UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

I've had some deck ideas floating around my brain for a little while and recently wondered if Trademarks would be an issue with printing.

Recently the Kubik deck was denied printing by USPCC because they wanted a release from Rubiks Cube. They did not get one, so now the deck is in limbo.

I've really been wondering how the the Cult Movie Cards deck got printed by USPCC. There are a lot of very recognizable images on some of the cards. Is the art different enough from any intellectual property that it was able to get printed?

If anyone has and ideas on this that would help a lot
Thanks

erniesthings wrote:I've had some deck ideas floating around my brain for a little while and recently wondered if Trademarks would be an issue with printing.

Recently the Kubik deck was denied printing by USPCC because they wanted a release from Rubiks Cube. They did not get one, so now the deck is in limbo.

I've really been wondering how the the Cult Movie Cards deck got printed by USPCC. There are a lot of very recognizable images on some of the cards. Is the art different enough from any intellectual property that it was able to get printed?

If anyone has and ideas on this that would help a lot
Thanks

With USPCC, I'll always suggest to get the artwork approved before you start the Kickstarter campaign itself. If there is any IP related issue, I believe their team would be able to pick that up 70-80%of the times. I saw what happened with Kubik and my hypothesis is that the creator did not seek artwork approval and digital proofs before launching or during the Kickstarter campaign.

Secondly, I don't want to comment on Cult Movie Cards deck but you don't want to be in a situation that you start certain project and post Kickstarter, USPCC tells you they won't be able to print the deck. Hope it makes sense.

guru wrote: With USPCC, I'll always suggest to get the artwork approved before you start the Kickstarter campaign itself. If there is any IP related issue, I believe their team would be able to pick that up 70-80%of the times. I saw what happened with Kubik and my hypothesis is that the creator did not seek artwork approval and digital proofs before launching or during the Kickstarter campaign.

Secondly, I don't want to comment on Cult Movie Cards deck but you don't want to be in a situation that you start certain project and post Kickstarter, USPCC tells you they won't be able to print the deck. Hope it makes sense.

Makes complete sense. Thank you.
Now just need to get to some designing.

erniesthings wrote:I've had some deck ideas floating around my brain for a little while and recently wondered if Trademarks would be an issue with printing.

Recently the Kubik deck was denied printing by USPCC because they wanted a release from Rubiks Cube. They did not get one, so now the deck is in limbo.

I've really been wondering how the the Cult Movie Cards deck got printed by USPCC. There are a lot of very recognizable images on some of the cards. Is the art different enough from any intellectual property that it was able to get printed?

If anyone has and ideas on this that would help a lot
Thanks

Generally speaking, each cult movie should have an Intellectual property holder and each would have their own terms for usage and reproduction. You would need to secure an image use / reproduction license from each source for each cult movie that you plan to feature in order to make sure you aren't infringing. If you haven't already, you should very seriously consider contacting an IP attorney directly who can prevent you from making a very egregious error in the production of this deck. It sounds like a cool idea though, and being a fan of cult movies, I hope you do them some justice.

All the best,
Lance T. Miller

LanceTMiller wrote:Generally speaking, each cult movie should have an Intellectual property holder and each would have their own terms for usage and reproduction. You would need to secure an image use / reproduction license from each source for each cult movie that you plan to feature in order to make sure you aren't infringing. If you haven't already, you should very seriously consider contacting an IP attorney directly who can prevent you from making a very egregious error in the production of this deck. It sounds like a cool idea though, and being a fan of cult movies, I hope you do them some justice.

All the best,
Lance T. Miller

I think he's referring to the Cult Movie Cards that had already been released and how that deck was able to get all the licensing for that deck, especially considering how iconic the images/movies are; GW did a review on them:



it's a pretty cool deck and I hope to also pick one up sooner or later

PipChick wrote: I think he's referring to the Cult Movie Cards that had already been released and how that deck was able to get all the licensing for that deck, especially considering how iconic the images/movies are; GW did a review on them:

it's a pretty cool deck and I hope to also pick one up sooner or later

I see. OK so I just watched the review and the artwork is pushing a legal boundary that has a lot of grey area in terms of interpretation and yes there should definitely be an IP attorney involved when attempting this.

The long and short of it is: You can use a likeness of an individual or celebrity in works of art (a la Andy Warhol - Marilyn Monroe series) however, as soon as you turn it into commercial goods, you can be sued for appropriation. Though, in this case, the art is a minimalist representation of a character who happens to have been portrayed by a certain actor which means their likeness hasn't entirely been compromised. Theoretically, some claims could surface from such usage, but the company that created the deck is a long standing design firm with a ton of top clients like Google. This suggests that their legal department probably did their homework and secured any legal rights required to print the deck for commercial release and if they didn't, they knew what they could and couldn't get away with on each section of the art. Note how some of the images are more detailed than others...yet some appear purely Iconographic, one could argue they were pushing the edge of what was legally acceptable without having to acquire rights. It may not be a bad idea for Erniestthings to contact the publisher directly and ask how they approached the legal aspect of their project. That's what I'd do.