 |
BabaStudio
Member
|
I think the lack of rip-offs of Il Meneghello decks may be more because they didn't sell fast, rather than because of the number issued. Pirates are looking for a quick buck. But of course, only the publisher really knows.
It's hard to work out an "optimal" number for a limited edition and until recently, I never even took account of the dangers of pirating - as Adam says, it seems to have become more of a problem just in the last 3 or 4 years. Numbers depends a lot on the deck itself. We ran 500 of the Gold and Silver decks because we printed them at the same time as the standards, and 500 was the minimum a printer would agree to print up with the extra metallic layer. At the time, we had no idea if anyone would want them.
With the Alice Tarot we will do 1000, which I think is about as large as I'd want to go with a limited edition deck. It might seem a tiny quantity compared to some things, but for a deck it's a good number and of course, we only have so much money to invest.
I'd guess every publisher would answer differently. Adam is hand-producing his decks, so I suppose 500 would be out of the question. I'm not sure why Il Meneghello chose to do large limited edition runs. I know that with Tarot of Prague (limited to 3500 for the first edition) we just ran as many as we could afford - while knowing at the same time that with all the hand-work the packaging involved, we would not be able to repeat it (the poor old packager literally said, "Never again"). So it wasn't a very scientific calculation!
In a sense though, I think you may be right about larger runs not attracting pirates so much. I don't think Tarot of Prague has been pirated (I hope that's true). On the other hand, and somewhat oddly, Fairytale Tarot has been - or so I'm told. And it's not limited edition at all.
Last edited on Mon Jun 21st, 2010 03:00 pm by BabaStudio
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
goldenweb wrote: I hope Adam reconsiders his decision to stop producing art tarots. It would be a sad loss if he doesn't.
I am sorry but it is not a matter of my reconsidering a decision. I cannot realistically continue putting my money into publishing tarots when people feel they are justified in scanning these at print quality and distributing them to others through the Internet. I cannot commit financial suicide. It is these pirates and file sharers that made the decision for me. I am not so stupid as merely to throw what little money I have into the hands of pirates and file sharers.
I wonder now if it is possible for any person to attempt to start an independent tarot publishing business. The impact of pirates and file sharers may make it impossible for any new emerging publishers to get a return on their investment. Things have definitely changed for the worse in the last year. The pirates and file sharers sense that what little Internet regulations there are can easily be side-stepped with clever wording and disclaimers on their web pages. No one stands up for the aggrieved publisher. They are left to struggle on their own. I suspect this is the end of niche publishing.
The tarot collecting community may now be left with the mass market publishers, able to enforce their intellectual property rights through hiring lawyers, and the self-publishing artist, who does not make any money out of selling their tarot anyway, and is usually just pleased to have been able to get it into printed form.
It is all a bit sad.
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
gregory wrote: Adam's courses have been extensively pirated and sold on with no benefit to him - and his sensitivity on this issue is therefore understandable. Copyright on the web is a nightmare, and needs sorting out.
I discovered only yesterday that images of some of my paintings have been uploaded by someone onto the Wikimedia Commons as being public domain. So they are now stealing my courses, tarot decks and my paintings.
I suppose I will eventually get these items removed from Wikimedia Commons, but I have to fill in complex forms to establish my copyright - when the original painting is sitting there on the wall of my kitchen ! I have to prove my copyright by giving a mass of details, while the idiot who put this up did not have to prove that it was public domain, they just posted it. The Internet is destroying creative people.
Don't even consider a career as an artist. Become a copyright lawyer instead.
Last edited on Mon Jun 21st, 2010 05:02 pm by AdamMcLean
|
|
|
Marcia959
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 394 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I pay a lot of money for the real deal. I don't want pirated decks, even as a novelty. I can be fooled, though, and hope I have not been so far nor will be in the future. I have friends who are artists. I have some of my own feeble work out there in the collaborative decks. Please boycott pirating.
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I've been reading (& rereading) this thread thinking about everything being said here.
Bottom line - if we loss small publishers of art decks it is such a great loss to the Tarot community & Art world it is the future generation that will really be losing.
The energy Adam is using to defend something so special - is energy that could of gone into adding more beautiful art to our world & it saddens me greatly!
It also reminds me very much of the music business.
