BCE repro from the Chess Empire

Copyright only applies to written works and not designs. Patents apply to designs. Like I said before it is crappy morally what The Chess Empire did but legally unless Slovenia and India have IP rights treaty between each other. The Chess Empire can legally do this. Now Izmet can ask for Slovenia Customs Enforcement to prevent The Chess Empire's version from being imported into Slovenia is about his only legal recourse. 

@knightsforkcafe I’m not a lawyer (blah blah blah).  It appears India has copyright laws.  These laws apply to works created outside of India.  The copyright need not be registered.  Copyrights apply to “artistic works” and works of craftsmanship (wording used by India’s laws).  This would apply to BCE.

izmet has various courses of action.  He can issue cease and desist letters, he can report the copyright infringement to online retailers (like Etsy), report to payment processors and report to web hosting providers (I think this will be effective at getting the items delisted and cutting of funding for those items).  Terms and services for those companies prohibit copyright infringement.  Can be reported to government of India to block exports or for criminal prosecution.  Or can be pursued civilly for damages (this is likely the most expensive option for the least gain).

in short, Chess Empire cannot legally infringe on copyrights.  You are disputing wether copying BCE is copyright infringement.

https://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf

The Copyright Act, 1957.

Act 14 of 1957, s. 14(c)

I agree with loubalch on this.

First we identify that a company is doing something wrong, like this.  The legalities are difficult to enforce and also it can be hard to prove illegality in the first place.  It is up to the originator to pursue any legal action.

As consumers in this very small market, boycotting a company is hard and often fruitless. Even if this Chess Empire set were desirable to me, I would never buy it from them.  I do the same thing with CB and that Tal 1960 set.  So I will boycott individual sets from specific companies.

The copying of the Chavet set is more difficult to decide, for me.  I have yet to see Chavet produce or sell that set. 
I have bought a Stage 1 directly from Izmet as well as two of his magnetic boards.  The guy is a genius at this.  I also bought a Stage 2 from Noj.

Chess Empire is openly and blatantly ripping off Izmet with this set, both in name and design.  As I said originally, this is disgusting.

The reputation and honor of this Chess Empire guy has lowered in my eyes immensely.  First he sells sets direct that he was commissioned to make for Frank Camaratta.  I am sure there was an agreement of exclusivity here.  This shows low business morals and ethics.  A number of years have gone by, so I overlooked this, but did not forget.

This latest is openly bad.  I certainly will try to buy from others with better morals and ethics as manifested.

It's a stretch to be copyright claim. Copyright always apply only to written and performing arts along with painting and sculpture arts. 

@knightsforkcafe India’s copyright law explicitly states what constitutes artistic work (such as sculpture, for which chess pieces apply).  I don’t think it’s a stretch.  I also think terms of service for onlineretailers, payment processors and hosting providers are also clear (and enforcement is not a legal remedy... entirely up to the service provider):  Izmet’s Twitter fees shows when the artistic work was first published.

LOL at writing  "I'm not a lawyer, " and then spewing out a bunch of legalese nonsense.

@drchesspain correct.  I am not a lawyer nor do I provide legal advise. I do provide references that others can read and interpret themselves.

@theendgame3 what the chess empire knows or doesn’t know is irrelevant (especially once they are informed they are infringing on someone’s copyright).  Under India’s laws, Chess Empire cannot infringe on copyrights.  I’m suggesting copyright protection in India goes beyond use of the name Best Chessmen Ever and also applies to artistic works like sculpture (as explicitly stated in India’s copyright laws that I referenced).  Copyright infringement should not be tolerated or normalized.

@theendgame3 so we agree that copyright infringement is a form of theft, lying and cheating.  The issue is wether Izmet holds a copyright on BCE and it it applies to BCE.

Based on izmets Twitter feed it’s evident he is the first to publish BCE.  And based on the wording in India’s law (s. 14(c)) it applies to sculpture and artistic works that would include BCE.

what are you basing your opinion on that its not copyright infringement?

The reality is we just come up with words & Terms that being going on ever since the Romans /

Cultural arrogance · / Cultural elitism call it what you want , Europe / Usa it's all the same .

being doing it for hundreds of years , Take a look at your museums .

@Izmet should stand up and say NO / NO to them ?

@lighthouse I think it’s clear what I call it, and I think there is no dispute... unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work is illegal.  It’s cheating.  It’s theft.  It’s lying.  It should not be encouraged or supported (such as buying illegal copies from companies that make this part of their business model).  

Then boycott all chess seller's from India & companies that use them to make there stuff ?

This also mean's not buying s//t from China too as there also infringe on copyright too .

Close borders & stop shipping this stuff ?

No problem. I hope so too.

I understand. I did not mean to imply the consumer shouldn't boycott if they felt strongly about it. I just meant it is not up to the consumer to correct the problem. Also, it is not required to do the research before buying. The problem can only be solved by the owner of the design who needs to take action.

In addition, if the buyer knows there is some infringement and still buys it then I don't see an issue with that as well as long as the product is being sold on the open market for all to see. Again, if the owner of the design does not take action and allows for their design to be used then I don't see an issue with the consumer buying it.

@mch819 we agree about the consumers right to spend their money however they wish.  Nor do I think it’s up to the consumer to correct the issue (they are not the copyright owner).

I believe in “see something, say something”.  If you feel strongly enough about a brand or product and see copyright violations report it.  In the case of Etsy, they will only follow up on complaints from copyright owners.
When I say do your research, I am referring to determine if you wish to support a company (with your money) that engages in questionable, unethical or illegal activities.

Some countries may laws regarding possession of illegally copied products, however, this is not the discussion here.  A consumer’s willingness to purchase illegally copied products is a different issue nor does it exempt the seller/manufacturer from copyright laws.

@BrianErdelyi I think we are in agreement on most things. I am not sure how I feel about possessing illegally copied things. I don't have anything like a fake Rolex but I am not sure I would refrain from wearing one. 

Ok. so just to complicate matters, is this related at all to any of the previously mentioned sets? Are these the original or were they inspired by the original? 

https://www.chessusa.com/product/23-19SR.html

@MrGalang It's a copy of the original done by Noj. However the Rook is carved with more detail on the original.

https://www.noj.si/?mod=catalog&action=productDetails&ID=195&lang=en

No it is not bad at all...they were simply inspired and being very creative !! 

All said and done they are "gentlemen" and that's how business used to be conducted in the good old days !! 

(EDITED the last part..too much over reaction on my part.)

Sold by not made by. ChessUSA got it from The Chess Empire I am sure. 1,000 Euros for the original Stage 3 BCE is way to much for my budget for a chess set.