyright protection.

906.3:
Mere coloration or mere variations in coloring alone are not eligible for copyright
protection. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a).

Merely adding or changing one or relatively few colors in a work, or combining expected
or familiar pairs or sets of colors is not copyrightable, regardless of whether the changes
are made by hand, computer, or some other process. This is the case even if the
coloration makes a work more aesthetically pleasing or commercially valuable. For
example, the Office will not register a visual art work if the author merely added
relatively few colors to a preexisting design or simply created multiple colorized
versions of the same basic design. Copyright Registration for Colorized Versions of Black
and White Motion Pictures, 52 Fed. Reg. 23,443, 23,444 (June 22, 1987). Likewise, the
Office generally will not register a visual art work if the author merely applied colors to
aid in the visual display of a graph, chart, table, device, or other article.

906.8:
Functional and Useful Elements

The copyright law does not protect useful articles, utilitarian designs, or any functional
portion of a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. However, the decorative
ornamentation on a useful article may be registrable if it is separable from the
functional aspects of that article. For example, a lamp is a considered a useful article,
because it has an intrinsic utilitarian function, namely, to provide lighting. By contrast, a
three-dimensional floral design affixed to the base of a lamp or a two-dimensional
garden design painted on a lamp shade does not have a useful purpose. The U.S.
Copyright Office may register those design elements if they are separable from the
functional aspects of the lamp and if they are sufficiently original and creative. Fabrica,
Inc. v. El Dorado Corp., 697 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1983) (“if an article has any intrinsic
utilitarian function, it can be denied copyright protection except to the extent that its
artistic features can be identified separately and are capable of existing independently
as a work of art”).
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 03:20:41
To solve the icon/symbol ownership issue, and to cease the discussion towards "stolen art" even though the only art I ever used on an actual real production project without giving credit to the creator was PuLSE's logo, I have now bought the complete license to all of the icons linked by lucaslink in this thread plus the entire database of icons from The Noun Project.

I now have unlimited license to use the following icons:

Leaf;
• Cosmonaut;
• Planet Earth;
• PuLSE's Logo;
• and every other icon that's featured on The Noun Project database.


I actually bought the premium membership, so I can download and use absolutely all of the icons (over 150,000 icons) displayed on the site without having to give credit to their respective creators, even for commercial use, reproduction and modification. Absolute and complete license. I didn't do this before because I didn't even know what the source for such icons was. You can pay $1,99 for each icon that you want or pay $9,99 for a monthly membership that can be canceled at any time. I chose the latter since my college will make good use of this account (and they are funding it anyway).

https://thenounproject.com/accounts/pricing/#

My position towards color schemes protection (and not ownership) remain and I'd like to hear back from Signature Plastics and other people's civil opinion about that.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: KoalaKaiser on Mon, 18 January 2016, 04:56:28
Hah that's great.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: xondat on Mon, 18 January 2016, 05:14:47
(http://i.imgur.com/ZzWDX7V.png)

Just created this since colorway is a weird topic - colors are NN and BFQ. I'm naming it "Surge".

(http://41.media.tumblr.com/981b9455b35ca551cbfd2227110b9da2/tumblr_mhgcs6PtMw1qgbu2uo1_1280.png)

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: bocahgundul on Mon, 18 January 2016, 05:16:08
Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/ZzWDX7V.png)


Just created this since colorway is a weird topic - colors are NN and BFQ. I'm naming it "Surge".

Show Image
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/981b9455b35ca551cbfd2227110b9da2/tumblr_mhgcs6PtMw1qgbu2uo1_1280.png)

Change the font to cherry and its all perfect  :p
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: KoalaKaiser on Mon, 18 January 2016, 05:21:44
To solve the icon/symbol ownership issue, and to cease the discussion towards "stolen art" even though the only art I ever used on an actual real production project without giving credit to the creator was PuLSE's logo, I have now bought the complete license to all of the icons linked by lucaslink in this thread plus the entire database of icons from The Noun Project.

I now have unlimited license to use the following icons:

Leaf;
• Cosmonaut;
• Planet Earth;
• PuLSE's Logo;
• and every other icon that's featured on The Noun Project database.


I actually bought the premium membership, so I can download and use absolutely all of the icons (over 150,000 icons) displayed on the site without having to give credit to their respective creators, even for commercial use, reproduction and modification. Absolute and complete license. I didn't do this before because I didn't even know what the source for such icons was. You can pay $1,99 for each icon that you want or pay $9,99 for a monthly membership that can be canceled at any time. I chose the latter since my college will make good use of this account (and they are funding it anyway).

https://thenounproject.com/accounts/pricing/#

My position towards color schemes protection (and not ownership) remain and I'd like to hear back from Signature Plastics and other people's civil opinion about that.

Thanks for just linking us to the buy a membership page.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Mon, 18 January 2016, 05:27:38
Wait, it's Christmas again already?!
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: xondat on Mon, 18 January 2016, 05:31:01
Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/ZzWDX7V.png)


Just created this since colorway is a weird topic - colors are NN and BFQ. I'm naming it "Surge".

Show Image
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/981b9455b35ca551cbfd2227110b9da2/tumblr_mhgcs6PtMw1qgbu2uo1_1280.png)

Change the font to cherry and its all perfect  :p

(http://i.imgur.com/fBWPcOY.png)

So I'll start the IC thread later today I guess. 1 person is enough interest!
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Mon, 18 January 2016, 05:34:55
Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/ZzWDX7V.png)


Just created this since colorway is a weird topic - colors are NN and BFQ. I'm naming it "Surge".

Show Image
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/981b9455b35ca551cbfd2227110b9da2/tumblr_mhgcs6PtMw1qgbu2uo1_1280.png)

Change the font to cherry and its all perfect  :p

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/fBWPcOY.png)


So I'll start the IC thread later today I guess. 1 person is enough interest!

ISO please
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zambumon on Mon, 18 January 2016, 05:35:43
In this thread some people have deviated from an important community question to (again) a personal interrogatory. I don't care how the hell this was started but the question was:

Quote
What happens if someone submits new paperwork / art for an existing colorway, naming it something else and either changing or eliminating novelties?

Quote
My question originally started with the policies of SP specifically.  What has been said explicitly is that SP will remove the set from regular production if requested.  They have not explicitly stated beyond that as far as I'm aware which is why my question came up.

 I'll try to expose my opinion the best I can.

Who owns a color way?

Legally, it has been demonstrated in this thread by multiple members that you cannot own a color way, unless as zslane stated:

Quote
1. You can not copyright, trademark, or patent a color scheme unless it is combined with other distinctive elements that, together, form a corporate identity (e.g., magenta and orange, with the right typeface, combine to form the Dunkin' Donuts "identity"). It is possible that the graphics for individual keys could be copyrighted, but that protection would not extend to the set as a whole, and certainly not the color scheme.

Now, we are speaking about custom ABS and PBT keycaps manufactured by a company (Signature Plastics), which may or may not produce a keyset if they consider it appropiate:

Quote
*Not all keysets will be produced; production decisions are made at the discretion of the Pimp My Keyboard team.

 Source (http://pimpmykeyboard.com/pages.php?pageid=8)

 Signature Plastics has the last word. If they consider that a new keycap set is too similar to a previous one, or simply dislike it!, they decide whether it will produced or not regardless of what any of us could say.


Personally speaking and ignoring any laws, I don't think that anybody owns a color way. For instance, 1976 is based on a poster made by Sebastian Nordlund  which is a ripoff another original artwork… Instant_sunshine said something about the story of this color scheme over reddit 5 months ago (https://www.reddit.com/r/MechanicalKeyboards/comments/3heokx/keyboard_art_1971_enter_key_test_print/cu6zr3r)). For me, a good set is a combination of a color scheme, back story, novelties, and child deals.
Can one set be similar to another? Sure.


But What would be your reaction if I posted something like this? If you answer this question, say the first thing it comes to your mind.
Quote
Hey guys, here is an idea that I've been having for a while, you know I am a music engineer who spends lots of times a day looking my computer screen producing songs. I thought it would be a good idea to have a keyset inspired by sound, which I called "Wave". Wave features an energetic color scheme featuring black Alphas and bright green modifiers. It will remind you of sound editors like Adobe Audition

Show Image
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/pbblogassets/uploads/2012/12/Adobe-Audition.png)


Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/GG9Z4Og.png)


It has a color scheme, novelties, back story (more or less, I did this in 10 minutes), and if this was serious, child deals.

Imagine if I picked the same idea and inverted the color scheme, what would you think about the set now? This is a tricky question, to be honest.

In conclusion, a color way isn't copyrighted,you can submit to SP a copy of another set but they will not manufacture it. What happens to similar color ways depends on the community and what they think about it, we should encourage sets with back stories, good novelties independently of their similarity with a color way, but there I also think that there are some lines that shouldn't be crossed.

PD: Please, don't make this another circle jerk thread.







 
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: xondat on Mon, 18 January 2016, 06:17:08
Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/ZzWDX7V.png)


Just created this since colorway is a weird topic - colors are NN and BFQ. I'm naming it "Surge".

Show Image
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/981b9455b35ca551cbfd2227110b9da2/tumblr_mhgcs6PtMw1qgbu2uo1_1280.png)

Change the font to cherry and its all perfect  :p

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/fBWPcOY.png)


So I'll start the IC thread later today I guess. 1 person is enough interest!

ISO please

Your wish is my pleasure -

(http://i.imgur.com/2yDJBLq.png)

Also why isn't this just sold as the standard kit - full ANSI/ISO compatibility.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Lepidus on Mon, 18 January 2016, 06:22:44
I don't remember if the image I used as reference was from some fancy unrealistic beat monitor (of course not a real one as no real wave/trace can have such pattern), a tattoo, an ambulance or whatever other kind of representation of a general symbol you can come up with after a Google search. One thing that I know is that it didn't have a source nor the ownership was claimed anywhere, and I understand what you're saying. It was never my intention to rip off the original creator. I was inspired by the symbol, thought it looked like an "M" and created one using circles and lines in such way that it represented a wave and an "M".

I used a general shape of a pulse icon as inspiration to create mine based on images that showed up after Google search. I do believe that it's not ok for other to reproduce keysets that are direct copy of others.

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/SSiA8dv.gif)


I made a very similar, if not identical, leaf using shapes on Inkscape and it already existing is nothing but a coincidence. It's a general shape of a leaf and I won't be surprised if similar leaves are used anywhere.

You know, if you had just said 'oh yeah i used those icons' I think most of us would've been like 'ok cool whatever who cares.' but now you're claiming to have made the leaf?!

below are 2 screenshots from this http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png (http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png) godspeed IC image with the original icons overlaid.

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/nhuvKoW.gif)

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/UZppjpV.gif)


lol, this is embarrassing.


Now, we are speaking about custom ABS and PBT keycaps manufactured by a company (Signature Plastics), which may or may not produce a keyset if they consider it appropiate:

Quote
*Not all keysets will be produced; production decisions are made at the discretion of the Pimp My Keyboard team.

 Source (http://pimpmykeyboard.com/pages.php?pageid=8)

 Signature Plastics has the last word. If they consider that a new keycap set is too similar to a previous one, or simply dislike it!, they decide whether it will produced or not regardless of what any of us could say

I guess the real question is regarding what SP limits are. For example, they had no problem allowing Think Different to happen, while pretty much everybody can see the similarities with granite. With their stock dyesub dsa sets, for sale at pmk, you can even get the same alphas/mods colors.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: KoalaKaiser on Mon, 18 January 2016, 06:43:35
Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/ZzWDX7V.png)


Just created this since colorway is a weird topic - colors are NN and BFQ. I'm naming it "Surge".

Show Image
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/981b9455b35ca551cbfd2227110b9da2/tumblr_mhgcs6PtMw1qgbu2uo1_1280.png)

Change the font to cherry and its all perfect  :p

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/fBWPcOY.png)


So I'll start the IC thread later today I guess. 1 person is enough interest!

ISO please

Your wish is my pleasure -

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/2yDJBLq.png)


Also why isn't this just sold as the standard kit - full ANSI/ISO compatibility.


This has all the koalas in the world backing this keyset. Marsupial guarantee.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: hwood34 on Mon, 18 January 2016, 10:51:03
you make keysets quit taking yourself so ****ing seriously
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Bromono on Mon, 18 January 2016, 10:55:11
I am an internet lawyer and I say no.

This is done.

Lock thread.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: absyrd on Mon, 18 January 2016, 10:55:29
I'm just here so I don't get fined.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 11:48:25
Does anyone know of a keycap set that tanked during the interest check phase solely because its colorway was the same as a pre-existing set?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Steezus on Mon, 18 January 2016, 11:52:20
Does anyone know of a keycap set that tanked during the interest check phase solely because its colorway was the same as a pre-existing set?

https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=77999.0;topicseen

It went to GB phase but was then put on hold.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Mon, 18 January 2016, 11:54:04
Does anyone know of a keycap set that tanked during the interest check phase solely because its colorway was the same as a pre-existing set?

https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=77999.0;topicseen

It went to GB phase but was then put on hold.

What was the backlash for? Being a newbie at group buys or copying a colorway?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Steezus on Mon, 18 January 2016, 11:55:13
Does anyone know of a keycap set that tanked during the interest check phase solely because its colorway was the same as a pre-existing set?

https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=77999.0;topicseen

It went to GB phase but was then put on hold.

What was the backlash?

That is had a lot of similarities to Calm Depths, and a little bit of skepticism that the set is being ran from a new member and not a 3rd party.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zambumon on Mon, 18 January 2016, 12:13:30
Does anyone know of a keycap set that tanked during the interest check phase solely because its colorway was the same as a pre-existing set?

https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=77999.0;topicseen

It went to GB phase but was then put on hold.