I have many friends that are musicians & have had to change the way
they make money. It's become much harder because of a similar type of
file sharing. The solution there has been to make music available for download.
Doing what the pirates do before they can do it -
It may come to that.
People will buy the files & print them themselves.
Complicated issues to say the least!
Unlike Music I feel something is lost without a printing of the original art by the artist.
A big part of tarot collecting is the Box & Cards.
Bottom line IMHO:
Loosing Adams future contributions is such a great loss to the Tarot world!
CC
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
CastleCrest wrote:
People will buy the files & print them themselves.
Complicated issues to say the least!
Unlike Music I feel something is lost without a printing of the original art by the artist.
A big part of tarot collecting is the Box & Cards.
I don't know about others, but that would count us out. Designing the whole package - and the exact way in which the cards are printed and presented - is vital to us. We would never, ever spend huge numbers of hours working on a deck that would only be available online.
It would be interesting to see what others think. I appreciate your thoughtful post CC.
|
|
|
Sebille
Member
|
Personally, I want the whole enchilada: cards, package/box, and book (when there is a book to go with it).
I for one do not want to have to print these kinds of things myself, on the low-end types of printers I have access to. It just would not be the same. How would I ever have one of these fabulous decks with gilt edging, or the beautiful metallic inks used on some of the limited editions? That's what makes them so special, so coveted, so collectible and treasured. If I had to resort to printing my own on my crappy little HP laserjet at home, well... bleah.
Unfortunately, the art world in general has always had forgers and knock-offs. I'm just surprised in the Tarot community there would be so many people willing to go along with it. I always thought the Tarot community was a little more tight-knit than that. I guess I'm showing my naivete.
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
Sadly this might seem okay at first glance, but with the users printing the cards on any printer and on any card stock and then trying to cut them to size, the resulting decks will very variable in quality and have almost no secondhand value. The collectors market for these will then disappear, and all we will have left is people collecting jpgs.
That would seem to be the consequences of file sharing Tarot artwork.
|
|
|
goldenweb
Member
|
BabaStudio wrote: CastleCrest wrote:
People will buy the files & print them themselves.
Complicated issues to say the least!
Unlike Music I feel something is lost without a printing of the original art by the artist.
A big part of tarot collecting is the Box & Cards.
I don't know about others, but that would count us out. Designing the whole package - and the exact way in which the cards are printed and presented - is vital to us. We would never, ever spend huge numbers of hours working on a deck that would only be available online.
That's exactly how I feel. Publishing a small editon makes using a playing card printer and solar bloc card out of the question, so apart from the time spent on the actual painting and artwork (which takes me ages), I like to make sure the presentation is really special and not easily replicated, and put a lot of time into that aspect too.
I actually bought all the equipment needed to print cards myself (to see what was involved) before publishing the Mystic Rubaiyat, but the cost of materials (apart from the time needed), ruled that out too.
I did once make a set of cards that were offered for free download for personal use by the artist (Eternal Dream), but would much prefer to buy a finished deck complete with packaging, as the artist invisaged.
Pen
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Don't take my statement as avocation of that process.
It is just the way I see technology effecting art.
Ask any musician what they think about MP3 files -
It will be the artists that make collecting worth collecting.
I hate to see this move into file sharing -
I have to say at the same time technology has made printing
pretty easy & the quality high.
All that said I Love seeing the whole package!
It is what part of the deck.
I've bought the same deck several times, just for the different packaging.
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I'll add - The music industry seemed to fall behind & then catch up.
No one was making money selling CD's - they had to do something?
|
|
|
Reece
Member
|
Ciro was talking about the new age in tarot media some time back on AT. Last edited on Mon Jun 21st, 2010 09:01 pm by Reece
|
|
|
truelighth
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1069 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Personally, I want cards and not just jpg's on the computer. It just isn't the same. I like seeing the images on the computer, but there is just no comparison to having a real deck of cards in my hands. And complete with box etx if possible. So for me the new media is a nice 'extra', but nothing more then that. I sure hope it won't ever replace printed cards or books.
These days there is a trent in manga (which I am also very much into at the moment) to publish on the web. And yes, there is also a lot of pirated stuff there (scanlations). But you can also pay and read it online, which I did. But I have to say, I hate it. I miss having the book in my hands and being able to read and re-read it whenever I can. Unfortunally due to this digital publishing, some publishers have even stopped printing their books in book format, since it is cheaper for them to publish it digitally instead  .
