Contacted chessbazaar about replicating NOJ set

Would it be ok with Noj and Dubrovnik fans if we “test” this theory ?

Maybe approach an Indian carver and see how they respond...copyrights might be an issue though.

I personally like HOS knight design and am planning a custom set with more Russian style pawns, but sometimes I do get curious if paid a better price can Indian artisans replicate the East European designs.

I am hoping @chessopera gets into this thread. This is a very good thread for trolling

People were having a problem with other chess sellers stealing @cgrau and Noj Slovenia's hard work, which was completely valid argument. 

However, doesn't this also apply to EraRetro Mikhail Tal Chess set ? 

https://www.etsy.com/in-en/listing/641136732/reserved-reproduction-of-the-michael-tal?show_sold_out_detail=1

Please do not take this personally, I have a very high regard for many who have posted in this thread but whats good for the goose should be good for the gander. 

I wonder how Gregor Novak feels about this EraRetro Set, he did all the development work and the ER set sells for half the price he is quoting.

(#Edit : Haven't been on this forum for a long time so just realized CB has a 61 Tal Set for sale as well. However doesn't seem to be competing with the Noj version. However the EraRetro version clearly seems to be eating into the Noj market. Apologies.)

Rishi, while I agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander, the NOJ and EraRetro versions are more like apples and oranges. Making a reproduction from original source material is fine, even if someone else has beaten you to the punch. But copying the early bird's reproduction is not--it's a misappropriation of their intellectual property. The OP asked CB to do the latter. EraRetro did the former. EraRetro did not copy NOJ's reproduction, but instead, as far as I know, relied heavily on three photos of a surviving original set that emerged only after NOJ went to market. So their version is their own interpretation of the original, not a copy of someone else's reproduction. ER's version differed markedly from NOJ's in the detail of the knight design, the size, and the availability of black pieces. Likewise, when NOJ upgraded their knight design, at my urging and with my assistance, they relied on the three newly discovered photos, not ER's reproduction. 

Here are the reworked NOJ knights.

Exactly my thought and gorgeous knights BTW. 

By the way, I have to respectfully disagree with my friend Wiscmike about Indian craftsmanship, if that is what he's suggesting. I think this set is well within the abilities of many Indian craftsmen to reproduce.  As to woods, this set would be fine in boxwood and stained boxwood. I shy away from ebony because I've had too many cracking problems with it, in both modern Indian sets and antique English ones. As to antiquing, ER nailed the color. Just nailed it.

Many thanks, Lawrence. Gregor, as usual, did a great job!

those knight are gorgeous. dam...NOJ keeps shooting to the top of my list. 

Hi Chuck, I haven't posted here for quite a long time. If I said something about the noj set in the past it probably was directed to the Dubrovnik set.  And yes I would stand by my statement that no one from India has come close to the noj carving of the knights either in craftsmanship which would include finishing or material (maple and walnut).  If I were to get a Dubrovnik set I would save up the money to buy one off of noj or buy it on the used market from someone I know. 

Why would someone need to do that? I'm sure they don't steal designs protected by copyright, because the copyright owner would sue them, say, in a U.S. court... and then they wouldn't be able to export their sets to the U.S.. So it would be possible to cut them off from the countries they could make money in without having to worry about a court in India taking their side.

The thing is, chess set designs, even if they're better protected than in the days of the original Staunton set, which only got two years worth of protection, are probably not well protected by copyright like books, music, or movies.

People have different tasts. I took a look at the NOJ Tal set. It isn't a set I would consider paying 648 Euros for, but it isn't a set I would consider buying for ChessBazaar prices either. Having a Staunton set that's a little differen tor unique is nice, but this set looks to be "different" in all the wrong ways - basically, I don't like the Pawns and the Knights at least. The other pieces seem all right.

But then the Staunton-like set that I most admire... is a cheap plastic set. Because it is a cheap plastic set, it is made from molds that could be elaborately carved - and thus this set has beautiful Knights, and detail on the Kings you don't see anywhere else.

As is shown on this page:

http://www.chess-museum.com/temporary-exhibit-ecch--is-this-plastic.html

about 1/4 of the way down, under the heading "Mass-Produced Toy Set", the famous Kingsway Plastics set. The two images of interest are this one and that one.

Where I live, designs need to be registered, its not a matter of copyrights or patents which are quite different things.  

The idea of registering a design that is substantially a copy of an existing design is likely to be problematic and difficult to defend effectively.  Whether differences in knight design are enough to differentiate the set designs would be interesting to see and rights in the design would be undermined the closer the design is to the original.  The argument would be unlikely to come down to whether there are differences, but whether in the view of a judge the difference matters in the context of the overall set design intending to be a reproduction.  

Design protection is not copyright.  Designs need to be registered.  See here from WIPO: https://www.wipo.int/designs/en/faq_industrialdesigns.html

from the Australian Government IP website:

1. copyright protects artistic and literary works in the context of 2D design and designs that have not yet been commercially exploited
2. if you intend to mass manufacture your design, you’ll only be able to protect your product with a registered design right
3. to have the best chance of successfully registering your design, you must keep it a secret and off the public record until your application has been submitted.

From:

https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about-us/news-and-community/blog/protect-your-creativity-design-rights-versus-copyright