Ignoring the color scheme issues, that set went to the GB stage with major mistakes that should have been fixed during the IC stage…


In addition, there wasn't a list of the people who ordered the set, or a price list indicating how many kits of each child deal had been ordered.
For reference:
Source A (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=48214.0)
Source B (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=78489.0)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Steezus on Mon, 18 January 2016, 12:54:16
Does anyone know of a keycap set that tanked during the interest check phase solely because its colorway was the same as a pre-existing set?

https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=77999.0;topicseen

It went to GB phase but was then put on hold.

Ignoring the color scheme issues, that set went to the GB stage with major mistakes that should have been fixed during the IC stage…

  • ISO kit didn't have a 1.25 Shift
  • Listing 6.5 Space bars when they aren't manufactured
  • Tsangan features a 1.25U shift and 1.75U but no 2.25U shift, which is weird.

In addition, there wasn't a list of the people who ordered the set, or a price list indicating how many kits of each child deal had been ordered.
For reference:
Source A (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=48214.0)
Source B (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=78489.0)

Oh yeah I agree that there was multiple issues but the color scheme was one that was brought up in the thread quite frequently.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 13:09:55
From what I can tell, the Dusk set was put on hold because people didn't feel comfortable placing orders with a first-time designer trying to run the GB himself without a trusted middle-man entity like MassDrop. There was also a lot of eleventh-hour disatisfaction with the kit compositions. The only serious objection to colorway similarity came from MiTo. And most everyone else agreed that his objections were unfounded.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Niomosy on Mon, 18 January 2016, 13:17:12
SP does have the last word but, given their lack of concern with producing Space Cadet twice, both of which were from community sources, not to mention multiple other classic set runs, I've yet to see anything stating explicitly that sets are protected and what those protections are.

They have produced sets with plenty of similarities to each other so I remain skeptical that any colorway protection is offered at all should someone else submit a request.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Steezus on Mon, 18 January 2016, 13:18:19
SP does have the last word but, given their lack of concern with producing Space Cadet twice, both of which were from community sources, not to mention multiple other classic set runs, I've yet to see anything stating explicitly that sets are protected and what those protections are.

They have produced sets with plenty of similarities to each other so I remain skeptical that any colorway protection is offered at all should someone else submit a request.

To be honest, I don't really think SP cares at all and would rather just take the extra money. There's really no benefit for them shutting down sets where interest was expressed.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 13:51:00
SP does have the last word but, given their lack of concern with producing Space Cadet twice, both of which were from community sources, not to mention multiple other classic set runs, I've yet to see anything stating explicitly that sets are protected and what those protections are.

They have produced sets with plenty of similarities to each other so I remain skeptical that any colorway protection is offered at all should someone else submit a request.

I'm just not convinced that we have seen a compelling test case yet. Sets like Symbiosis, Space Cadet, and Dolch have origins that pre-date the modern keycap phenomenon, so designers of sets like those aren't going to be accorded any sense of ownership by SP. However, just wait until someone other than Matt3o tries to use the Skull Squadron colorway for another set, even without any novelties. How much do you want to bet it would never get past SP's gatekeepers?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Lepidus on Mon, 18 January 2016, 13:56:09
SP does have the last word but, given their lack of concern with producing Space Cadet twice, both of which were from community sources, not to mention multiple other classic set runs, I've yet to see anything stating explicitly that sets are protected and what those protections are.

They have produced sets with plenty of similarities to each other so I remain skeptical that any colorway protection is offered at all should someone else submit a request.

I'm just not convinced that we have seen a compelling test case yet. Sets like Symbiosis, Space Cadet, and Dolch have origins that pre-date the modern keycap phenomenon, so designers of sets like those aren't going to be accorded any sense of ownership by SP. However, just wait until someone other than Matt3o tries to use the Skull Squadron colorway for another set, even without any novelties. How much do you want to bet it would never get past SP's gatekeepers?

As I mentioned before, SP has no problem offering a DSA dyesub set with the same colors and the same font as granite.

Have they ever actually stoped any sets from being produced by this reason?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:09:31
My take on the matter.

(I designed that silly little Jukebox SA set, just for reference)

My personal opinion is that copying a set 1:1 color wise, would be wrong. I'm quite sure SP wouldn't even allow this, so that is really a non-issue.

For other sets, I think the community generally does a good job of watching out for the designers. The biggest point I'd like to make for new designers is simply talk to a designer if you think your set is too close for comfort. I personally know quite a few designers that would be more than happy to "OK" the design, if not even just jump in and help out. If a set uses different colors, but looks similar, eh, what can you do? I mean, there is nothing preventing closely related shades from being used. The community may step in here, but in general this would just be far, far to messy to police with a legal system.

I generally just put my trust in the goodwill of the community, for better or worse  :thumb:
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:15:20
As I mentioned before, SP has no problem offering a DSA dyesub set with the same colors and the same font as granite.

Have they ever actually stoped any sets from being produced by this reason?

Which dyesub set does SP offer that uses Granite's typeface?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:18:13
(I designed that silly little Jukebox SA set, just for reference)

Currently using Jukebox. Can confirm: is silly.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:20:26
(I designed that silly little Jukebox SA set, just for reference)

Currently using Jukebox. Can confirm: is silly.

 :-*  :cool:
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:21:38
At the very end of the day, say someone did copy my set, oh well. I'm not doing sets for the money anyways. Other people may, but it makes the stress of this subject way more lax for me simply because I just enjoy doing things the community enjoys and gets use out of, even when that may be having a keycap set that will make it look like a 50's Bel Air took a **** on your keyboard   :))
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: xondat on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:31:33
I agree 100% with you livingspeedbump.

Here is my serious, no ****post opinion:

1 to 1 copy is unacceptable and will be stopped anyway. Close 'copies', 'replicas', 'knockoffs' & so on will be stopped if the community as a whole disagree - but if they aren't that close and look like a different set then the creator won't be stopped. Only the manufacturer can stop it.

Artisans have been copied, kind of the same thing if a creator considers a keyset as their art. Color on it's own, when similar, are fine. Copying 'custom' logos etc are unacceptable without the original creators permission.

Politics, legal stuff and ****ty behaviour will just create more cow.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:44:38
I agree 100% with you livingspeedbump.

Here is my serious, no ****post opinion:

1 to 1 copy is unacceptable and will be stopped anyway. Close 'copies', 'replicas', 'knockoffs' & so on will be stopped if the community as a whole disagree - but if they aren't that close and look like a different set then the creator won't be stopped. Only the manufacturer can stop it.

Artisans have been copied, kind of the same thing if a creator considers a keyset as their art. Color on it's own, when similar, are fine. Copying 'custom' logos etc are unacceptable without the original creators permission.

Politics, legal stuff and ****ty behaviour will just create more cow.

Amen to that last part. So many people don't understand that yet.

The two sets of Space Cadet are a decent example of a very similar set. In the end even that was justified imo though, as one was more of a colorway replica, and the other tried to be a much more replica of the original caps on the keyboard. When it comes to remaking vintage colorways like that, i really don't think anyone should "own" those colors. They were already done, so unless you want to pay all the royalties to the company that made the original, just go with it.

Im also a huge advocate for making sets as readily available as possible. Sure, I don't have Jukebox in the PMK store right now, but that is only because it is about to ramp up for another MD buy, and I simply want more buyers in that for the sake of the buyers, because it will make it cheaper for everyone and help fund the new kits. If i never planned to add on any more new kits for it, I'd probably just give my OK for SP to make it whenever they want. In fact, Im working on a very simple set, with some nice common colors, for SP to do just that with, so hopefully everyone can get a decent looking kit for any keyboard, including odd layouts, whenever they need. I have no interest in making any of my sets exclusive or rare simply by not running them when there is a desire for them.

Again, its all about "what can i do for the community?" for me, as a designer.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:45:41
The community will ultimately vote with their wallets. If they don't like a set, for any reason, it won't get past the IC stage. Of course, a set that copies everything, except say for novelties, and gets past MassDrop's standards for "originality"--whatever they may be--could easily garner enough interest from the legions of uninitiated members who buy from them but don't patrol the forums.

Whether or not SP would put a halt to it on their own is still an open question. And I don't think SP wants to state one way or the other in a forum because they probably want the flexibility to judge on a case by case basis and not be held to something written in a public post.

I'm glad that hippo's Dusk set didn't get shot down on the basis of its colorway. I liked its color scheme better than Calm Depths, and would have been disappointed to see the community kill it because it merely reminded them of another set.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Bucky on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:46:40
I feel like this is a difficult but important topic.

To me I totally can get on board with someone not being able to exactly copy a set, lets say PuLSE. If someone were to try to get the same colors produced in SA by signature plastics I think it would be best that the set is not created.

To me however being a similar inspiration of colors certainly shouldn't limit a set from being produced. If we were discussing strictly the colors of Dusk I think its absurd to say it shouldn't be produced because of similarities to Calm Depths. The colors are not the same, and the inversion of the colors in itself is a significant difference. To me if Dusk is too similar to CD then it will not be long before most new sets bear too much similarity to something already existing.

Copying is a bad thing, being inspired by is totally OK within art. MiTo even says that he used some icons to inspire making his own, yet when a keyset takes inspiration from another set it shouldn't get created? I just don't see the logic in this at all.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:48:59
I agree 100% with you livingspeedbump.


1 to 1 copy is unacceptable and will be stopped anyway. Close 'copies', 'replicas', 'knockoffs' & so on will be stopped if the community as a whole disagree - but if they aren't that close and look like a different set then the creator won't be stopped. Only the manufacturer can stop it.

On this, in reference to artisans as well, I feel like if someone is really ****ty enough to make a replica of a set/artisan/whatever, where legal action can possibly be taken, making a HUGE deal about it will really only benefit the person doing the replicas by given then both acknowledgement and publicity. It truly boggles my mind how some people really cant seem to grasp this, and just continue to follow that rabbit into the never ending hole.

Should i ever need to take legal action (which i cant even see a situation with keyboards what that could actually happen for me) It would all be handled off the forums. That would be REAL business and not something i would make a public affair minus perhaps one comment to let users know I was dealing with it somehow.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: xondat on Mon, 18 January 2016, 14:56:16
Oh btw, when I was ****posting, I made a BFQ/NN colorway set; turns out it's already being done: https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=78550

It's reverse Pulse with slightly different colors and I've never seen Ricardo mention it.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 15:06:49

Since you mentioned I'd like to give my input towards this subject, even though you asked OP and not me.

Taking PuLSE as an example, it featured black/cyan text legended alphas and modifiers with Signature Plastics' font. It also featured aqua and blue novelty keycaps with specific and customized icons. Any other sets that eventually present any of the above mentioned features is essentially (and consequentially) copying PuLSE and the concepts that define it as a custom keyset created by myself and therefore should not go through their system nor be allowed to happen without my strict permission. The premise is that such colorway, applied on keycaps created and manufactured by Signature Plastics is a design concept that I created. This logic obviously can't be applied to complex industrial manufactured products, due to their very detailed patent registration nature, but since we are discussing about a product that is defined by it's artistic appeal and belongs to a very specific niche (keyboard enthusiasts), such logic could be easily comprehended and be applied in my perception.

This is my perspective and I believe it should be taken into consideration given that, for many reasons, me and the Ctrl.Alt team are in the eye of this discussion. Mostly due to the popularity of projects created by us before new implementations and policies from Signature Plastics took place.


Perhaps I should have mentioned BBQ/NN instead of Aqua-Cyan/Black?

Because when I speak about colorway protection, I'm speaking directly about 1:1 replications. I don't have absolutely any problems with Keyboard & Co. (even though it looks like PuLSE inverted), for example. My problem with Dusk was that the keyset wasn't nowhere near an original or creative idea, but a very close 1:1 partially done and bad presented replication of Calm Depths, as the guy didn't even create mockups for child deals but used the layout generator instead. I felt the same way with Classic Space's similarities with Cospar, but as you can see on it's thread it was all solved after some explanations and conversations between me and it's makers. Despite of what many of you think, keyset designers indeed create and apply design concepts and they put effort into that. Some people design novelties from scratch, others use existing icons and others mix these two things. I'm on the latter group. There is a complex thought process behind keyset planing and people who put effort into that deserve at least some respect. Should people be able to replicate whatever set they want without any rules? What kind of anarchy is that, of course not.

Therefore, protection by Signature Plastics is something that all of you should understand at the very least.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Bucky on Mon, 18 January 2016, 15:29:58
Perhaps I should have mentioned BBQ/NN instead of Aqua-Cyan/Black?

Because when I speak about colorway protection, I'm speaking directly about 1:1 replications. I don't have absolutely any problems with Keyboard & Co. (even though it looks like PuLSE inverted), for example. My problem with Dusk was that the keyset wasn't nowhere near an original or creative idea, but a very close 1:1 partially done and bad presented replication of Calm Depths...

This is where I guess I don't see the line you are drawing. You say you only are against 1:1 replication, but then your complaint about Dusk (in terms of design only) is that its not original or creative? I don't see how that matters. I like your keysets, I just don't understand what your actual stance is on this really (I understand English isn't your first language making it more difficult) as you basically give 2 conflicting opinions here.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 15:37:27
MiTo reminds me a little of Disney. Disney gleefully and shamelessly mines the public domain works of past masters, like Alexandre Dumas, while seeing to it that nothing they create ever falls into the public domain, where I contend anything of real cultural importance belongs at some point.

I think that no matter how absurd the notion of "colorway ownership" actually is, it will be granted to those designers who are in favor with the community (Matt3o, for example), and denied to those who aren't. There will be little consistency to the matter because there is nothing formal or legal about such granted ownership.

Lots of proposed sets will die in IC for a variety of reasons, with colorway similarity being only one of them. And colorway similarity won't be the only silly reason a proposed set will get shot down either. One thing I am learning is that the process of getting community approval for a new set is almost Kafka-esque, and that navigating through all the potential (political) pitfalls is perhaps the hardest part of it (not the actual design work).
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 15:43:40
I believe that some people care about that, otherwise we would had Penumbra 2 made by somebody else instead of Ctrl.Alt. Note that the set doesn't have graphic novelties and it's a pure combination of colors and legends (and one of the most likable ones, since the set is pretty popular). It's a very well made set and I don't think it should be reproduced by anyone other than Ctrl.Alt. One can be lead to believe that Godspeed/Cospar is a set that resembles Penumbra, but so does Jukebox with it's beige accents. Jukebox however has its own theme (like Godspeed/Cospar) and therefore is a completely different project. Note that none of the sets share color chips, if you are speaking about manufacturing.