Anyway, I am all for the boycott of pirated decks. I won't just buy a pirated deck because I can't get the original. I want the real deck and I will wait and hunt for it. And I most certainly won't buy any cheap knock-off decks.
But having said that, I can't honestly say that I have no bootleg decks at all, since I did buy that Golden Tarot kalender from Germany for $5 several years ago (I also got the real Golden Tarot after it was published) and I have some RWS-clones that would fit the bill of bootleg (and yes, that is because I wanted to get every RWS version ever published). I am indeed talking about the DeLaurence. Every DeLaurence Tarot is in fact a bootleg. The DeLaurence company never got permission from Rider or Waite to publish their decks. But because they are so old and have been doing the bootleg ever since 1918, people have kinda forgotten about that. Same for the Merrimack version of the RWS.
As for printing the images yourself from the web, I don't think I would bother. Too much effort and too much money. You are better off spending the money on buying the actual deck and supporting the artist. I actually coloured the Pendragon Mother deck myself, which cost me a lot of time and printed that one out. A very big job! The result is nice, but it is printed on simple photo card and can't be used for reading. It definately doesn't compete with real printed decks for me. I don't think I would undertake any effort like that again, unless I become creative again and handcolour yet another deck.
Last edited on Mon Jun 21st, 2010 10:20 pm by truelighth
|
|
|
debra
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Adam, I wonder if the people who posted your paintings on wikicommons realize that they are in fact yours. I have the impression that your paintings are mostly your hand-made facsimile copies of very old paintings, is that correct? People simply may not realize that you have a "right," in other words, or may mistake your images for the original. After all, I recall that for our first collaborative deck, to which you contributed a copy you'd painted, you accidentally uploaded the original instead of your copy by mistake!
People do want things cheaply and some will accept compromised quality to that end.
There's also a trend to "make it your own," and printing out a copy at home is part of this. People trim borders, draw over cards (clothing the nude, etc.); some people add colors, etc. There's a long thread at AT for people who are "pimping their decks" by adding stickers, glitter, over-painting, etc. Of course many buy b&w decks intended to be colored (the BOTA and several others). I wonder how many decks languish in drawers with only the Fool and Magician colored in. I photocopied my black and white Vacchetta cards onto cardstock and am (slowly) coloring it in for my own amusement. There is a copy on-line for download, but I found it easier to lay my cards on a photocopy machine. If they were readily available at $20 instead of hard to find at $100, I would have simply bought a second deck.
Another trend is the purchase of one or more "back-up" decks--identical decks that some collectors, and especially readers, buy to stash away "just in case" something happens to their "main" copy. Like buying 5 copies of your favorite music CD in case something happens to your first copy and it can no longer be bought.
Last edited on Mon Jun 21st, 2010 10:55 pm by debra
|
|
|
Marcia959
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 394 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
debra wrote: Another trend is the purchase of one or more "back-up" decks--identical decks that some collectors, and especially readers, buy to stash away "just in case" something happens to their "main" copy. Like buying 5 copies of your favorite music CD in case something happens to your first copy and it can no longer be bought.
Oh, on this one, guilty as charged! Hopefully, my worst case scenario planning in some small way makes up for others' piracy.
Last edited on Mon Jun 21st, 2010 10:57 pm by Marcia959
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
It may be a good idea to ad LARGER Copy right info right onto every deck.
Doing it in such a way that pictures can't be reproduced without the copy right seals.
Cuba has taken to adding a Hologram seal to all their cigar boxes now.
If you cigars don't have the Hologram seal they are probably counterfeits.
Sure there are a lot of people that don't know & they will buy fake Cuban cigars anyway, but I'm sure adding the seal has helped - somewhat!
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
How does someone check the copy right if a deck??
IS there somewhere you can in-put a decks name & find out who owns
the copy rights to the deck???
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
That's fine - BUT - it only works for honest people uploading files. If I scan a deck and post it on multiply - that isn't going to be something I will want to do; multiply is for peopel reproducing (in part; I knwo many of us do look.... !)
