Tarot History Forum

I refuse to ever buy a deck with a copyright printed on the face cards ever again. I think I only have one deck that has this, The Golden Tarot by Kat Black, but I wouldn't buy it now because of the copyright.

I was considering getting the new commemorative version of the Waite-Smith deck, as I don't own a single Waite-Smith tarot, but when I saw the images I saw the damned copyright and I just thought to myself.. "No, I'm not going to support this".



And what makes it even more maddening is that US Games knows how crappy it looks. Why do I think so?.. because these are the images they show on their site advertising the set:


or


Yet, what you get is what's shown on Aeclectic, with the damned copyright on the bottom right:



Nope. I won't do it.

* No comment ...

I fully concur.

That's also why I'm not going to get it. I'll wait until copyright expires (2012 or 2017 or something) and then get some real ones.

Deceptive, and inelegant. There are probably subtle changes to the cards too, so that even if someone erased the copyright notice in order to reuse the cards as if they were original, US Games could provide a potential litigator with the "key" to prove they are borrowed from this edition.

Ross

Never ever ever again, Robert? Yikes.

The new "Smith-Waite Centennial Edition"--I bought it. It's a very nice set of stuff for an astoundingly low price. The copyright is close to invisible. (Maybe I should thank my cataracts?)

I think--it's a lot of work to produce a tarot deck, including these facsimile decks. They don't just slap a Pam-something-or-other on a color photocopy machine and press "many, collate." Maybe people who have experience with professional art production can say more about it.

By analogy, a process I do know something about--what it takes to turn a manuscript into a professional-quality essay or book. There's constant review of the details and the overall project; usually many eyes look at it, and many, many times. It takes a long time and a lot of energy.

For this amount of work copyright protection is fair, I think.

(Never ever ever!!!! Oh man.)

debra wrote:Never ever ever again, Robert? Yikes.

The new "Smith-Waite Centennial Edition"--I bought it. It's a very nice set of stuff for an astoundingly low price. The copyright is close to invisible. (Maybe I should thank my cataracts?)

I think--it's a lot of work to produce a tarot deck, including these facsimile decks. They don't just slap a Pam-something-or-other on a color photocopy machine and press "many, collate." Maybe people who have experience with professional art production can say more about it.

By analogy, a process I do know something about--what it takes to turn a manuscript into a professional-quality essay or book. There's constant review of the details and the overall project; usually many eyes look at it, and many, many times. It takes a long time and a lot of energy.

For this amount of work copyright protection is fair, I think.

(Never ever ever!!!! Oh man.)

I'd be fine with it on the back of the card, but no way I want to see it on the front, and especially on a historical print.

That said, fair enough I guess that I have several decks with the BnF stamp on them!

Well if you're going to get a RWS finally, you might as well get this one with all the extras.

I have three or four already so don't feel the need, as I don't look at it much anyway. If we had thought of this earlier, I could have brought one to give you.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Well if you're going to get a RWS finally, you might as well get this one with all the extras.

Yea.... That is why I was looking at getting this one...

I agree that it takes a lot of work to complete any artistic work.

However, I don't think that this is the point. IF the deck is still under copyright, then it's still under copyright even without all those additional annoying marks. If it isn't, then the ONLY part of the card that is copyright is the small section showing the 'copyright' imprint!

It's also annoying that, unlike the rest of the western world, the USA is, as far as I'm aware (though it could be the whole of North America) the only place that requires the annoying imprint to ensure copyright status.

Conversely, in Europe, a work of (visual) art that is under copyright may still be produced if 'altered' even by mere size-alteration by over 15%, whether or not there is a 'copyright' symbol thereon. Or at least, that's the legal stuff of which I have been informed (and there are small variations from place to place in Europe which is quickly becoming standardised).

It seems that Lo Scarabeo is publishing a version of the Waite/Smith as well! Good for them!

But... according to a post on AT:

It's deck only, LS quality cardstock, 66 x 120 mm size, rose&lilies backside, English name in the bottom part, 4 languages (small) and number in the upper part.

"English name in the bottom part, 4 languages (small) and number in the upper part."

So, no trademark it looks like, but English plus four other languages (typical for LS really) on the deck.

This is maddening.