I speak about the "line" you're talking in this reply.

But since I don't think it was enough to make my point, check this out:

Three sets currently exist on beige tones. Penumbra, Jukebox and Godspeed. Do they share color chips?

No.

Alright, this is good. Does each one have its particular theme which is completely independent from each other?

Yes, one is a coding color scheme, the other one is a tribute to the 50's dinners and the last one is a tribute to NASA.

Are these sets original ideas, I mean, does the maker put minimal effort into finding a theme, nice legends and colors, and also a background story and decent presentation?

Yes.

Then good, all of these sets are independent and should go forward.

This obviuosuly is an extremely arbitrary judgement, which I highly doubt others share with me, but since you asked, it's what I think.

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: wilarseny on Mon, 18 January 2016, 15:44:11
Should people be able to replicate whatever set they want without any rules? What kind of anarchy is that, of course not.

I know, right? Why can't people grasp that the world economy would COLLAPSE if we let people replicate color schemes. It would be absolute ANARCHY! The keycap market would be in SHAMBLES. I'm not being HYPERBOLIC at all.

Signature plastics can have whatever rules it wants as a private producer. Keep in mind that their interests may not necessarily align with either keycap designers, consumers, or forum shouters. SP's thinking might go something like: if we let people do reruns, then future keycap makers will go with GMK/JTK/whoever else next time, instead of us. Pretending that their "protection" is some pure, altruistic ideological thing is just fantasy. SP is in the injection molding plastic business, and will continue to make business decisions as they see fit. See LSB's Jukebox motivations for another example.

Agreed with everything zslane has said in this thread. Smart dude. I'm still just a baby lawyer but I agree with his analysis on the IP issues.

No one is disagreeing with the general point that keycap designers put effort into designing sets. The question is whether we should allow that effort--which in some cases may be relatively minimal, or may include simple copying of designs like leaves and globes from other creators with only retroactive attempts at getting permission--to dictate whether future buyers and future sellers are allowed to do their thing when there's interest on both sides. And I don't really see a compelling reason why the creator's interest should extend any further than "I made this thing and on the initial buy I'm making the ultimate call on child deals, novelties, etc". The best argument you can probably make is that reruns sap the community's interest in new sets, so if we were running Pulse/Calm Depths/Penumbra all the time no new sets would get into the queue. I think this probably held more true a couple years ago than it does now -- tons and tons of GBs are getting produced every year, through GMK/SP/JTK/etc, and the community's still growing. Maybe at the margins some sets would fail to meet MOQ but I don't necessarily understand why we'd want to protect lower-interest sets out there when lots of people would love Penumbra R2, Calm Depths R2, etc.

Ultimately we are debating how to make and distribute little colored plastic bits to people who want them. I know it's a futile cry here, but please try to keep some perspective about what this hobby is.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: wilarseny on Mon, 18 January 2016, 15:45:07

This obviuosuly is an extremely arbitrary judgement, which I highly doubt others share with me, but since you asked, it's what I think.

As long as you recognize this is your own opinion and that you don't automatically speak for the whole community by virtue of having produced a couple sets, no problems on this end.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: mashby on Mon, 18 January 2016, 15:50:51
MiTo reminds me a little of Disney. Disney gleefully and shamelessly mines the public domain works of past masters, like Alexandre Dumas, while seeing to it that nothing they create ever falls into the public domain, where I contend anything of real cultural importance belongs at some point.

I think that no matter how absurd the notion of "colorway ownership" actually is, it will be granted to those designers who are in favor with the community (Matt3o, for example), and denied to those who aren't. There will be little consistency to the matter because there is nothing formal or legal about such granted ownership.

Lots of proposed sets will die in IC for a variety of reasons, with colorway similarity being only one of them. And colorway similarity won't be the only silly reason a proposed set will get shot down either. One thing I am learning is that the process of getting community approval for a new set is almost Kafka-esque, and that navigating through all the potential (political) pitfalls is perhaps the hardest part of it (not the actual design work).

Well said zslane. I haven't read the entire thread, but the idea of "owning" a colorway makes no sense. Custom legends? Sure. You paid for the molds, but because you choose to put red text on a white key cap doesn't make you the "owner". Just plain silly.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 15:58:13

reruns sap the community's interest in new sets, so if we were running Pulse/Calm Depths/Penumbra all the time no new sets would get into the queue. I think this probably held more true a couple years ago than it does now -- tons and tons of GBs are getting produced every year, through GMK/SP/JTK/etc, and the community's still growing.


This is the exact reason about why PuL2E won't happen. Not exclusivity bull**** like many used to think in the past, including me, before both communities blew on size. At the end of the day, I believe we should create new things and keep the creativity ball rolling. No reason to repeat things just because people want or can afford them. People need to learn how to appreciate things without the desperate need of possession and obsession in my opinion. Just wait, as sooner or later something of your taste will pop up. There are infinite combinations and themes to be explored.

Same for artisans, in my opinion
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: inanis on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:03:06
The fact that you are calling it Pul2e is exactly part of the problem. This is hilariously too much. Just try for a second to not take yourself seriously. I promise, it will help your relations here. 
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:05:35
There are infinite combinations and themes to be explored.


Says the kid who rips of other peoples work and claims it to be his own lmao
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: wilarseny on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:09:22

reruns sap the community's interest in new sets, so if we were running Pulse/Calm Depths/Penumbra all the time no new sets would get into the queue. I think this probably held more true a couple years ago than it does now -- tons and tons of GBs are getting produced every year, through GMK/SP/JTK/etc, and the community's still growing.


This is the exact reason about why PuL2E won't happen. Not exclusivity bull**** like many used to think in the past, including me, before both communities blew on size. At the end of the day, I believe we should create new things and keep the creativity ball rolling. No reason to repeat things just because people want or can afford them. People need to learn how to appreciate things without the desperate need of possession and obsession in my opinion. Just wait, as sooner or later something of your taste will pop up. There are infinite combinations and themes to be explored.

Same for artisans, in my opinion

That's cool and I do respect that opinion, but I just don't see it playing out in practice. People are still going to make new sets, it's fun to design a colorway and if it's good enough + timed right + the maker has enough political cache(/trust/whatever you want to call it) in the community, it'll get made. Also think that especially if another maker of SA caps comes up, like JTK has with GMK, it'll be time to retire this argument.

I agree with the bolded a lot, but - I also don't feel any need to force other people into compliance with my philosophies. If others want to go down the Pygmalion path, that's up to them.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MeltingTeeth on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:14:02
All that matters is what Signature Plastics says and they don't seem to post here much anymore.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: inanis on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:18:32
All that matters is what Signature Plastics says and they don't seem to post here much anymore.
I bet when they come back they will be super happy this lovely discussion is in their subforum!
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:18:48
Not exclusivity bull**** like many used to think in the past, including me, before both communities blew on size.

Sooooo.

You did intentionally not run it again for exclusivity.  But now you've changed your mind...?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:19:03

reruns sap the community's interest in new sets, so if we were running Pulse/Calm Depths/Penumbra all the time no new sets would get into the queue. I think this probably held more true a couple years ago than it does now -- tons and tons of GBs are getting produced every year, through GMK/SP/JTK/etc, and the community's still growing.


This is the exact reason about why PuL2E won't happen. Not exclusivity bull**** like many used to think in the past, including me, before both communities blew on size. At the end of the day, I believe we should create new things and keep the creativity ball rolling. No reason to repeat things just because people want or can afford them. People need to learn how to appreciate things without the desperate need of possession and obsession in my opinion. Just wait, as sooner or later something of your taste will pop up. There are infinite combinations and themes to be explored.

Same for artisans, in my opinion
I agree with the bolded a lot, but - I also don't feel any need to force other people into compliance with my philosophies. If others want to go down the Pygmalion path, that's up to them.

I appreciate the desire to create new things, but there's nothing that says you can't create something new while also running another round of a set you've already put out there. I've only been in the keyboard community for a few months. I've already found that there are some keysets and artisans I'll never get my hands on because of a price created by artificial exclusivity and/or incredibly high demand. I don't have an obsession with Click Clacks or Bros, and I don't need to have Penumbra or Pulse, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like an opportunity to acquire them.

Create all the new stuff you want. I still like some of the older stuff. Running new rounds for a keyset doesn't compromise you as an artist, it just makes your work available to more people who are genuinely interested in it. I feel as though I've gone a little off topic though.

I think that the keysets are property of their respective creators. However, that creator does not own the colorway. They only own that specific combination of colors, fonts, and novelties. If anyone else makes a set with identical colors, but a different font and/or novelties, that's fair game.

Here are some logos:
(http://www.designzzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Purple-Logos.jpg)

None of those companies own purple. None of those companies own a font type (maybe some do, I don't know exactly). However, they own a specific combination of text, color, and presentation of their logo. Why would keysets be any different?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:19:48
It's the poor Brazilians who I feel sorry for...
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Niomosy on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:23:58
Still on mobile so I'll be brief.  There are not infinite options.  There are limited options based on SP color selection.   Beyond that it's custom colors with added expense which can be problematic for a set.

Even then, certain color combinations are going to be far more desirable and popular than others.   Hence why we're on yet another run of Granite while GMK SNES couldn't make MoQ numbers.

That said, I'm of the opinion that there be no protection on colorways.  Let thosr novelties that can be protected be so.  Let the colorway remain open.  Let the original designer have first crack at reruns.  If they decline,  let it be open to the community. 

In the case of Penumbra, a 2nd round is in the plans.  In the case of other sets, the designer has said no more.  Those would be open, possibly with a change in novelties.  Say, bbq/nn but with a pulse icon that flatlines.  Name and Marketing?  "Flatline: What Happens When You Have No Pulse."  For added parody, make it BBJ for the blue (for those that recall the bbj vs bbq argument with MiTo and Oobly).

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:27:36
How, exactly, is someone supposed to appreciate new sets they don't like when the one(s) they really love can't be purchased (new) anymore?

I have a friend who is new to all this and he has this vision in his mind for his perfect keyboard. It requires the Honeywell keysets from 7bit to make it happen. No other set has the colors he needs, in all the necessary keyboard positions, and in SA format. For him, none of the proposed sets in any of the ICs out there will do him any good. Telling him to appreciate the diversity of sets and colorways that can play absolutely no role in making his custom keyboard vision come to life is not only useless, it is patronizing.

I think it helps to put oneself into the shoes of a newcomer, who has never been privvy to the history of this community and has missed out on all the previous group buys. These notions of exclusivity and exclusive control are helpful to only those who already have what they want, are bored, and can only get it up for the invigorating promise of sets yet to be.

As long as this notion of constantly moving forward, and thumbing ones noses at future customers who long for a set from the past prevails, there will always be incentive to recreate those sets of the past, or at the very least their colorways. If the demand is strong enough, then the PuLSE colorway will find its way back into production, without the PuLSE icon keys, and at that point MiTo's desire to keep it from ever resurfacing will be sheer futility.

The more you tighten your grip, MiTo, the more colorways will slip through your fingers... ;)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:34:06
How, exactly, is someone supposed to appreciate new sets they don't like when the one(s) they really love can't be purchased (new) anymore?

I have a friend who is new to all this and he has this vision in his mind for his perfect keyboard. It requires the Honeywell keys form 7bit to make it happen. No other set has the colors he needs, in all the necessary keyboard positions, and in SA format. For him, none of the proposed sets in any of the ICs out there will do him any good. Telling him to appreciate the diversity of sets and colorways that can play absolutely no role in making his custom keyboard vision come to life is not only useless, it is patronizing.

I think it helps to put oneself into the shoes of a newcomer, who has never been privvy to the history of this community and has missed out on all the previous group buys. These notions of exclusivity and exclusive control are helpful to only those who already have what they want, are bored, and can only get it up for the invigorating promise of sets yet to be.

As long as this notion of constantly moving forward, and thumbing ones noses at future customers who long for a set from the past prevails, there will always be incentive to recreate those sets of the past, or at the very least their colorways. If the demand is strong enough, then the PuLSE colorway will find its way back into production, without the PuLSE icon keys, and at that point MiTo's desire to keep it from ever resurfacing will be sheer futility.

The more you tighten your grip, MiTo, the more colorways will slip through your fingers... ;)

I am not entirely sure how you worded this, so don't take offense if i misinterpreted what you were saying here.

But as I see it I would disagree a bit and say that new people arent actually entitled to any of the past sets that were run. Personally, I am trying to make mine available to them when possible, but this may not be the case for all designers. Also, keep in mind that many of us were around for years before Round 5 came out, for example, and waited a few more years to get it. So instant gratification and keyboard related group buys just never go hand in hand.

I don't disagree with the sentiment though, I do want to make things available to new members to the community, but just keep in mind that it takes a lot of time, regardless.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:43:31
How, exactly, is someone supposed to appreciate new sets they don't like when the one(s) they really love can't be purchased (new) anymore?

I have a friend who is new to all this and he has this vision in his mind for his perfect keyboard. It requires the Honeywell keys form 7bit to make it happen. No other set has the colors he needs, in all the necessary keyboard positions, and in SA format. For him, none of the proposed sets in any of the ICs out there will do him any good. Telling him to appreciate the diversity of sets and colorways that can play absolutely no role in making his custom keyboard vision come to life is not only useless, it is patronizing.

I think it helps to put oneself into the shoes of a newcomer, who has never been privvy to the history of this community and has missed out on all the previous group buys. These notions of exclusivity and exclusive control are helpful to only those who already have what they want, are bored, and can only get it up for the invigorating promise of sets yet to be.