If ADAM chose to upload a deck, I'm sure he would do that - and I think Karen has done something on MRP's site that means they won't download anyway ? Many photo sites have software to prevent downloads. The site where I host mine certainly does, though I have to edit my settings to activate that !
The fraudsters will not add watermarks etc. So one is no further ahead if artists do !
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
CastleCrest wrote: How does someone check the copy right if a deck??
All modern tarot deck are copyright.
Copyright extends 70 years from the death of the artist.
The earliest modern tarots date from the 1960's. Thus the artist could not have died before then. Add 70 to the earliest, say 1960, and you get a copy expiration date of 2030.
All modern tarot are still under copyright.
Q.E.D.
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
CastleCrest wrote: How does someone check the copy right if a deck??
IS there somewhere you can in-put a decks name & find out who owns
the copy rights to the deck???
Look at the box, and the title card. Contact the publisher. Look for the artist.
I'd say easily 90% of decks are copyright, one way or another ! It varies from country to country, of course. Copyright in Europe (and I THINK now in the US) lapses 70 years after the death of the artist/author, unless there is a specific way around it (as in the case of J M Barrie's Peter Pan, which had a special clause in its registered copyright so that a hospital could carry on collecting royalties !).
Here is a discussion of the WS copyright situation which also has some general info.
Oh - cross posted 
Last edited on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 12:10 pm by gregory
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Lets say a printer is approuched by someone asking to have a deck scanned or has HighRez - Scans & claims to own these art work - how does or where does the printer
go to check who owns the images?
Is it easy to check such information???
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
CastleCrest wrote: Lets say a printer is approuched by someone asking to have a deck scanned or has HighRez - Scans & claims to own these art work - how does or where does the printer go to check who owns the images?
The printer will not check anything. Instead they would make the publisher presenting the material, sign a copyright release note, thus transferring the responsibility for any copyright violation away from the printer and onto the publisher.
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
CastleCrest wrote: Lets say a printer is approuched by someone asking to have a deck scanned or has HighRez - Scans & claims to own these art work - how does or where does the printer
go to check who owns the images?
Is it easy to check such information???
CastleCrest - may one ask exactly why you are asking ?
Most printers will print pretty much anything, but some responsible places around here actually WON'T print from scans. I know this from when I scanned something of my OWN and in the end had to print it myself and have them photocopy it for me (I wanted it on heavy card that my printer can't handle !)
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
gregory wrote: CastleCrest wrote: Lets say a printer is approuched by someone asking to have a deck scanned or has HighRez - Scans & claims to own these art work - how does or where does the printer
go to check who owns the images?
Is it easy to check such information???
CastleCrest - may one ask exactly why you are asking ?
Most printers will print pretty much anything, but some responsible places around here actually WON'T print from scans. I know this from when I scanned something of my OWN and in the end had to print it myself and have them photocopy it for me (I wanted it on heavy card that my printer can't handle !)
I have an idea for doing some publishing of Tarot decks.
Inspired by this discussion & the hardest part (IMHO) is making sure your
not printing copy righted material.
If it's not to hard to check - then it might work.
A new technology kind of thing.
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
If you are taking anything from elsewhere - especially on line - you are on dodgy ground. That's why I only use my own photographs - though I did have to use that night sky one for the card here - but I made DAMN sure it said royalty free ! ! (Or - very rarely, draw stuff.)
What are you trying to use ?
Last edited on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 06:05 pm by gregory
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
I have an idea for doing some publishing of Tarot decks.
Inspired by this discussion & the hardest part (IMHO) is making sure your
not printing copy righted material.
If it's not to hard to check - then it might work.
A new technology kind of thing.
In the vast majority of cases it's not at all hard to check. If the author/artist has not been dead for 70 years at least, then it is in copyright.
There are a few exceptions to this based on different laws that the US used to have. But you only really have to worry about those if you are using material that's 1920s, 1930s (some of that did come out of copyright in, I think, 1977 if the copyright was not renewed - it's often hard to research this to be sure, but if you read material on copyright laws carefully and do your homework it can sometimes be worked out fairly accurately).
But as Adam said, anything whatsoever that is modern - i.e. made post 1950s - is definitely still in copyright. Most work that's post 1925 (roughly) is still in copyright also, with the exceptions that I've mentioned above.
