• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

Copyright Issues

In the last year it seems like they've embraced the "niche", or rather, the territory that everyone else has the scruples not to inhabit.

My speculation based on how they're sold these is that everyone at GDS and RDG knows it's theft, but that they will cease and desist if asked. You can sell a lot of stolen property before you're asked to stop, so that's the business model. And it's primarily third party vendors that they're hanging out to dry if the lawyers come running... it wasn't us selling the Star Wars stamps, it was some dealer. But no legitimate operation would run these things in the first place, it's become a bootleg shop. I consider it a criminal enterprise with the amount of bootlegs they produce. (on sweet plastic, nonetheless)

I like some GDS stuff and I think there's a place for them in the world, so I haven't taken any action. But I was the person who notified Marvel of Dynamic's rampant infringement of their property, and look where that went -- legitimacy! It's awesome that kids can discover DG because of these far more legit (using good artwork from Marvel) licensed prints. Of course DD still prints a ton of stolen property to great applause from buyers who don't know better, but they at least went legitimate with one thing and it's been great.

It's expensive to do this legitimately, and when GDS and Jamie take the free immoral route, it hampers others' ability to license and sell at the necessary markup. I've said before I know someone who secured an expensive exclusive license to print a certain property on golf discs -- Gateway stole that same property. This is a license that has a price; Gateway used it without paying, it is therefore stolen property.

You'd think if new minds came into the operation, they'd say "hey let's not bankrupt ourselves by stealing Disney property". I hope that happens, that someone sees the value in being on the up and up.

I had to write a policy to keep this St Louis Stolen stuff off the Michigan overmolds. My bosses don't want that legal liability anywhere near their plastic. And I wrote it with RDG and GDS in mind. Took a week before Fringe ran a 20th Century Fox property and got the first and only warning before their supply is cut.

At DN we had to blur out and list as 2nds some of the stolen Gateway stuff, again because my boss didn't want the legal liability. He'd caught the brunt of a copyright infringement case before I came on board, and knew the expense of it.

Now I've run afoul of a copyright in the past by mistake, due to a state law being ~3 years longer than the national norm, and the property holder shut it down. That was a failure of my due diligence, and honestly I'm more schooled in transformation/ownership in fine art than its commercial side. Mistakes happen and you learn from them, but this pattern of thievery is a business plan, and I'm inviting Jamie/RDG and GDS to consider stopping it. And calling their thievery for what it is, rampant theft.

Just make really good discs, it's a great plan.


BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH............. why should you care even one single iota about Gateway's business practices??? we as the players get super cool looking discs (if you throw gateway plastic that is). Gateway knows what they are doing, so by you whining and crying and throwing a huge hissy fit like a spoiled rotten child that doesn't like the broccoli on the table is not going to do anything except show people your pettiness and childness. people like you are a plague on society, keep your nose in YOUR OWN BUSINESS, and keep it out of others. that includes gateways.
 
He's an artist by trade so like it or not, his opinion is beyond valid. While I disagree with his approach with DD, he did the best thing for them.

It's funny that you're the one calling him a plague on society when you're the one advocating theft. Grow up, junior.
 
He's an artist by trade so like it or not, his opinion is beyond valid. While I disagree with his approach with DD, he did the best thing for them.

It's funny that you're the one calling him a plague on society when you're the one advocating theft. Grow up, junior.

Copyright infringement is not rape, not murder, not theft. It's copyright infringement
 
I would say that I care because I'd like Gateway to stick around and continue to making Wizards, because there really isn't another putter I'd want to use.
 
Theft of intellectual property.

It's not the same, theft is removing somebodys personal property, copyright infringement doesn't actually physically remove property, therefore it's far less severe than actual theft
 
Copyright infringement is not rape, not murder, not theft. It's copyright infringement

Theft of intellectual property.

^this. While Marvel would sue for copyright infringement, there are plenty of stamps being made of existing artwork that isn't copyrighted.

I would say that I care because I'd like Gateway to stick around and continue to making Wizards, because there really isn't another putter I'd want to use.

:hfive: Smart man right here
 
It's not the same, theft is removing somebodys personal property, copyright infringement doesn't actually physically remove property, therefore it's far less severe than actual theft

Yeah, cuz that makes sense.
 
^this. While Marvel would sue for copyright infringement, there are plenty of stamps being made of existing artwork that isn't copyrighted.
...

Art is automatically copyrighted by the Berne convention. If something belongs to the public domain then you are of course allowed to do whatever you like with it
 
It's not the same, theft is removing somebodys personal property, copyright infringement doesn't actually physically remove property, therefore it's far less severe than actual theft

Yeah, I'm done with you.
 
It's not the same, theft is removing somebodys personal property, copyright infringement doesn't actually physically remove property, therefore it's far less severe than actual theft

As someone who has several musician and visual artists as friends, I do not think you understand how wrong you are.

Sure, no one at Marvel is going to miss a meal because someone printed a few discs with Captain America's logo on them. However, smaller artists who aren't supported by multi-million dollar companies rely upon sales and license fees to support themselves and their families no less than you rely on your 9-5.

So why is it OK for someone to steal artwork that someone else spent time and resources creating?
 
As someone who has several musician and visual artists as friends, I do not think you understand how wrong you are.

Sure, no one at Marvel is going to miss a meal because someone printed a few discs with Captain America's logo on them. However, smaller artists who aren't supported by multi-million dollar companies rely upon sales and license fees to support themselves and their families no less than you rely on your 9-5.

So why is it OK for someone to steal artwork that someone else spent time and resources creating?

I'm not saying that it's not a crime. I'm just saying that it's not *theft*, it's copyright infringement. It's not the same crime
 
I'm not saying that it's not a crime. I'm just saying that it's not *theft*, it's copyright infringement. It's not the same crime
Stealing of art (i.e. copyright infringement) is no different than stealing food out of the artist's mouth.
 
Stealing of art (i.e. copyright infringement) is no different than stealing food out of the artist's mouth.

Not really, would for example RDG license universal media or whoever owns the IP of the Jeff Goldblum picture? Probably not, they would run some other artwork instead. There was never a potential for the IP holder to receive license fees.

Please note that I do not condone copyright infringement, nor do I think it's OK. I just realize that there's a difference between copyright infringement and theft, and the difference makes copyright infringement less severe of a crime than theft. I'm basically arguing semantics
 
Not really, would for example RDG license universal media or whoever owns the IP of the Jeff Goldblum picture? Probably not, they would run some other artwork instead. There was never a potential for the IP holder to receive license fees.

Please note that I do not condone copyright infringement, nor do I think it's OK. I just realize that there's a difference between copyright infringement and theft, and the difference makes copyright infringement less severe of a crime than theft. I'm basically arguing semantics

Understand that you have no idea what you are talking about, which, in order to actually argue semantics, you have to have at least a passing understanding of the topic. IP theft costs the US millions and millions of dollars a year across many industries and in various forms of theft.

The entire point is that they SHOULD be licensing the pics. You then SELL those discs, and the IP holder receives a portion of the profit.
The problem is that if the holder says no, then you've asked and now are subject if caught.
They are erring on the side of asking forgiveness instead of permission.

RDG, btw, seems to just have moved those activities here (http://fringedg.bigcartel.com) rather than risk blowback on the parent company. If that doesn't tell ya something about intent and understanding about the IP infractions taking place, then I don't know what does.
 
I would say that I care because I'd like Gateway to stick around and continue to making Wizards, because there really isn't another putter I'd want to use.

I have 50 wizards and continue to buy them. If they do go under, i will be fine. Its the only disc that i cant stop buying
 
Top