As long as this notion of constantly moving forward, and thumbing ones noses at future customers who long for a set from the past prevails, there will always be incentive to recreate those sets of the past, or at the very least their colorways. If the demand is strong enough, then the PuLSE colorway will find its way back into production, without the PuLSE icon keys, and at that point MiTo's desire to keep it from ever resurfacing will be sheer futility.

The more you tighten your grip, MiTo, the more colorways will slip through your fingers... ;)

I am not entirely sure how you worded this, so don't take offense if i misinterpreted what you were saying here.

But as I see it I would disagree a bit and say that new people arent actually entitled to any of the past sets that were run. Personally, I am trying to make mine available to them when possible, but this may not be the case for all designers. Also, keep in mind that many of us were around for years before Round 5 came out, for example, and waited a few more years to get it. So instant gratification and keyboard related group buys just never go hand in hand.

I don't disagree with the sentiment though, I do want to make things available to new members to the community, but just keep in mind that it takes a lot of time, regardless.

Nobody is entitled to anything, but to artificially prevent supply from even coming close to meeting demand is the thing that bothers me (and presumably zslane and his friend).  Especially with something such as keysets, that are clearly very industrial in their scale. 
The sentiment is shared with artisan caps, but the lines are blurred because very few artisan caps are produced on such a scale (and being works of art, the intentions of the artist are different).

That said, I agree with LSB too - I joined this community with nothing, and the only reason I have what I do have is because I've been around long enough to just happen to acquire the keysets and such.  BUT, I cannot (and do not) expect newcomers to invest 3 years just to hope to cross paths with their dream keyset.

This really gets at the root of the community vs hobby discussion.  As this hobby grows, the number of people "passing through" and hoping to deck out their boards increases rapidly, while the number of people that invest themselves fully in the community increases much slower.  I am obviously a bigger fan of the latter, but we cannot fault these keyboarders that simply want shiny trinkets for their keyboards - especially since we are all that way with other hobbies.  ;)

Anyway, I digress.  I'm pretty sure I meant to make a point in there somewhere.  :confused:
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 16:50:03
How, exactly, is someone supposed to appreciate new sets they don't like when the one(s) they really love can't be purchased (new) anymore?

I have a friend who is new to all this and he has this vision in his mind for his perfect keyboard. It requires the Honeywell keys form 7bit to make it happen. No other set has the colors he needs, in all the necessary keyboard positions, and in SA format. For him, none of the proposed sets in any of the ICs out there will do him any good. Telling him to appreciate the diversity of sets and colorways that can play absolutely no role in making his custom keyboard vision come to life is not only useless, it is patronizing.

I think it helps to put oneself into the shoes of a newcomer, who has never been privvy to the history of this community and has missed out on all the previous group buys. These notions of exclusivity and exclusive control are helpful to only those who already have what they want, are bored, and can only get it up for the invigorating promise of sets yet to be.

As long as this notion of constantly moving forward, and thumbing ones noses at future customers who long for a set from the past prevails, there will always be incentive to recreate those sets of the past, or at the very least their colorways. If the demand is strong enough, then the PuLSE colorway will find its way back into production, without the PuLSE icon keys, and at that point MiTo's desire to keep it from ever resurfacing will be sheer futility.

The more you tighten your grip, MiTo, the more colorways will slip through your fingers... ;)

I am not entirely sure how you worded this, so don't take offense if i misinterpreted what you were saying here.

But as I see it I would disagree a bit and say that new people arent actually entitled to any of the past sets that were run. Personally, I am trying to make mine available to them when possible, but this may not be the case for all designers. Also, keep in mind that many of us were around for years before Round 5 came out, for example, and waited a few more years to get it. So instant gratification and keyboard related group buys just never go hand in hand.

I don't disagree with the sentiment though, I do want to make things available to new members to the community, but just keep in mind that it takes a lot of time, regardless.

Nobody is entitled to anything, but to artificially prevent supply from even coming close to meeting demand is the thing that bothers me (and presumably zslane and his friend).  Especially with something such as keysets, that are clearly very industrial in their scale. 
The sentiment is shared with artisan caps, but the lines are blurred because very few artisan caps are produced on such a scale (and being works of art, the intentions of the artist are different).

That said, I agree with LSB too - I joined this community with nothing, and the only reason I have what I do have is because I've been around long enough to just happen to acquire the keysets and such.  BUT, I cannot (and do not) expect newcomers to invest 3 years just to hope to cross paths with their dream keyset.

This really gets at the root of the community vs hobby discussion.  As this hobby grows, the number of people "passing through" and hoping to deck out their boards increases rapidly, while the number of people that invest themselves fully in the community increases much slower.  I am obviously a bigger fan of the latter, but we cannot fault these keyboarders that simply want shiny trinkets for their keyboards - especially since we are all that way with other hobbies.  ;)

Anyway, I digress.  I'm pretty sure I meant to make a point in there somewhere.  :confused:

Oh yeah, I 110% agree. Not running a set to make it rare and exclusive is dumb and benefits the community none. I don't know of a single reason not to run a keyset again, if there is interest. Sure, waiting to run it until there is a significant amount of interest, or waiting on the time to be right is a must, but just simply not running it again when people want it, is dumb. I'll let my sets run in one way or another as long as people have a desire for them and I can facilitate a way to have them made.

No comment on the artisan thing haha, that is an exhausting topic at times. But yeah, different story than keycap sets entirely imo.

Its an odd thing with newcomers though. I really do want to encourage them to get involved, and stick around and really get invested in the community, though more often than not they are "moving through." In the end they probably will have to pay a lot more if they want that "instant gratification" or very specifically want a certain set. Heck, there are sets I've still not been able to acquire after years that I've looked for (looking at your Viper's current set  :rolleyes: ) haha
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:01:40
How, exactly, is someone supposed to appreciate new sets they don't like when the one(s) they really love can't be purchased (new) anymore?

I have a friend who is new to all this and he has this vision in his mind for his perfect keyboard. It requires the Honeywell keys form 7bit to make it happen. No other set has the colors he needs, in all the necessary keyboard positions, and in SA format. For him, none of the proposed sets in any of the ICs out there will do him any good. Telling him to appreciate the diversity of sets and colorways that can play absolutely no role in making his custom keyboard vision come to life is not only useless, it is patronizing.

I think it helps to put oneself into the shoes of a newcomer, who has never been privvy to the history of this community and has missed out on all the previous group buys. These notions of exclusivity and exclusive control are helpful to only those who already have what they want, are bored, and can only get it up for the invigorating promise of sets yet to be.

As long as this notion of constantly moving forward, and thumbing ones noses at future customers who long for a set from the past prevails, there will always be incentive to recreate those sets of the past, or at the very least their colorways. If the demand is strong enough, then the PuLSE colorway will find its way back into production, without the PuLSE icon keys, and at that point MiTo's desire to keep it from ever resurfacing will be sheer futility.

The more you tighten your grip, MiTo, the more colorways will slip through your fingers... ;)

I am not entirely sure how you worded this, so don't take offense if i misinterpreted what you were saying here.

But as I see it I would disagree a bit and say that new people arent actually entitled to any of the past sets that were run. Personally, I am trying to make mine available to them when possible, but this may not be the case for all designers. Also, keep in mind that many of us were around for years before Round 5 came out, for example, and waited a few more years to get it. So instant gratification and keyboard related group buys just never go hand in hand.

I don't disagree with the sentiment though, I do want to make things available to new members to the community, but just keep in mind that it takes a lot of time, regardless.

Nobody is entitled to anything, but to artificially prevent supply from even coming close to meeting demand is the thing that bothers me (and presumably zslane and his friend).  Especially with something such as keysets, that are clearly very industrial in their scale. 
The sentiment is shared with artisan caps, but the lines are blurred because very few artisan caps are produced on such a scale (and being works of art, the intentions of the artist are different).

That said, I agree with LSB too - I joined this community with nothing, and the only reason I have what I do have is because I've been around long enough to just happen to acquire the keysets and such.  BUT, I cannot (and do not) expect newcomers to invest 3 years just to hope to cross paths with their dream keyset.

This really gets at the root of the community vs hobby discussion.  As this hobby grows, the number of people "passing through" and hoping to deck out their boards increases rapidly, while the number of people that invest themselves fully in the community increases much slower.  I am obviously a bigger fan of the latter, but we cannot fault these keyboarders that simply want shiny trinkets for their keyboards - especially since we are all that way with other hobbies.  ;)

Anyway, I digress.  I'm pretty sure I meant to make a point in there somewhere.  :confused:

Oh yeah, I 110% agree. Not running a set to make it rare and exclusive is dumb and benefits the community none. I don't know of a single reason not to run a keyset again, if there is interest. Sure, waiting to run it until there is a significant amount of interest, or waiting on the time to be right is a must, but just simply not running it again when people want it, is dumb. I'll let my sets run in one way or another as long as people have a desire for them and I can facilitate a way to have them made.

No comment on the artisan thing haha, that is an exhausting topic at times. But yeah, different story than keycap sets entirely imo.

Its an odd thing with newcomers though. I really do want to encourage them to get involved, and stick around and really get invested in the community, though more often than not they are "moving through." In the end they probably will have to pay a lot more if they want that "instant gratification" or very specifically want a certain set. Heck, there are sets I've still not been able to acquire after years that I've looked for (looking at your Viper's current set  :rolleyes: ) haha

Dammit LSB, if you run another Jukebox group buy I won't be able to sell this set for $300.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:02:23
Dammit LSB, if you run another Jukebox group buy I won't be able to sell this set for $300.

Sell now then! Cause it ain't so far away  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:03:28
Dammit LSB, if you run another Jukebox group buy I won't be able to sell this set for $300.

Sell now then! Cause it ain't so far away  :rolleyes:

Jukebox R2 confirmed for tomorrow. Selling set for $197 before the market crashes.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:05:18
Dammit LSB, if you run another Jukebox group buy I won't be able to sell this set for $300.

Sell now then! Cause it ain't so far away  :rolleyes:

Jukebox R2 confirmed for tomorrow. Selling set for $197 before the market crashes.

You got a few weeks to ditch that old set  :p
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:10:04
Yeah, being able to purchase something which is produced (by machine, mind you) and sold to the general public isn't something I would call an entitlement. It is simply commerce.

For a lot of folks, keycaps are just products they buy to make their keyboards prettier. They are probably not even be aware of the time and effort it takes to design these sets. But they are willing to pay for the priviledge of having them just the same. Only a fool turns down their money over disapproval of the casual level of their participation in the hobby.

Moreover, I feel it is patently unfair to expect future buyers to be welcomed into the hobby by relegating past sets into the exclusive realm of collectors, when all it takes to make the keysets available again is to allocate a slot in SP's manufacturing schedule and flip a switch. For all the heavily involved members of the community who helped shepherd a set from concept to reality, the reward for that involvement was the fun of participation and the satisfaction of having a voice during development. The idea that a further reward should be the right to turn it into a collector's item is a more chilling example of entitlement, in my view.

But that is all rather tangential to the subject of colorway ownership. I apologize for the threat derailment.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:10:40
Dammit LSB, if you run another Jukebox group buy I won't be able to sell this set for $300.

Sell now then! Cause it ain't so far away  :rolleyes:

Jukebox R2 confirmed for tomorrow. Selling set for $197 before the market crashes.

You got a few weeks to ditch that old set  :p

I just bought it a few days ago. It was supposed to be a test for the SA profile because I wanted Modern Selectric. Now I've fallen for Jukebox and Modern Selectric arrives tomorrow and I don't know what to do.  :eek:

Nantucket Selectric needs to get here already so I don't have to choose (because I really can't afford to be hoarding these).
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:12:06
Yeah, being able to purchase something which is produced (by machine, mind you) and sold to the general public isn't something I would call an entitlement. It is simply commerce.

For a lot of folks, keycaps are just products they buy to make their keyboards prettier. They are probably not even be aware of the time and effort it takes to design these sets. But they are willing to pay for the priviledge of having them just the same. Only a fool turns down their money over disapproval of the casual level of their participation in the hobby.

Moreover, I feel it is patently unfair to expect future buyers to be welcomed into the hobby by relegating past sets into the exclusive realm of collectors, when all it takes to make the keysets available again is to allocate a slot in SP's manufacturing schedule and flip a switch. For all the heavily involved members of the community who helped shepherd a set from concept to reality, the reward for that involvement was the fun of participation and the satisfaction of having a voice during development. The idea that a further reward should be the right to turn it into a collector's item is a more chilling example of entitlement, in my view.

But that is all rather tangential to the subject of colorway ownership. I apologize for the threat derailment.

Well, you do realize how long it takes to even get a set made by PMK at this point even after the order is placed right? Months, at the very least. So they still aren't like a lot of retail items that you can just quickly get made when you run out.

Still I agree with a lot of what you are saying.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:13:02
Once my Round 5a(6) sets arrive, I will have a PuLSE set up for sale if anyone is interested...
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:13:23
Once my Round 5a(6) sets arrive, I will have a PuLSE set up for sale if anyone is interested...

For $200?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:14:00
Quote
Material Provided to Us or Posted On or Through the Site
We do not claim ownership of any content, application or other material that you or third parties provide to us (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit on or through the Site, including our blog pages, message boards, chat rooms and forums, for review by the general public, registered users of the Site or by the members of any public or private community (“Submission”) and we are not responsible for their content, accuracy or compliance with relevant laws or regulations. However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting (“Posting”) your Submission you grant us and sub-licensees a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive right and license to display, publish and otherwise use your Submission in any format in connection with the operation of our respective businesses (including, without limitation, the Site). There is no obligation on our part to display or otherwise use any Submission you may provide, and we may remove any Submission at any time as our sole discretion. By Posting a Submission, you also warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for granting the permission specified above.
We shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor Submissions to determine compliance with these Terms and Conditions and any operating rules we establish and to satisfy any law, regulation or authorized government request. We shall have the right in our sole discretion to edit, refuse to post, or remove any Submission.