Last edited on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 06:56 pm by BabaStudio
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
There is the still vexed question of art galleries.
The Louvre assured me that even if I took a photo of the Mona Lisa I couldn't use it, and there is another place I go that says you can take photos but not use them for anything from which you will derive a profit (that is an admittedly private CHURCH from CENTURIES ago !)
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Are we traveling to far off topic for this thread?
Basically I was thinking about "take what Adam does"
Artists getting their tarot printed &
how the printer knows if the art belongs to the artist?
I'm looking for a way to check copy right & to verify ownership of original art?
This has nothing to do with reproducing anything but rather thinking about
how one would avoid doing just that.
Part of looking for a solution to Adam's problem has me thinking in business terms, because the bottom line is money.
If you can't cover your cost your on a sinking ship.
That said - there are artists that do not work for money, but rather the Love of the Art.
They still have to eat & stay warm -
Mostly just thinking about Tarot & it's future!
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
CastleCrest wrote: Are we traveling to far off topic for this thread?
Artists getting their tarot printed &
how the printer knows if the art belongs to the artist?
I'm looking for a way to check copy right & to verify ownership of original art?
That's already been answered further up the thread. It's not the responsibility of the printer - they will just ask the client to sign off on copyright. The publisher will also usually get the artist/author to sign off on copyright.
In other words, the buck stops with the artist and author and ultimately they are the ones who will be sued if they are using material that's copyright of someone else (without permission or licensing that is, to be pedantic)
I assume that's what you are asking. If not, please clarify.
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
And as we sometimes see in the world of music - if an artist reckons their songs have been copied, it will end up in court.
Adam deals directly with artists. I think a publisher - which is in fact what Adam is, even though he does also print his own decks - does have some idea who he is dealing with. In some cases, other people and suggested an artists goes to him for publication. In the case of Ly, here, for instance, he is known to all of us, and to Adam.
If Any Warhol had come to you with images and said he wanted them published, I think you would have had no worries about whether he was breaching copyright.
If he had taken them to a printer and asked for prints - the printer wouldn't have given a rat's ass WHOSE they were.... Sadly.
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
BabaStudio wrote: CastleCrest wrote: Are we traveling to far off topic for this thread?
Artists getting their tarot printed &
how the printer knows if the art belongs to the artist?
I'm looking for a way to check copy right & to verify ownership of original art?
That's already been answered further up the thread. It's not the responsibility of the printer - they will just ask the client to sign off on copyright. The publisher will also usually get the artist/author to sign off on copyright.
In other words, the buck stops with the artist and author and ultimately they are the ones who will be sued if they are using material that's copyright of someone else (without permission or licensing that is, to be pedantic)
I assume that's what you are asking. If not, please clarify.
No I'm kind of backassward to what your saying -
I'm asking if the printer "wants to check" the copy right of material how much work is it to be sure the material is printable without breaking copy right laws.
Trying to gauge how much work it would be for the printer to check.
I understand : The publisher will also usually get the artist/author to sign off on copyright.
I'm thinking from a publisher that would not want to be part of pirating & how much work is involved in avoiding this type of thing.
As Gregory stated:
Adam deals directly with artists.
Lets say Adam was being offered money to print a deck, but wanted to make sure.
How can he know for certain if he was doing this only online & wasn't 100% certain.
Last edited on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 07:52 pm by CastleCrest
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
It isn't up to the printer to check - it is up to YOU. A printer won't do it. A publisher MIGHT.
YOU will have to contact the people whose images you want to use. If you can't and can't be SURE the people who did them have been dead over 70 years - you can't use them.
Adam would NEVER publish anything he had only found on line; he would make DIRECT contact with the artist. And he doesn't print decks because others pay him to do it; he bears the cost and recoups from sales. You sound like you are trying to approach this backwards.
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
I'm asking if the printer "wants to check" the copy right of material how much work is it to be sure the material is printable without breaking copy right laws.
Trying to gauge how much work it would be for the printer to check.
Printers don't have time - they just get the client to sign off. So do publishers - only in their case they get the author/artist to sign off.
I mean if I took Disney pictures to a publisher and asked them to publish them, they might smell a rat and not issue a contract in the first place.  But generally, it's in publishing contracts that the author/artist states that they own the copyright of the material and/or have obtained necessary permissions.
