Fancy King Collection More KS BS

[Justin O.]

Well, the core principle at play here is that it is always appropriate to either get permission, or pay a license, when using someone else's copyrighted materials, not whether the onus is on the seller or buyer to know what a rainbow deck is. As for Kickstarter, it may have been conceived as a creative platform, but it was always commercial in nature - bottom line is that people use it to sell their wares. And now it is increasingly used as a de facto online storefront to utilize the built in advertising and marketing reach of KS. And KS is completely OK with that because. . .wait for it. . . it makes them money (seems like the definition of commercial to me). The true misconception is to view KS as solely a creative platform.

I agree that it is always appropriate to get permission, I feel like the creator should have credited the decks being used. It is a consumer's responsibility to be informed though, whether you are buy cards, sodas, cars or murder (in countries where you can buy murderers). And it matters less what kickstarter is used or intended for or what a colloquial view of it should be, what matters is that at a legal liability level, KS is a creative platform, Kickstarter wants to make money, but bottom line is that when it comes down to it, legally, you aren't a consumer buying a product from a commercial platform, you are a supporter helping a creator see his project be made and hoping to get the rewards he promises. And legal responsibility is always the bottom line.
I suspect that the whole perspective is right in the middle of changing though as more and more lawsuits are finding creators of projects at fault.

[sinjin7]

I think we're in agreement with the whole intellectual property rights issue here. But as to what Kickstarter is, well. . .

Kickstarter in essence is a variation on a crowdfunding platform. All crowdfunding platforms are commercial in nature, they are a vehicle to secure capital, and I would argue Kickstarter is even more commerce-oriented than a straight up traditional crowdfunding model. Kickstarters stated mission may be to help out the little guy to make his dream real, but regardless of whatever pleasant sounding platitudes they throw out there, their primary purpose is commercial. Kickstarter is incorporated as a public benefit corporation, which just means they claim to serve the public as they get down to the business of making oodles of profit for their shareholders. Legal liability, or the lack thereof, is not what defines whether a company is commercial or not. Kickstarter had found a method where, at least for now, they pass the legal liability buck onto the project creators. But regardless, Kickstarter is absolutely a commercial platform. And by their legal and organizational structure, I doubt even Kickstarter would deny this fact.

[Justin O.]

Kickstarter in essence is a variation on a crowdfunding platform. All crowdfunding platforms are commercial in nature, they are a vehicle to secure capital, and I would argue Kickstarter is even more commerce-oriented than a straight up traditional crowdfunding model. Kickstarters stated mission may be to help out the little guy to make his dream real, but regardless of whatever pleasant sounding platitudes they throw out there, their primary purpose is commercial. Kickstarter is incorporated as a public benefit corporation, which just means they claim to serve the public as they get down to the business of making oodles of profit for their shareholders. Legal liability, or the lack thereof, is not what defines whether a company is commercial or not. Kickstarter had found a method where, at least for now, they pass the legal liability buck onto the project creators. But regardless, Kickstarter is absolutely a commercial platform. And by their legal and organizational structure, I doubt even Kickstarter would deny this fact.

Hmmm... I see what you are saying; I think that maybe I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say though. I am trying to say that Kickstarter isn't intended to provide a commercial platform for project creators (regardless of how people are using it, because I agree, as long as KS get's their money I'm sure they don't really care, and I don't blame them for that).; I'm not trying to say that they themselves are not a commercial enterprise designed to make money.

[billdragon]

sinjin, very well said.

justin.

well, ks is still a startup. If its a startup, their eventual goals will have to be about making money.
Espacially after it was sold at 2 billion a few years ago, they are quite focused on commercializing the site now. Because it has proven to increase their profit since they take 6 percent+credit card fees (10 percent total around)

Its true, ks do sometimes close an eye for projects if they have small copyright things that no one cares. As long as nothing violates their own rules, they won't care too much.

[TGunitedcardists]

Well, the core principle at play here is that it is always appropriate to either get permission, or pay a license, when using someone else's copyrighted materials, not whether the onus is on the seller or buyer to know what a rainbow deck is. As for Kickstarter, it may have been conceived as a creative platform, but it was always commercial in nature - bottom line is that people use it to sell their wares and for KS to make money off of that. And now it is increasingly used by companies already in existence (not startups) as a de facto online storefront to utilize the built in advertising and marketing reach of KS. And KS is completely OK with that because. . .wait for it. . . it makes them money (seems like the definition of commercial to me). The true misconception is to view KS as solely a creative platform.

To play devil's advocate...

I think the problem is that he's doing it on Kickstarter. If he were to do it on his own website, I don't think it would be a problem. I don't think he needs to secure any rights either, as long as he's not claiming he designed the cards. Basically, he's selling used cards, with his own packaging. He's bundling used cards with his own custom tuck case.

For example, if I were to buy box sets of GRRM's Fire and Ice series, a Harry Potter box set, all the Lord of the Rings books as well as a series of Sherlock Holms stories, mixed and matched, split them all up and made different bundles and made a custom box for them to go in, I wouldn't be breaking any laws. He's purchased the cards, and he can do what he wants with it. There aren't display or performance rights involved. He's selling used goods in addition to his tuck. Sounds a little like Etsy+.

[jerichoholic]

For anyone not paying attention the project was cancelled. But he did create a Gofundme instead, opting to give the decks away for free provided people pay for shipping costs. Seems it has ended now. Was surprised to see a couple people gladly hand over $100 to the guy, without any real guarantees of getting anything. I'll stick with all the rainbow decks I already have.

[badpete69]

He's back with something hehe

[jerichoholic]

Unfortunately the indexes on this make it pretty much unusable for most games or tricks, the box looks too much like the Sons of Liberty deck, and the backs way too simple for a collector to want. Not sure who he's trying to reach with this one.

[jsantafe]

It reminds me of the Type Deck, specially the box. Boring in everything else.

[PrincessTrouble]

It's back.

[Justin O.]

I'm surprised to see Requiem backing this. At $15 a pop for makeplayingcards.com this is an easy pass, well before getting into critique about the design choices.