The only possible thing you anyone MIGHT own is artwork being submitted as a legend.  Even then, they have permission to reproduce it at will.  You do not own **** regarding colorways.  Technically, I could start a group buy through their system using Pulse exact color chips, family, and font provided it wasn't a user submitted font.  Guess what MiTo, you couldn't stop me.

Edit:  source for the quote https://pimpmykeyboard.com/terms-conditions/

Also, technically, if MiTo didn't have express unlimited reproduction rights for those legends he "free hand drew", then he was in violation of SPs Terms and Conditions.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:15:39
Quote
Material Provided to Us or Posted On or Through the Site
We do not claim ownership of any content, application or other material that you or third parties provide to us (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit on or through the Site, including our blog pages, message boards, chat rooms and forums, for review by the general public, registered users of the Site or by the members of any public or private community (“Submission”) and we are not responsible for their content, accuracy or compliance with relevant laws or regulations. However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting (“Posting”) your Submission you grant us and sub-licensees a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive right and license to display, publish and otherwise use your Submission in any format in connection with the operation of our respective businesses (including, without limitation, the Site). There is no obligation on our part to display or otherwise use any Submission you may provide, and we may remove any Submission at any time as our sole discretion. By Posting a Submission, you also warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for granting the permission specified above.
We shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor Submissions to determine compliance with these Terms and Conditions and any operating rules we establish and to satisfy any law, regulation or authorized government request. We shall have the right in our sole discretion to edit, refuse to post, or remove any Submission.

The only possible thing you anyone MIGHT own is artwork being submitted as a legend.  Even then, they have permission to reproduce it at will.  You do not own **** regarding colorways.  Technically, I could start a group buy through their system using Pulse exact color chips, family, and font provided it wasn't a user submitted font.  Guess what MiTo, you couldn't stop me.

Thank you for actually reading the Terms and Conditions. I wonder how long PMK has been looking at this thread and just saying, "I wish these idiots would just read our damn Terms of Service." It answers the thread question in no uncertain terms.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:16:47
Yeah, being able to purchase something which is produced (by machine, mind you) and sold to the general public isn't something I would call an entitlement. It is simply commerce.

For a lot of folks, keycaps are just products they buy to make their keyboards prettier. They are probably not even be aware of the time and effort it takes to design these sets. But they are willing to pay for the priviledge of having them just the same. Only a fool turns down their money over disapproval of the casual level of their participation in the hobby.

Moreover, I feel it is patently unfair to expect future buyers to be welcomed into the hobby by relegating past sets into the exclusive realm of collectors, when all it takes to make the keysets available again is to allocate a slot in SP's manufacturing schedule and flip a switch. For all the heavily involved members of the community who helped shepherd a set from concept to reality, the reward for that involvement was the fun of participation and the satisfaction of having a voice during development. The idea that a further reward should be the right to turn it into a collector's item is a more chilling example of entitlement, in my view.

But that is all rather tangential to the subject of colorway ownership. I apologize for the threat derailment.

Well, you do realize how long it takes to even get a set made by PMK at this point even after the order is placed right? Months, at the very least. So they still aren't like a lot of retail items that you can just quickly get made when you run out.

Oh, absolutely true. Yet there is a vast difference between "You must wait six months," and "You will never see them made ever again." One is simply the reality of the extremely niche nature of custom keycaps. The other is the result of designers overstepping their bounds, IMO. And I say this as someone who is about to embark on a keyset design IC very shortly.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: mashby on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:19:13
@livingspeedbump and @hoffmanmyster -- ditto.

Respect can be a tricky thing. In this context, having others respect a set you put together is something that is earned. Trying to lock it down by claiming ownership is IMHO naïve and defeats the purpose of earning respect.

Besides, if you don't know this already....

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: zslane on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:22:06
Quote
Material Provided to Us or Posted On or Through the Site
We do not claim ownership of any content, application or other material that you or third parties provide to us (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit on or through the Site, including our blog pages, message boards, chat rooms and forums, for review by the general public, registered users of the Site or by the members of any public or private community (“Submission”) and we are not responsible for their content, accuracy or compliance with relevant laws or regulations. However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting (“Posting”) your Submission you grant us and sub-licensees a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive right and license to display, publish and otherwise use your Submission in any format in connection with the operation of our respective businesses (including, without limitation, the Site). There is no obligation on our part to display or otherwise use any Submission you may provide, and we may remove any Submission at any time as our sole discretion. By Posting a Submission, you also warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for granting the permission specified above.
We shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor Submissions to determine compliance with these Terms and Conditions and any operating rules we establish and to satisfy any law, regulation or authorized government request. We shall have the right in our sole discretion to edit, refuse to post, or remove any Submission.

The only possible thing you anyone MIGHT own is artwork being submitted as a legend.  Even then, they have permission to reproduce it at will.  You do not own **** regarding colorways.  Technically, I could start a group buy through their system using Pulse exact color chips, family, and font provided it wasn't a user submitted font.  Guess what MiTo, you couldn't stop me.

Thank you for actually reading the Terms and Conditions. I wonder how long PMK has been looking at this thread and just saying, "I wish these idiots would just read our damn Terms of Service." It answers the thread question in no uncertain terms.

If I'm not mistaken, Oobly is working with SP to amend those terms precisely because it offers no recognition/assignment of ownership of original design work. It is his feeling that no serious designer would agree to those terms and conditions, and if he is right and he is successful in his efforts, you will see changes in the not too distant future.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 17:33:19
@livingspeedbump and @hoffmanmyster -- ditto.

Respect can be a tricky thing. In this context, having others respect a set you put together is something that is earned. Trying to lock it down by claiming ownership is IMHO naïve and defeats the purpose of earning respect.


I havent been able to lock down what I was getting at, but this does it. Respect
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 18:10:44
The set will not run again whether you guys want it, agree with it, like it or not.

It's my idea and I developed it. The only one who can discuss this with me is the manufacturer. That's the plain simple truth. I said since my first day here that my sets would be solo run for the sake of creativity and it's not my fault if many of you are that fat kid in the playground who can't hear and accept "no" as answer.

Other people running again? I don't think so, nowadays there are royalties and very complicate and delicate factors involved. Factors that should be discussed designer-manufacturer directly.

If I ever feel like running the set again, then I'll do it. Perhaps as a tribute to the community and people who like it, or maybe an humanitarian cause. To the day, my will to create new things is the bigger than repeating old stuff. But maybe this can change who knows. Things are ever changing in life.

Respect my decision as the creator of the keyset.

Stop the double standards and respect everyone equally.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Mon, 18 January 2016, 18:14:18
The set will not run again whether you guys want it, agree with it, like it or not.

It's my idea and I developed it. The only one who can discuss this with me is the manufacturer. That's the plain simple truth. I said since my first day here that my sets would be solo run for the sake of creativity and it's not my fault if many of you are that fat kid in the playground who can't hear and accept "no" as answer.

Other people running again? I don't think so, nowadays there are royalties and very complicate and delicate factors involved. Factors that should be discussed designer-manufacturer directly.

If I ever feel like running the set again, then I'll do it. Perhaps as a tribute to the community and people who like it, or maybe an humanitarian cause. To the day, my will to create new things is the bigger than repeating old stuff. But maybe this can change who knows. Things are ever changing in life.

Respect my decision as the creator of the keyset.

Stop the double standards and respect everyone equally.

But to hell with the people whose stuff you copied artistically interpretation.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 18:24:22
But to hell with the people whose stuff you copied artistically interpretation.

Again, the only icon ever used was PuLSE's logo and I have absolute license to use it. All of the other icons are my direct manual craft. Feel free to prove otherwise.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 18:26:05
I believe all of the relevant points from my side were already presented and discussed and therefore I'll leave this discussion for now.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Mon, 18 January 2016, 18:38:31
But you stated that you didn't pay for the rights of the membership until after, which means you were in violation when you submitted the work.

Even so, there is nothing stopping me from running a GB for the exact same caps, and colors, I just won't have access to your legends. 

You have zero legal legs to stand on.  Now I wouldn't do that.  At one point I was planning on running a small GB that included 7bits symbols legends but in Toxic colors.  I was planning on doing this totally independent of the then running Toxic buy. 

I pmed both 7bit and BunnyLake for usage rights before even speaking with SP.  Both individuals gave me full permission. 

My point is this, if you want respect, you have to give it first.  It has to be earned, not demanded.  I have yet to see you do anything that would amount to earning a gram of respect.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 18:41:17

I pmed both 7bit and BunnyLake for usage rights before even speaking with SP.  Both individuals gave me full permission. 


Generally speaking, if you approach designers like this, they will give a full thumbs up it generally seems.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Mon, 18 January 2016, 18:41:28
But you stated that you didn't pay for the rights of the membership until after, which means you were in violation when you submitted the work.

 :thumb:
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:01:52
But you stated that you didn't pay for the rights of the membership until after, which means you were in violation when you submitted the work.

 :thumb:

I never stated that neither. Again feel free to prove otherwise.

And if you are so worried about that, delete you GeekHack account, hit the Pizza Hutt and lawyer up.

:thumb:

PS: And please invite me if possible as I love Pizza Hutt.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: digi on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:02:45
And if you are so worried about that, delete you GeekHack account

We don't have the option to delete our Geekhack account you n00b. HAHAHA
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: xondat on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:04:36
But you stated that you didn't pay for the rights of the membership until after, which means you were in violation when you submitted the work.
:thumb:
I never stated that neither. Again feel free to prove otherwise.

I didn't do this before because I didn't even know what the source for such icons was.

 :blank:
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:05:56
But you stated that you didn't pay for the rights of the membership until after, which means you were in violation when you submitted the work.

 :thumb:

I never stated that neither. Again feel free to prove otherwise.


Okay.

To solve the icon/symbol ownership issue, and to cease the discussion towards "stolen art" even though the only art I ever used on an actual real production project without giving credit to the creator was PuLSE's logo, I have now bought the complete license to all of the icons linked by lucaslink in this thread plus the entire database of icons from The Noun Project.

I now have unlimited license to use the following icons:

Leaf;
• Cosmonaut;
• Planet Earth;
• PuLSE's Logo;
• and every other icon that's featured on The Noun Project database.


I actually bought the premium membership, so I can download and use absolutely all of the icons (over 150,000 icons) displayed on the site without having to give credit to their respective creators, even for commercial use, reproduction and modification. Absolute and complete license. I didn't do this before because I didn't even know what the source for such icons was. You can pay $1,99 for each icon that you want or pay $9,99 for a monthly membership that can be canceled at any time. I chose the latter since my college will make good use of this account (and they are funding it anyway).

https://thenounproject.com/accounts/pricing/#

My position towards color schemes protection (and not ownership) remain and I'd like to hear back from Signature Plastics and other people's civil opinion about that.

Next?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:07:26
Maaaaan, now I want Pizza Hut.

And I have a strong urge to delete my geekhack account...

Must...resist...
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: xondat on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:08:12
Maaaaan, now I want Pizza Hut.

And I have a strong urge to delete my geekhack account...

Must...resist...

Pizza Hut don't have vegan cheese FML
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:10:13
More
But you stated that you didn't pay for the rights of the membership until after, which means you were in violation when you submitted the work.

 :thumb:

I never stated that neither. Again feel free to prove otherwise.


Okay.

To solve the icon/symbol ownership issue, and to cease the discussion towards "stolen art" even though the only art I ever used on an actual real production project without giving credit to the creator was PuLSE's logo, I have now bought the complete license to all of the icons linked by lucaslink in this thread plus the entire database of icons from The Noun Project.

I now have unlimited license to use the following icons:

Leaf;
• Cosmonaut;
• Planet Earth;
• PuLSE's Logo;
• and every other icon that's featured on The Noun Project database.


I actually bought the premium membership, so I can download and use absolutely all of the icons (over 150,000 icons) displayed on the site without having to give credit to their respective creators, even for commercial use, reproduction and modification. Absolute and complete license. I didn't do this before because I didn't even know what the source for such icons was. You can pay $1,99 for each icon that you want or pay $9,99 for a monthly membership that can be canceled at any time. I chose the latter since my college will make good use of this account (and they are funding it anyway).

https://thenounproject.com/accounts/pricing/#

My position towards color schemes protection (and not ownership) remain and I'd like to hear back from Signature Plastics and other people's civil opinion about that.

Next?

You beat me to it Hoff

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:11:26
Don't forget to follow the other steps of the list.

Come on man, I'm dead serious.

;)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:14:38
But you stated that you didn't pay for the rights of the membership until after, which means you were in violation when you submitted the work.
:thumb:
I never stated that neither. Again feel free to prove otherwise.

I didn't do this before because I didn't even know what the source for such icons was.

 :blank:

   :eek:

 :p

 :thumb:

 :cool:
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:16:49
:'(  No turning back from this...

I'll miss you guys.


/me deletes his geekhack account
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:19:56
:'(  No turning back from this...

I'll miss you guys.


/me deletes his geekhack account

[attach=1]

Maaaaan, now I want Pizza Hut.

And I have a strong urge to delete my geekhack account...

Must...resist...

[attach=2]
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: trizkut on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:20:37
:'(  No turning back from this...

I'll miss you guys.


/me deletes his geekhack account

bye.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanClackster on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:22:27
:'(  No turning back from this...

I'll miss you guys.


/me deletes his geekhack account

We'll miss you, buddy.  :(
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: xondat on Mon, 18 January 2016, 19:28:06
I feel like the whole of GH are ****ing with me, this **** is unbelievable. :-\
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: demik on Mon, 18 January 2016, 20:54:51
yo ****s still going on about this?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: livingspeedbump on Mon, 18 January 2016, 20:59:42
It should be noted that Rowdy actually does own Yellow.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Steezus on Mon, 18 January 2016, 21:12:05
It should be noted that Rowdy actually does own Yellow.