I hope that's now clear.
Last edited on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 08:07 pm by BabaStudio
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
Lets say Adam was being offered money to print a deck, but wanted to make sure. How can he know for certain if he was doing this only online & wasn't 100% certain.
I would not do this. I have only published tarots when I have a signed contract with the artist.
NO TAROT DECK produced in the modern era is out of copyright.
It is very very very very simple. None. Zilch. Nil. Zero.
Do not think you can legally publish a tarot deck without a signed contract with the artist.
Without that you would be breaking the copyright laws and open to being pursued by the artist or their heirs for the funds and their legal costs.
As we should have realised through this thread, it is not easy to hide on the Internet! As soon as you attempted to sell them, someone would find out and the information would get back to the artist or their heirs.
Last edited on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 08:13 pm by AdamMcLean
|
|
|
skad1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dallas, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
BabaStudio wrote:
Yes, and that was much appreciated. But please also be active in urging people not to buy pirated printed decks.
I have mentioned this four times here now and on each occasion I've had no support whatsoever for a boycott of pirated decks. Why is that?
I think alot of people are like me. I will NOT buy a pirated copy, but sometimes it's hard to know. What if it is just a good deal and I give up a chance to have a Tarrochi of Venice by Folchi? So even if I don't post actively about pirated tarots, I do not buy them. At least knowingly.
If a deck is a pirated copy of the original it is a fake as far as I am concerned, and as such it won't fill a 'hole' in my collection. If it is on Ebay it is hard to tell from some of the pictures. I have gotten to the point where if the pictures are poor quality I don't even bid, I assume they are hiding something delibrately. And if it is a really, really good deal, I assume it's fake. Like the Hello kitty ones that go for 10 bucks. Yeah, right!
So to sum up, I think ya'll are preaching to the choir, so to speak. As collectors, we have a vested interest in seeing piracy end. Every pirated copy devalues our collections, and lessens the whole world of tarot art.
Last edited on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 08:52 pm by skad1
|
|
|
skad1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dallas, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Oh, and just a PS-I did like the places that had scans of the whole decks, but I like them to drool over decks I don't have, and will probably never have. (see above) I certainly never thought of printing them out. Why would anyone WANT one that was a poor quality like that. Maybe the answer is to have all online scans such poor quality that anyone who sees it knows its a pirated copy, or better yet, obnoxious watermarks on all cards. That way you could see the cards, but not print them. It's also a way to see decks I never heard of before, that I then add to my wish list.
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
I think that I often have trouble expressing myself clearly in written form.
That said - I made the mistake of using the word printer where I mean publisher.
I am not questioning anyone here's method (or Morals) of producing tarot decks.
I know that Adam is doing this because he Loves Tarot.
I'd say the same of Baba Studios & their standard of production.
I've just been thinking about the problem of piracy &
how new technology changes the world.
Adam's inability to continue on with publishing decks is tragic.
My question feels to me - not expressed properly.
I really just wanted to know how hard it is to look up proof of copy righted material.
Reading between the lines - I think people are telling me all art work published
is the property of the artist & should be considered as such - I agree!
I was curious as to a verification system in place for any of it.
Is there a way to check if anyone wanted to? - it seems there is not.
Maybe that has to do with the issues of this thread & this type of art?
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
CastleCrest wrote:
I was curious as to a verification system in place for any of it.
Is there a way to check if anyone wanted to? - it seems there is not.
Maybe that has to do with the issues of this thread & this type of art?
No one should need a verification process !
No one should be trying to get a set of images or scans published without having a contract with the artist or their heirs.
The artist signing the contract is the verification process !
|
|
|
skad1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Dallas, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
AdamMcLean wrote: CastleCrest wrote:
I was curious as to a verification system in place for any of it.
Is there a way to check if anyone wanted to? - it seems there is not.
Maybe that has to do with the issues of this thread & this type of art?
No one should need a verification process !
No one should be trying to get a set of images or scans published without having a contract with the artist or their heirs.
The artist signing the contract is the verification process !
Yeah, but...
what about an older tarot on ebay? how do we know that it is a pirated copy, or an original buyer selling his copy? especially for the older tarots.
this is obviously for the individual copy of the deck, not someone wanting to print off and sell a bunch. They know they are infringing on copyright.
