BCE repro from the Chess Empire

You are the only one arguing.  And you have shown that you do not know the true facts about Chess sets and boards by your imbecile statements about these things.

Yeah, you go away and all will be best, fool.

I was messaged by at least 3 people asking me to come back and disprove a number of wrong things said by KnightsForkCafe and some by sound67.  
I will not back down from the wrongness that are these two guys, especially this KnightsForkCafe guy.  He is wrong in so many ways.

Coming from the one who argues the most about chess equipment. Acting like an admin and an arrogant JA that turns people off.

You have posted nothing but complete lies and wrong things in your above post.

Keep calm and carry on.

@eyechess you are not the only one that sees through some posters here (and elsewhere on the Internet).  Often there is no need to engage them.  We understand.

@knightsforkcafe you need not be ripped off and you are entitled to your opinion.  Everyone has their own budget and tastes.  I understand your comments about BCE stage 2 and stage 3   Cheating is important to many people in chess.

Thank you.

@BrianErdelyi I merely point out the fallacy that you have to spend retail price to get a really nice chess set. When majority of what retail sells comes from Indian chess equipment manufacturers. I don't agree with what The Chess Empire did with their copy of BCE Stage 3 but unless there is IP right treaties. This is the realities of global markets.  

@knightsforkcafe I agree.  I don’t think NOJ is the only company capable of creating high quality chess pieces.  You also mention design which is important to some too.  I’m glad you recognize that it’s not cool for The Chess Empire to steal designs from

others without their permission (regardless how one feels about the design).  The fact chess empire has done this suggests to me they think others like the design enough for chess empire to steal it.

it.

I expect Etsy, PayPal and CC Avenue will likely take action against The Chess Empire if Izmet reports the unauthorized use of his designs.

Thanks for the support! But I wouldn't call the stuff he buys garbage. I like some of it too but it is probably not for everyone. It is a "to each their own" kind of thing. I know you like antique and vintage sets which is really not for me but it is for you which is fine too. No matter what someone likes is fine but saying stuff like he said is not right or fine.

Possibly, although they may ask Izmet to prove his IP. We had a long thread on this issue not too long back. Proving IP is difficult and expensive, particularly when trying to do so across borders. Don't agree with copying currently available sets from original designer but that's just a personal feeling, not necessarily the law. 

@audioq I'm not a lawyer (blah blah blah) .  A copyright is typically granted on initial publication.  No registration is required.  This is the case in India (and their laws recognise copyrights in other countries).  This applies to artistic works (which would include chess pieces).  It is up to the copyright owner to pursue violations.  Izmet's twitter feed documents the pieces and design back to September 16, 2012.  https://twitter.com/BestChessmen/status/247438252804558848.  Someone else would have to demonstrate their copyright existing prior to that.  I think Izmet has a good case and should be able to get the item delisted with the help of other retailers (i.e. Etsy), payment processors (PayPal, CC Avenue and possible card brands), banks and possibly even Chess Empire's hosting provider.  Seeking damages is another story.

Thank you for the clarification. Chess Empire's description is certainly misleading, so much so that I wanted to confirm whether you had licensed the design of the BCE to them. Yes, I find it disgusting that they are trying to take credit for even the design.

This brings up a few other questions that's been bothering me... Chess Empire's Chavet repro has been praised by many members on this forum (you can read the thread from this link).

Why are we disgusted by the BCE copy from CE and not the Chavet copy from CE?

What makes a repro a repro and not a copy?

What about other Indian manufacturers?

Is it simply a question of ethics?

I'm really confused.

@Zagryan I think @Audioq said something to the effect that it is one thing (ok) to reproduce a design that is 150 years old and a whole other thing (not ok) to copy a design that is currently being produced by the owner of the design. I.E. an 1849 Jaques design being reproduced by Official Staunton vs CB copying the current Fide World Championship set.

I agree with that opinion. I am a firm believer that it is not up to the consumer to attempt to remedy the situation by boycotting, verifying license use of the design, or any other action. It is up to the owner of the design to take action such as what @BrianErdelyi suggested.

With a limited number of Indian suppliers offering high-quality sets, Boycotting manufacturers is not a workable solution, at least not for me. However, in cases like the Noj BCE rip-off, I would not encourage or reward their unethical behavior by purchasing that set, regardless of how much I like the original, or how much money I could save. Bad Karma.

It looks perfectly fine to me(though there's something about the Knight that is just a bit off).....If I wanted an NOJ set,I'd buy one...which I did...but....if I wanted a nice design, albeit not an exact copy of an original,I have no issues whatsoever saving a few bucks.

I don't even have to get into name calling or worryingabout where a country is located on a 

"World Map"!  Because I'm a nice guy,so my family tells me.

Exactly. I have no problem buying a copy/reproduction of a set which is no longer available. This would apply regardless of how old the design is and particularly so if the original manufacturer was contacted and decided not to reintroduce the set. As to whether there is IP in any "staunton" set, try reading the BH Wood case, where Chess Sutton Coldfield not only copied Jaques original design but called their set original staunton chessmen. All the sets we are talking about are variations on Cooke's 1849 registered design, not original works.   

@MCH818 - Thanks for the recap. That makes sense. I hope Izmet get his honor back.

If you're going to buy cheap crap, then just get a plastic set from your nearest toy store, since clearly you don't know how to actually shop for quality items. 

@zagryan copyright infringement is cheating, stealing and lying.  It is illegal and unethical.  This is indisputable.

What The Chess Empire has done with The Best Chessmen Ever design is copyright infringement and they even claim they originally designed it.  Izmet has spent a lot of time and money researching, developing and marketing an original design.  Izmet continues to market and sell pieces with those designs.  The design (not just the quality of NOJ's production) is his product and competitive advantage.  I bought my BCE because of the design, Izmet's passion for chess and NOJ's quality.

There are companies that make reproductions of sets and it's often considered acceptable for various reason.  The pieces may not have a copyright (unknown copyright owner or the copyright has expired), the copyright owner has permitted copies (and failure to take action against copyright infringement is complicity in allowing copies), the pieces may no longer be in production, etc.  "Saving a few bucks" is not considered an acceptable reason.

@mch818 It's perfectly acceptable for consumers to refuse to purchase products or services (i.e. boycott) from companies like The Chess Empire that knowingly and intentionally engage in copyright infringement or other illegal or unethical behaviour.  When I say a copyright owner is responsible for pursing copyright infringement I am referring to failure to pursue infringement is being complicit in allowing the copies and effectively losing your copyright.  As a consumer, I have every right to say "I'm not buying anything from you unless you stop selling product x".  I hope more consumers would care about the products they buy and the companies they support.

One potential aspect impacting Izmet's copyright is if such a design existed perviously or if his design could be considered a natural evolution of chess pieces (typically for functional purposes).