Everything I know is lie!
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Niomosy on Mon, 18 January 2016, 23:27:12
Quote
Material Provided to Us or Posted On or Through the Site
We do not claim ownership of any content, application or other material that you or third parties provide to us (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit on or through the Site, including our blog pages, message boards, chat rooms and forums, for review by the general public, registered users of the Site or by the members of any public or private community (“Submission”) and we are not responsible for their content, accuracy or compliance with relevant laws or regulations. However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting (“Posting”) your Submission you grant us and sub-licensees a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive right and license to display, publish and otherwise use your Submission in any format in connection with the operation of our respective businesses (including, without limitation, the Site). There is no obligation on our part to display or otherwise use any Submission you may provide, and we may remove any Submission at any time as our sole discretion. By Posting a Submission, you also warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for granting the permission specified above.
We shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor Submissions to determine compliance with these Terms and Conditions and any operating rules we establish and to satisfy any law, regulation or authorized government request. We shall have the right in our sole discretion to edit, refuse to post, or remove any Submission.

The only possible thing you anyone MIGHT own is artwork being submitted as a legend.  Even then, they have permission to reproduce it at will.  You do not own **** regarding colorways.  Technically, I could start a group buy through their system using Pulse exact color chips, family, and font provided it wasn't a user submitted font.  Guess what MiTo, you couldn't stop me.

Thank you for actually reading the Terms and Conditions. I wonder how long PMK has been looking at this thread and just saying, "I wish these idiots would just read our damn Terms of Service." It answers the thread question in no uncertain terms.

If I'm not mistaken, Oobly is working with SP to amend those terms precisely because it offers no recognition/assignment of ownership of original design work. It is his feeling that no serious designer would agree to those terms and conditions, and if he is right and he is successful in his efforts, you will see changes in the not too distant future.

Good thing we aren't serious designers ;)

I kid, I kid!  Though really, I think people get lost on the fact that, in terms of legalities, keycap sets are closer to the fashion industry where just about no protection exists, than to fine art.  And, yes, I recall Oobly posting that information.  It's why I still have the question. 

Though this divide between groups makes me all the more want to start up on an earlier discussion I had with you and Oobly regarding basic popular sets that can be put up on PMK and live there in perpetuity.  That and an orange set of some kind (orange caps, white legends for the alphas).  An orange set is needed as I keep seeing orange as the legend (yeah yeah, 7-bit's Round something or another had them years ago.  I know :(  ).
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Sifo on Tue, 19 January 2016, 00:22:52
Who wants pulse? I don't give a **** about the set myself but if people want it I'll run it.

dead serious
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zapheo on Tue, 19 January 2016, 00:24:23
Who wants pulse? I don't give a **** about the set myself but if people want it I'll run it.

dead serious

If you really are being dead serious, consider me in for R2.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Sifo on Tue, 19 January 2016, 00:26:31
1 person is enough interest for me. I'll begin working on it while I'm at work Keepo
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zapheo on Tue, 19 January 2016, 00:37:54
1 person is enough interest for me. I'll begin working on it while I'm at work Keepo

thank based sifo
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: sherryton on Tue, 19 January 2016, 00:40:45
Who wants pulse? I don't give a **** about the set myself but if people want it I'll run it.

dead serious

Savage!
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Niomosy on Tue, 19 January 2016, 00:48:39
1 person is enough interest for me. I'll begin working on it while I'm at work Keepo

I'm in.  Can you create a flatline novelty and call it flatline?  That would be hilarious.  Here's the marketing line on it.  Flatline: It's What Happens When You Have No Pulse.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: nmur on Tue, 19 January 2016, 01:07:01
Who wants pulse? I don't give a **** about the set myself but if people want it I'll run it.

dead serious

I'd be in

but only if you had an option for keys with the pulse log, rotated 90 deg so it looks like an "s" for Sifo

Side note: your pulse icon looks like a QRS trace, did you ask for permission to use that? I doubt it, because no one ones the concept.
Such icon is a letter "M" meant to represent my nickname on this forum even though it resembles a QRS trace. It looks vibrant and full of energy, like myself, so I decided to name the set "PuLSE".
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Fire Brand on Tue, 19 January 2016, 04:37:23
Well this was a interesting read, looks like mito contradicts himself a lot in regards to having made the icons and having rights to use them, personally I think this is all a bit silly and you (mito) should be happy people want to reproduce your set rather than being salty as you are about it, just means you made something people want so let them have it.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: fatb0y on Tue, 19 January 2016, 04:50:14
Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Tue, 19 January 2016, 07:25:41
Well this was a interesting read, looks like mito contradicts himself a lot in regards to having made the icons and having rights to use them, personally I think this is all a bit silly and you (mito) should be happy people want to reproduce your set rather than being salty as you are about it, just means you made something people want so let them have it.

I'm figuring something out about Pulse since the community likes the set so much. After leaving the discussion yesterday and going to bed, I made some reflections about this entire situation. This is nothing but my genuine opinion about this big discussion and naturally not everyone will agree.

We have to face the reality, the truth and the bigger picture. The community grew much more than we could predict, there are new people coming in everyday. And even though I have a very rigid philosophy about materialism I can't force my own philosophy down people's throats. What philosophy do I have? Well I'm a very minimalist person, I only have one board, a set of PBT blanks and a pair of artisans that arrived in the mail yesterday. I love to visually appreciate things (I have a huge album with pictures of all of you guys' caps and boards) but I don't feel the need of possession in the slightest. I know how to appreciate without the need of possession.

With the huge income of new members, naturally many different philosophies will show up and another thing to be taken into consideration is that we can clearly see that the consensus is that one should not dictate what's available or not for people to buy. This may lead you to think that the premise of PuLSE having a single run was about exclusivity, and in retrospect we all know that I had this idea for a while. But the community grew and then it developed into keeping the creativity ball rolling offering new flavors, for the incoming different tastes. Perhaps due to the set's popularity, my decision of a single run is clearly falling apart.

Like you said, I made (with the help of many other members and Signsture Plastics) a very successful keyset that people love. It's colorway is original? Visually and generally speaking I don't think so, since cyan and black is everywhere. But I was the pioneer on applying such colors on SA, because I thought that combining a futuristic color scheme with a retro/vintage profile would be a good idea. Bear in mind that the only SA sets that existed by the time all featured a classic/straight look, like Penumbra and 7bits'. None of the currently existing SA sets were aggressive/swaggy/goofy like Pulse. This is not a backhanded insult like many elders like to say (if you read this Mr. Lake, Nubb and Co. I have the utmost respect for Penumbra and 7bits' as they are true legends in this community). Some people don't like Pulse, me included, but the vast majority of people love it and they want it.

Hell, what am I trying to do? Do I have strength to fight against the whole community and what they demand? Clearly not. I ain't no Signature Plastics, I ain't GMK and I am no JTK. I do not own the machines and I do not have the knowledge about how to manually bake a keyset. I do not own the machines and techniques to produce things, therefore I can't control it.

But I have a good idea and people like it, they would be happy if I developed it even further.

And at the end of the day people just want to have nice things.


Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:07:06
I'm figuring something out about Pulse since the community likes the set so much.

[...]

Perhaps due to the set's popularity, my decision of a single run is clearly falling apart.

Like you said, I made (with the help of many other members and Signsture Plastics) a very successful keyset that people love. [...] But I was the pioneer on applying such colors on SA, because I thought that combining a futuristic color scheme with a retro/vintage profile would be a good idea. Bear in mind that the only SA sets that existed by the time all featured a classic/straight look, like Penumbra and 7bits'. None of the currently existing SA sets were aggressive/swaggy/goofy like Pulse. This is not a backhanded insult like many elders like to say (if you read this Mr. Lake, Nubb and Co. I have the utmost respect for Penumbra and 7bits' as they are true legends in this community). Some people don't like Pulse, me included, but the vast majority of people love it and they want it.

But I have a good idea and people like it, they would be happy if I developed it even further.

And at the end of the day people just want to have nice things.

I'm seeing a whole lot of ego stroking and not much actual discussion here.

Some people don't like Pulse, me included

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:14:53
Some people don't like Pulse, me included

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Maybe that's why he only did one release?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:21:09
Quote
Material Provided to Us or Posted On or Through the Site
We do not claim ownership of any content, application or other material that you or third parties provide to us (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit on or through the Site, including our blog pages, message boards, chat rooms and forums, for review by the general public, registered users of the Site or by the members of any public or private community (“Submission”) and we are not responsible for their content, accuracy or compliance with relevant laws or regulations. However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting (“Posting”) your Submission you grant us and sub-licensees a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, non-exclusive right and license to display, publish and otherwise use your Submission in any format in connection with the operation of our respective businesses (including, without limitation, the Site). There is no obligation on our part to display or otherwise use any Submission you may provide, and we may remove any Submission at any time as our sole discretion. By Posting a Submission, you also warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for granting the permission specified above.
We shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor Submissions to determine compliance with these Terms and Conditions and any operating rules we establish and to satisfy any law, regulation or authorized government request. We shall have the right in our sole discretion to edit, refuse to post, or remove any Submission.

The only possible thing you anyone MIGHT own is artwork being submitted as a legend.  Even then, they have permission to reproduce it at will.  You do not own **** regarding colorways.  Technically, I could start a group buy through their system using Pulse exact color chips, family, and font provided it wasn't a user submitted font.  Guess what MiTo, you couldn't stop me.

Thank you for actually reading the Terms and Conditions. I wonder how long PMK has been looking at this thread and just saying, "I wish these idiots would just read our damn Terms of Service." It answers the thread question in no uncertain terms.

If I'm not mistaken, Oobly is working with SP to amend those terms precisely because it offers no recognition/assignment of ownership of original design work. It is his feeling that no serious designer would agree to those terms and conditions, and if he is right and he is successful in his efforts, you will see changes in the not too distant future.

He's 'working with them' ? You mean he's emailing them like some lunatic trying to convince them of some ill conceived idea, and they have yet to get back to him?


Also, this thread is the gift that just keeps giving
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Tym on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:30:50
I wish to resolve this issue. I shall buy the rights to Pulse.

Starting offer - $10 donated straight to an Asylum of your choice  ;D
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zambumon on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:31:49
Some people don't like Pulse, me included

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

That's quite common…Kafka destroyed many of his works and stated several times that he disliked his writing.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:33:42
Some people don't like Pulse, me included

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

That's quite common…Kafka destroyed many of his works and stated several times that he disliked his writing.

Oh yeah, the statement taken out of context is completely fine.  :thumb:

It's the context here that makes this ridiculous.  :P
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:37:34
I wish to resolve this issue. I shall buy the rights to Pulse.

Starting offer - $10 donated straight to an Asylum of your choice  ;D

Autism!
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:39:18

I'm seeing a whole lot of ego stroking and not much actual discussion here.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Because you see only what you want too see. I don't personally like the keyset for many reasons, despite of what you think and I won't waste my time explaining to you why.

Ego? I made a goddamn keyset, what's the big ****ing deal about it? I assembled colorful pieces of plastic together with a logo made by Nico and icons made by myself. What a great genius I am right?

I hope the French government buy a Pulse set and hang it on Louvre since I'm indeed a genius, a godlike creator of masterpieces. I'm coming to the conclusion that I deserve a spotlight in this community and perhaps even a moderation spot, since I'm such a great individual, an uttermost gifted and godlike visionary. Just imagine what Leonardo DaVinci, Picasso and even Abraham Lincoln would think if they ever had the chance to witness the greatness of the set? Too bad they are gone, because the Pulse keyset could have been the reason to a completely different and much better human society. If our ancestors had the chance to witness such a great set they could perhaps have invented the wheel on a much more functional shape. Even the flame of a fire would be cyan and black instead of the original color, if the electrons had the chance to spin around a Pulse set when the universe was created. Too bad it wasn't the case.

Give me a break dude. Go read what I said instead of what you think I said and give me a break.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:40:22
Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:42:01
I can't workout which is better, the wikipedia lawyers or Mito, this thread should be stickied in off topic
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:43:12
I can't workout which is better, the wikipedia lawyers or Mito, this thread should be stickied in off topic

Some day, I hope to be a Wikipedia MiTo.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: beehatch on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:46:37

I'm seeing a whole lot of ego stroking and not much actual discussion here.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Because you see only what you want too see. I don't personally like the keyset for many reasons, despite of what you think and I won't waste my time explaining to you why.

Ego? I made a goddamn keyset, what's the big ****ing deal about it? I assembled colorful pieces of plastic together with a logo made by Nico and icons made by myself. What a great genius I am right?

I hope the French government buy a Pulse set and hang it on Louvre since I'm indeed a genius, a godlike creator of masterpieces. I'm coming to the conclusion that I deserve a spotlight in this community and perhaps even a moderation spot, since I'm such a great individual, an uttermost gifted and godlike visionary. Just imagine what Leonardo DaVinci, Picasso and even Abraham Lincoln would think if they ever had the chance to witness the greatness of the set? Too bad they are gone, because the Pulse keyset could have been the reason to a completely different and much better human society. If our ancestors had the chance to witness such a great set they could perhaps have invented the wheel on a much more functional shape. Even the flame of a fire would be cyan and black instead of the original color, if the electrons had the chance to spin around a Pulse set when the universe was created. Too bad it wasn't the case.

Give me a break dude. Go read what I said instead of what you think I said and give me a break.

autism in action
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: whmeltonjr on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:49:06
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:50:23
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

I think I heard of a few others that were considering that color scheme (what a coincidence!).  Might be worth coordinating with them?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: whmeltonjr on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:51:40
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

I think I heard of a few others that were considering that color scheme (what a coincidence!).  Might be worth coordinating with them?

Only if they want to call it Eslup
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:52:02
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

I prefer the idea of my keyset; black and cyan with cyan mods, black alphas. gona call it Autism and do it through massdrop so i can reach all the poor Brazilians
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: absyrd on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:52:17
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

Sifo is running it.

I am currently designing a novelty key for backspace and the legend will read "oMiT".

ubai?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: beehatch on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:52:29
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

I prefer the idea of my keyset; black and cyan with cyan mods, black alphas. gona call it Autism and do it through massdrop so i can reach all the poor Brazilians

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: whmeltonjr on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:52:51
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

I prefer the idea of my keyset; black and cyan with cyan mods, black alphas. gona call it Autism and do it through massdrop so i can reach all the poor Brazilians

This works too
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:53:06
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

Sifo is running it.