Last edited on Tue Jun 22nd, 2010 10:02 pm by skad1
|
|
|
debra
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Well, we have several examples, of people on this forum saying "Hey, I just bought this and it seems to be a knock-off." It's not always so easy to recognize--what about the colored version of the Light and Shadow, for example?
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
I believe the publisher has been contacted; it was passed to them as original. Yes, true; I own a copy. But I didn't even recognise the cards - you did, didn't you, debra ?
|
|
|
debra
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Yes. I recognized them, and yes, I contacted the publisher.
As I said, it's not always easy to tell.
I daresay that buying decks sight unseen, based on photos, makes it even more difficult to tell what's authentic, even if you do recognize the images.
And some collectors do want one of everything <looks around the room, notes many such, suppresses a grin>.
Last edited on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 08:26 am by debra
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
debra wrote: And some collectors do want one of everything <looks around the room, notes many such, suppresses a grin>.
|
|
|
CastleCrest
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 167 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Is there or is there not a way a person can check copy right of art?
If there is where would a person go to do that?
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
CastleCrest wrote: Is there or is there not a way a person can check copy right of art?
If there is where would a person go to do that?
CC, this has been answered several times in this thread. The copyright automatically, by law, belongs to the artist and author (and sometimes to the publisher if the work has been done, as I believe most LS decks are, as "work for hire"). All you have to do is find the name of the author, artist and, perhaps, publisher. Then you see if they have been dead for 70 years or more. If not, then the work is probably still in copyright. If so, then it is probably out of copyright.
It's really not complicated. There is no "place you go" because it would have to have a list of every author and artist and musician and designer who ever made anything. Which as you can understand, wouldn't be very practical.
Last edited on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 11:34 am by BabaStudio
|
|
|
BabaStudio
Member
|
gregory wrote: debra wrote: And some collectors do want one of everything <looks around the room, notes many such, suppresses a grin>.
So if I understand this, now you are saying that you do in fact buy decks that you know are pirated. And it's just a nudge-nudge, wink-wink thing?
Last edited on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 11:32 am by BabaStudio
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
NO - that I want one of everything. (I wanted a simple blushing icon but there isn't one !!)
But I don't always get what I want - and often that is by choice (vide the aforementioned Buckland Romani rip-off.... and other knockoffs I am aware of in advance) as well as by destitution (vide wooden Kashmiri.) (Well, OK, as a less extreme example, vide that special edition Alida is currently selling. )
Last edited on Wed Jun 23rd, 2010 11:43 am by gregory
|
|
|
debra
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1115 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
The world never lacks a good reason for moral outrage. Our buttons are all installed somewhat differently, so what is infuriating to one might be of passing interest to others, without this reflecting on the deeper character of any.
It is sad but true that a certain level of dishonesty, exploitation, theft, bad faith emerges in every human endeavor. I feel certain that the heartfelt requests by Adam and Baba are heard and understood here by sympathetic ears, and that is the most anyone can demand from their friends and colleagues.
|
|
|
gregory
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Sep 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 3281 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
CastleCrest wrote: Is there or is there not a way a person can check copy right of art?
If there is where would a person go to do that?
Basically - no, there is not.
You don't apparently have the necessary determination or energy to root out every potential artist yourself - which IS what you have to do, as has been said any number of times in this thread - so my advice would be to find a new way to create whci does NOT involve the work of others. Buy a good camera.
(Oh - but in THAT case remember that if there is a PERSON in your photo, you technically need their permission to publish it....!)
Are we done now ?
|
|
|
AdamMcLean
Member
|
CastleCrest wrote: Is there or is there not a way a person can check copy right of art?
If there is where would a person go to do that?
I dont know how many times we have to answer this question.
NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.
Almost all (i.e. 99.99 %) of tarot art produced in the 20th century is still in copyright.
The only modern tarots I can think of that are out of copyright are
the Papus and the Falconnier/Wegener Egyptian. Although J. Augustus Knapp died in 1938 copyright on his artwork must have expired, however, this does not necessarily mean that the Knapp-Hall tarot is out of copyright, as M.P. Hall's contribution to the design of the deck is still in copyright.
|
|
|
Current time is 05:43 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|
|