I am currently designing a novelty key for backspace and the legend will read "oMiT".

ubai?

mate ive got a link to these photoshop brushes im sure you can use in your set, dont worry about credditing anyone tho
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: whmeltonjr on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:53:22
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

Sifo is running it.

I am currently designing a novelty key for backspace and the legend will read "oMiT".

ubai?

Ibai
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: absyrd on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:53:49
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

Sifo is running it.

I am currently designing a novelty key for backspace and the legend will read "oMiT".

ubai?

mate ive got a link to these photoshop brushes im sure you can use in your set, dont worry about credditing anyone tho

Thank you!

oMiT will become a reality!
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:54:40
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

Sifo is running it.

I am currently designing a novelty key for backspace and the legend will read "oMiT".

ubai?

mate ive got a link to these photoshop brushes im sure you can use in your set, dont worry about credditing anyone tho

Thank you!

oMiT will become a reality!

np m8 from one designer to another eyyy
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: demik on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:54:50
IM HERE FOR THE EGO STROKING
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: whmeltonjr on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:55:31
IM HERE FOR THE EGO STROKING

You're the best demik I ever met
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: absyrd on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:56:12
IM HERE FOR THE EGO STROKING

And who's the foot?
I'm the foot but who's steppin'
(Ain't no half steppin')
You know where I'm steppin'
Skirts play wit it cause I'm slick like that
I'm the greatest MiTo in the world!!
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: beehatch on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:56:41
IM HERE FOR THE EGO STROKING

You're the best demik I ever met

he's okay at best
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: whmeltonjr on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:57:26
IM HERE FOR THE EGO STROKING

You're the best demik I ever met

he's okay at best

Well he's the only demik I know, so the bar is pretty low
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zorberema on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:58:06
Once my Round 5a(6) sets arrive, I will have a PuLSE set up for sale if anyone is interested...

Yee pls ;)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:58:57
Okay as much as this thread has probably run its course, we have strayed quite far off topic (I'm guilty of this as well).  Let's try to bring things back to the topic at hand (colorway ownership) or start a new thread to discuss this new keyset idea.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: beehatch on Tue, 19 January 2016, 08:58:58
IM HERE FOR THE EGO STROKING

You're the best demik I ever met

he's okay at best

Well he's the only demik I know, so the bar is pretty low

he is pretty short, so it's good you set the bar low
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: demik on Tue, 19 January 2016, 09:05:49
And then she wonders why she's blocked. Hating ass hater
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Tym on Tue, 19 January 2016, 09:07:57
Okay as much as this thread has probably run its course, we have strayed quite far off topic (I'm guilty of this as well).  Let's try to bring things back to the topic at hand (colorway ownership) or start a new thread to discuss this new keyset idea.

Back on topic

I've decided to raise my offer to $15 for any Asylum.

We'd be part of history!

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Lepidus on Tue, 19 January 2016, 09:10:53
Sooooo who wants to help me get Eslup (my new keyset I'm designing) going? Thinking black and cyan would be a cool color scheme. Thoughts?

I prefer the idea of my keyset; black and cyan with cyan mods, black alphas. gona call it Autism and do it through massdrop so i can reach all the poor Brazilians

Hey, massdrop doesnt ship stuff to us >:3
I would buy autism tho  ;D
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Tue, 19 January 2016, 09:11:38
Okay as much as this thread has probably run its course, we have strayed quite far off topic (I'm guilty of this as well).  Let's try to bring things back to the topic at hand (colorway ownership) or start a new thread to discuss this new keyset idea.

Back on topic

I've decided to raise my offer to $15 for any Asylum.

We'd be part of history!

If you actually wanted to do this would you have to buy the rights from Signature Plastics or Mito?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: LXXXIX on Tue, 19 January 2016, 09:17:49
Has any SP personnel responded to the actual question. This is how i feel they are reacting when entering this thred.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/USNlL9p2fxY6Q/giphy.gif)

I get the debate here, but the only one who legitimately says yes or no in actually manufacturing the damn caps is SP. Why no answer yet?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Sifo on Tue, 19 January 2016, 09:19:05
Has any SP personnel responded to the actual question. This is how i feel they are reacting when entering this thred.

Show Image
(https://media.giphy.com/media/USNlL9p2fxY6Q/giphy.gif)


I get the debate here, but the only one who legitimately says yes or no in actually manufacturing the damn caps is SP. Why no answer yet?

I will ask and get this **** on the road once I get to work (or maybe when I get off if it's a busy day)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Tue, 19 January 2016, 09:45:16
I can't workout which is better, the wikipedia lawyers or Mito, this thread should be stickied in off topic

I may not be a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Okay as much as this thread has probably run its course, we have strayed quite far off topic (I'm guilty of this as well).  Let's try to bring things back to the topic at hand (colorway ownership) or start a new thread to discuss this new keyset idea.

Back on topic

I've decided to raise my offer to $15 for any Asylum.

We'd be part of history!

If you actually wanted to do this would you have to buy the rights from Signature Plastics or Mito?

The way I see it, you don't need to ask anyone with regard to color combination, but with specific legends I believe you would have to get permission from the original creator.  So for the "Pulse" M logo, we would have to get in touch with Nico if I am understanding this correctly.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: harlw on Tue, 19 January 2016, 10:22:09
I can't workout which is better, the wikipedia lawyers or Mito, this thread should be stickied in off topic

I may not be a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Okay as much as this thread has probably run its course, we have strayed quite far off topic (I'm guilty of this as well).  Let's try to bring things back to the topic at hand (colorway ownership) or start a new thread to discuss this new keyset idea.

Back on topic

I've decided to raise my offer to $15 for any Asylum.

We'd be part of history!

If you actually wanted to do this would you have to buy the rights from Signature Plastics or Mito?

The way I see it, you don't need to ask anyone with regard to color combination, but with specific legends I believe you would have to get permission from the original creator.  So for the "Pulse" M logo, we would have to get in touch with Nico if I am understanding this correctly.


As a professional designer this is pretty much where I think the line is drawn, especially where a fairly limited color pallette is the only option. In reality, it's a fine line not pissing off a designer or the community by being "unoriginal" with a design so who owns what becomes irrelevant if you can't get buyers.



Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: SpAmRaY on Tue, 19 January 2016, 10:25:33
The real question we need to ask is what can a designer do to stir up more drama to promote their keysets? Don't take the bait people.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: fatb0y on Tue, 19 January 2016, 10:32:55
Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f8/Citigroup.svg/1280px-Citigroup.svg.png)

But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

(https://www.hoasted.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Gradient-blue.jpg)

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection. 
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Tue, 19 January 2016, 10:38:46
I can't workout which is better, the wikipedia lawyers or Mito, this thread should be stickied in off topic

I may not be a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Okay as much as this thread has probably run its course, we have strayed quite far off topic (I'm guilty of this as well).  Let's try to bring things back to the topic at hand (colorway ownership) or start a new thread to discuss this new keyset idea.

Back on topic

I've decided to raise my offer to $15 for any Asylum.

We'd be part of history!

If you actually wanted to do this would you have to buy the rights from Signature Plastics or Mito?

The way I see it, you don't need to ask anyone with regard to color combination, but with specific legends I believe you would have to get permission from the original creator.  So for the "Pulse" M logo, we would have to get in touch with Nico if I am understanding this correctly.


As a professional designer this is pretty much where I think the line is drawn, especially where a fairly limited color pallette is the only option. In reality, it's a fine line not pissing off a designer or the community by being "unoriginal" with a design so who owns what becomes irrelevant if you can't get buyers.

So what do you propose to do if a set designer is no longer around on the forums?  Or a colorway hasn't been ran for say 2 or 3 years. 
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: mashby on Tue, 19 January 2016, 10:39:49
I find this conversation fascinating and frustrating at the same time -- which is how any discussion about art/creativity and commerce goes. Some artists focus on creating and moving on to the next project and others focus on retaining ownership and control once the work is released to the public.

Mito, you seem to be staunchly in the latter camp, which is a shame because I'd like to see you do new work and not just rehashing the past.

Additionally, the language you're using and the way you're going about "protecting" your work is only going to have the opposite effect because you're not just inviting, you're challenging someone to demonstrate that they're capable of duplicating your colorway. Nothing like giving a pack of nerds a challenge to prove you wrong to incite action.

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: UTEster750 on Tue, 19 January 2016, 10:49:37
I find this conversation fascinating and frustrating at the same time -- which is how any discussion about art/creativity and commerce goes. Some artists focus on creating and moving on to the next project and others focus on retaining ownership and control once the work is released to the public.

Mito, you seem to be staunchly in the latter camp, which is a shame because I'd like to see you do new work and not just rehashing the past.

Additionally, the language you're using and the way you're going about "protecting" your work is only going to have the opposite effect because you're not just inviting, you're challenging someone to demonstrate that they're capable of duplicating your colorway. Nothing like giving a pack of nerds a challenge to prove you wrong to incite action.

Oh well, maybe one day he will learn.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Tue, 19 January 2016, 10:51:36
Nothing like giving a pack of nerds a challenge to prove you wrong to incite action.

What'd you call me?!?  >:D
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: mashby on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:03:57
Nothing like giving a pack of nerds a challenge to prove you wrong to incite action.

What'd you call me?!?  >:D


LOL! Birds of a feather my brother.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:06:39
Nothing like giving a pack of nerds a challenge to prove you wrong to incite action.

What'd you call me?!?  >:D


LOL! Birds of a feather my brother.

I thought this was a pack of geeks?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: nubbinator on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:11:14
Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

Show Image
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f8/Citigroup.svg/1280px-Citigroup.svg.png)


But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

Show Image
(https://www.hoasted.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Gradient-blue.jpg)


http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

You're confounding trade dress, which is capable of being trademarked as it is branding, with stuff that cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, like color ways.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: GL1TCH3D on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:23:21
Well this has been quite the read.

It's definitely true that the way MiTo is acting, he's more likely to get people intentionally trying to copy and reproduce his work.

Reading all his replies I get the sense "I demand that I be given ownership of the colorway and icons by the community and SP because of this great work of art that I have created"
Quote from: Mito
Respect my decision as the creator of the keyset.

While also contradicting himself with this part that is obviously not sarcasm
Quote from: Mito
Ego? I made a goddamn keyset, what's the big ****ing deal about it? I assembled colorful pieces of plastic together with a logo made by Nico and icons made by myself. What a great genius I am right?


If it really didn't matter to you and you only see it as a few pieces of plastic, why are you so protective of it? Why not let others / SP do whatever runs of it or similar sets?

Quote from: mito
The community grew much more than we could predict, there are new people coming in everyday. And even though I have a very rigid philosophy about materialism I can't force my own philosophy down people's throats. What philosophy do I have? Well I'm a very minimalist person, I only have one board, a set of PBT blanks and a pair of artisans that arrived in the mail yesterday. I love to visually appreciate things (I have a huge album with pictures of all of you guys' caps and boards) but I don't feel the need of possession in the slightest. I know how to appreciate without the need of possession.

All your comments in this thread have been exactly trying to force your ideas.
---
That it's okay not to attribute work.
That it's okay to break the rules (paying for the work after the fact simply because of community backlash. And didn't you even state that the university is paying for it and not you?)
That people shouldn't want to own a keyset, that a picture will suffice.
---
Running an exclusive set goes directly against your idea that people shouldn't buy to have something. If they don't buy it, they may never be able to get it in the future.

When I take a picture of an artisan keycap, I can only do so much to capture the artistic value (which is also limited by my admittedly poor skill) of it but looking at a picture is not the same as seeing it in person, feeling the texture of it as you press down on that key (if you actually put yours on your boards).

If they wanted to enjoy PuLSE to the fullest extent in the future, you basically forced them to buy into the group buy by saying that it would be an exclusive one shot. And at the same time, leaving anybody who wasn't able to buy into the original group buy in the dust.

For your specific keyboard, did you just buy a random crap bag and randomly place keycaps on your board? Or did you choose a specific set of PBT blanks that matched your tastes? Both color wise and profile wise.

Is it not possible that someone out there feels that PuLSE is that "one" set set that they want to use? (It doesn't even have to be PuLSE really)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: fatb0y on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:24:09
Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

Show Image
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f8/Citigroup.svg/1280px-Citigroup.svg.png)


But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

Show Image
(https://www.hoasted.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Gradient-blue.jpg)


http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

You're confounding trade dress, which is capable of being trademarked as it is branding, with stuff that cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, like color ways.



So what you are saying is trade dress can be trademarked.  In America, trade dress specifically refers to the following things, the shape/configuration of a product, the packaging of a product, the color of a product or packaging, and the flavor of a product.

I'm sorry I'm confused, so are you saying colors can or can't be trademarked?

I can't workout which is better, the wikipedia lawyers or Mito, this thread should be stickied in off topic

I may not be a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Okay as much as this thread has probably run its course, we have strayed quite far off topic (I'm guilty of this as well).  Let's try to bring things back to the topic at hand (colorway ownership) or start a new thread to discuss this new keyset idea.

Back on topic

I've decided to raise my offer to $15 for any Asylum.

We'd be part of history!

If you actually wanted to do this would you have to buy the rights from Signature Plastics or Mito?

The way I see it, you don't need to ask anyone with regard to color combination, but with specific legends I believe you would have to get permission from the original creator.  So for the "Pulse" M logo, we would have to get in touch with Nico if I am understanding this correctly.


As a professional designer this is pretty much where I think the line is drawn, especially where a fairly limited color pallette is the only option. In reality, it's a fine line not pissing off a designer or the community by being "unoriginal" with a design so who owns what becomes irrelevant if you can't get buyers.

So what do you propose to do if a set designer is no longer around on the forums?  Or a colorway hasn't been ran for say 2 or 3 years.


Things like trademarks stop being protected if the owner of the mark doesn't actually use the trademark.

So do what you would do today, put your colorway idea  together and send it to someone to get made. You just have to find someone to make it. 

Besides, keyset designers don't have any sort of claim over color schemes.  The people who might have rights over color schemes, at least in terms of keycaps, are companies like Dolch and Skidata, where their use of a conspicuous color scheme is consistent and pervasive across their product line and brand culture. 




 
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:40:13
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

[attach=1]
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:43:44
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

So it seems that the answer to the thread question, "Who owns a colorway?" is, not surprisingly, nobody.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zambumon on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:44:51
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

Custom colors…
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: LXXXIX on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:45:02
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

So would a basic Black and Cyan color but in this format be okay?

(https://deskthority.net/w/images/b/b1/HONEYB_TKL.png)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: HoffmanMyster on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:45:32
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

I admit confusion.

The first paragraph seems to imply that they have no issues re-running a set, while the second indicates that they will not re-run a "custom" set.  Does custom mean that a user selected the color scheme from their palette of colors, or that the set must have been a true color match with unique resin as detailed in the first paragraph?
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:46:52
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

So would a basic Black and Cyan color but in this format be okay?

Show Image
(https://deskthority.net/w/images/b/b1/HONEYB_TKL.png)


Correct, you just have to specify what colors you want to use, not just send them a pic and say copy this.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:47:14
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

I admit confusion.

The first paragraph seems to imply that they have no issues re-running a set, while the second indicates that they will not re-run a "custom" set.  Does custom mean that a user selected the color scheme from their palette of colors, or that the set must have been a true color match with unique resin as detailed in the first paragraph?

I read it as, if you come at them asking them to make Pulse again, they would say no unless MiTo said it was ok. But if you come at them with a design for a set identical to Pulse, minus the custom legends they would be fine with making it again.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: GL1TCH3D on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:49:21
I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: FLFisherman on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:50:16
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

I admit confusion.

The first paragraph seems to imply that they have no issues re-running a set, while the second indicates that they will not re-run a "custom" set.  Does custom mean that a user selected the color scheme from their palette of colors, or that the set must have been a true color match with unique resin as detailed in the first paragraph?

I read it as, if you come at them asking them to make Pulse again, they would say no unless MiTo said it was ok. But if you come at them with a design for a set identical to Pulse, minus the custom legends they would be fine with making it again.

This is how I interpreted as well.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Melvang on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:52:11
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

I admit confusion.

The first paragraph seems to imply that they have no issues re-running a set, while the second indicates that they will not re-run a "custom" set.  Does custom mean that a user selected the color scheme from their palette of colors, or that the set must have been a true color match with unique resin as detailed in the first paragraph?

I read it as, if you come at them asking them to make Pulse again, they would say no unless MiTo said it was ok. But if you come at them with a design for a set identical to Pulse, minus the custom legends they would be fine with making it again.

This is my interpretation as well.  If you go to them and tell them that you want to do a set with identical colors as "insert keyset here" they won't.  But if you get the exact color codes, and ask them to do a set with those specified colors, they won't have a problem.  Though you would need express permission to use the "custom" legends for both two shot and sublimated.  Same thing with custom colors.  I can't just email them and say I want to use the green from the Toxic set with RDA (could look bad ass though), they won't do it.  But if BunnyLake was to give me the pantone color code or whatever parameters they need to mix the exact custom color, they wouldn't have a problem.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zambumon on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:53:08
I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

I can assure you that it wasn't that way.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:53:57
I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

I can assure you that it wasn't that way.

I trust this guy, 100% sarcasm.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: fatb0y on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:58:03
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

I admit confusion.

The first paragraph seems to imply that they have no issues re-running a set, while the second indicates that they will not re-run a "custom" set.  Does custom mean that a user selected the color scheme from their palette of colors, or that the set must have been a true color match with unique resin as detailed in the first paragraph?

I read it as, if you come at them asking them to make Pulse again, they would say no unless MiTo said it was ok. But if you come at them with a design for a set identical to Pulse, minus the custom legends they would be fine with making it again.

This is how I interpreted as well.

I don't think they have a problem remaking custom legends either, so long as you provide them with new files to make the legend from.

Makes sense, If I was Signature Plastics I wouldn't want to be bothered with checking a backlog of all custom legends ever made when a new one is submitted.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zambumon on Tue, 19 January 2016, 11:59:26
I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

I can assure you that it wasn't that way.

I trust this guy, 100% sarcasm.

I wasn't being sarcastic.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: baldgye on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:01:19
I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

I can assure you that it wasn't that way.

I trust this guy, 100% sarcasm.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

Neither was I.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: MiTo on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:05:30
I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

PuLSE 2 doesn't need an explicit IC right now, people obviously want it so they will have it. A lot of people knew this already. It was even easter egged with the "Wait and Sea" joke on Reddit and some users followed the clues. I was hinting there all along, despite of what I've said here. We all knew from the beginning that nobody can possibly own a scheme.

My post from a couple of hours ago and even older posts clearly said that.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zapheo on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:07:33
I think the IC on Reddit fell apart. :))
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: beehatch on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:12:51
I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

PuLSE 2 doesn't need an explicit IC right now, people obviously want it so they will have it. A lot of people knew this already. It was even easter egged with the "Wait and Sea" joke on Reddit and some users followed the clues. I was hinting there all along, despite of what I've said here. We all knew from the beginning that nobody can possibly own a scheme.

My post from a couple of hours ago and even older posts clearly said that.

blowing more smoke out of your ass once again
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: nubbinator on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:13:09
More
Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

Show Image
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f8/Citigroup.svg/1280px-Citigroup.svg.png)


But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

Show Image
(https://www.hoasted.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Gradient-blue.jpg)


http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

You're confounding trade dress, which is capable of being trademarked as it is branding, with stuff that cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, like color ways.



So what you are saying is trade dress can be trademarked.  In America, trade dress specifically refers to the following things, the shape/configuration of a product, the packaging of a product, the color of a product or packaging, and the flavor of a product.

I'm sorry I'm confused, so are you saying colors can or can't be trademarked?

Trade dress is your brand identity.  With regards to colors, a trademark-able color is a specific color that was created to uniquely and distinctly identify your brand.  It's also a color that is neither functional nor one that is aesthetic.  It must be used to identify your brand.

Pulse is not a brand, as such, it is not something that could be trademarked.  I don't know how I could say it any clearer than has already been stated several times in here.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: xondat on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:15:19

Some people don't like Pulse, me included

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Told you ;)

--

I have one class and this **** happens lmao it's the end of the world
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: UTEster750 on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:15:47
More
Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

Show Image
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f8/Citigroup.svg/1280px-Citigroup.svg.png)


But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

Show Image
(https://www.hoasted.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Gradient-blue.jpg)


http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

You're confounding trade dress, which is capable of being trademarked as it is branding, with stuff that cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, like color ways.



So what you are saying is trade dress can be trademarked.  In America, trade dress specifically refers to the following things, the shape/configuration of a product, the packaging of a product, the color of a product or packaging, and the flavor of a product.

I'm sorry I'm confused, so are you saying colors can or can't be trademarked?

Trade dress is your brand identity.  With regards to colors, a trademark-able color is a specific color that was created to uniquely and distinctly identify your brand.  It's also a color that is neither functional nor one that is aesthetic.  It must be used to identify your brand.

Pulse is not a brand, as such, it is not something that could be trademarked.  I don't know how I could say it any clearer than has already been stated several times in here.
That is pretty clear I think.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Zambumon on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:19:10


Trade dress is your brand identity.  With regards to colors, a trademark-able color is a specific color that was created to uniquely and distinctly identify your brand.  It's also a color that is neither functional nor one that is aesthetic.  It must be used to identify your brand.

Pulse is not a brand, as such, it is not something that could be trademarked.  I don't know how I could say it any clearer than has already been stated several times in here.


Case closed

Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: nickheller on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:20:09
I just find it kind of funny that as soon as Mito found out that he has no protection of his colorway, he started the IC for R2

PuLSE 2 doesn't need an explicit IC right now, people obviously want it so they will have it. A lot of people knew this already. It was even easter egged with the "Wait and Sea" joke on Reddit and some users followed the clues. I was hinting there all along, despite of what I've said here. We all knew from the beginning that nobody can possibly own a scheme.

My post from a couple of hours ago and even older posts clearly said that.
If it doesn't need an IC why did you post one (and delete it)
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: fatb0y on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:41:06
More
Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

Show Image
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f8/Citigroup.svg/1280px-Citigroup.svg.png)


But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

Show Image
(https://www.hoasted.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Gradient-blue.jpg)


http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

You're confounding trade dress, which is capable of being trademarked as it is branding, with stuff that cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, like color ways.



So what you are saying is trade dress can be trademarked.  In America, trade dress specifically refers to the following things, the shape/configuration of a product, the packaging of a product, the color of a product or packaging, and the flavor of a product.

I'm sorry I'm confused, so are you saying colors can or can't be trademarked?

Trade dress is your brand identity.  With regards to colors, a trademark-able color is a specific color that was created to uniquely and distinctly identify your brand.  It's also a color that is neither functional nor one that is aesthetic.  It must be used to identify your brand.

Pulse is not a brand, as such, it is not something that could be trademarked.  I don't know how I could say it any clearer than has already been stated several times in here.

You should re-read what I said, I never said that Pulse can be trademarked, I was simply saying that a color can be trademarked, since up and down this thread people kept saying color cannot be trademarked, when in fact it can.

Also, a color need not be a specific color created for you, it just has to be a color that is peculiar within your market. The color can't solely be functional or aesthetic, but that doesn't mean that a color used in trade dress can't have those qualities.

I mean why use color if not for its aesthetic value? I can almost guarantee every color that is currently trademarked was incorporated into the brand identity because of aesthetic purposes.

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: GL1TCH3D on Tue, 19 January 2016, 12:59:29
More
Technically, color schemes can be trademarked or at least extended IP protection. However, its just incredibly difficult to get done.
 
Citigroup actually has a trademark for the blue gradient that they use.

But doesn't this also qualify as a logo for icon?

I don't think so. Citigroup has a logo, it's citi with the red arch between the I's.

Show Image
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f8/Citigroup.svg/1280px-Citigroup.svg.png)


But beyond that trademark, they also have protectable rights over something like this.

Show Image
(https://www.hoasted.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Gradient-blue.jpg)


http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2005506&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

You're confounding trade dress, which is capable of being trademarked as it is branding, with stuff that cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, like color ways.



So what you are saying is trade dress can be trademarked.  In America, trade dress specifically refers to the following things, the shape/configuration of a product, the packaging of a product, the color of a product or packaging, and the flavor of a product.

I'm sorry I'm confused, so are you saying colors can or can't be trademarked?

Trade dress is your brand identity.  With regards to colors, a trademark-able color is a specific color that was created to uniquely and distinctly identify your brand.  It's also a color that is neither functional nor one that is aesthetic.  It must be used to identify your brand.

Pulse is not a brand, as such, it is not something that could be trademarked.  I don't know how I could say it any clearer than has already been stated several times in here.

You should re-read what I said, I never said that Pulse can be trademarked, I was simply saying that a color can be trademarked, since up and down this thread people kept saying color cannot be trademarked, when in fact it can.

Also, a color need not be a specific color created for you, it just has to be a color that is peculiar within your market. The color can't solely be functional or aesthetic, but that doesn't mean that a color used in trade dress can't have those qualities.

I mean why use color if not for its aesthetic value? I can almost guarantee every color that is currently trademarked was incorporated into the brand identity because of aesthetic purposes.

I'm just saying, color schemes can in fact be protectable IP. However, in the case of Mito, since the color scheme is solely a feature of the product itself, he wouldn't have any IP protection.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f0/ea/7b/f0ea7b2430507ca669d0b48b9a52b0ef.jpg)

Have you seen tim hortons uniforms??????  :eek:
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: SixtyLife on Tue, 19 January 2016, 13:02:09

You know, if you had just said 'oh yeah i used those icons' I think most of us would've been like 'ok cool whatever who cares.' but now you're claiming to have made the leaf?!

below are 2 screenshots from this http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png (http://i.imgur.com/NUJfow8.png) godspeed IC image with the original icons overlaid.

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/nhuvKoW.gif)

Show Image
(http://i.imgur.com/UZppjpV.gif)


About the PuLSE icon, it looks exactly the same and it's clearly from Nico. The diameter of the edges and angles are in fact identical and this is not a surprise, since I used an image featuring his icon as reference to create a logo for the set.

I can't say anything but repeat that the the leaf is an incredible coincidence. Not a surprise though, since it's a general shape with an closed angle cut. Anyone can do this is less than five minutes and I created the one I used from scratch.

The planet is a scan from a newsletter from my university, they used this icon as a tag for highlighting their website on the back of the newsletter. They also have the Facebook iconic "f" and a small phone to highlight their telephone number.

At this point you guys discussing ownership of everything might as well discuss the ownership of the shape of our planet and a leaf. Good luck with that.

this is all anyone should ever need to see to never support any of Mito's projects ever again. "incredible coincidence"?? just man up and admit you used someone else's icon.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: Niomosy on Tue, 19 January 2016, 13:02:29
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)

So it seems that the answer to the thread question, "Who owns a colorway?" is, not surprisingly, nobody.

The thing is, you say, "not surprisingly," but I suspect that a fair number of users here, on /r/MK, and on MassDrop are going to be very surprised by this.  Hell, the Eslup IC already has the question in it once.  I've seen numerous discussions of the set being owned IP on MassDrop and even /r/MK has people believing in colorway ownership.

Regardless of the answer, I'm glad we have an answer.
Title: Re: Who owns a colorway?
Post by: user 18 on Tue, 19 January 2016, 13:02:50
It seems that the question has been answered authoritatively by Melissa. In the interest of not driving this thread any further off-topic, the thread has been locked.

 
So I just got a reply from Melissa at SP regarding colorway and custom legend IP.

(Attachment Link)