Morals and Ethics In Chess The Chess Equipment Business

Over the last number of years we have seen primarily 4 companies from India sell copies or reproductions of Chess pieces.  Noj, in Slovenia, has also been selling reproductions of the various Dubrovnik designs, but the difference is that they received legal license or permission to do so.

In this area, legality ends up being ignored especially by the 4 companies in India.  And they get away with it because no one is taking them to court or otherwise enforcing any kind of law on them.

Back when Frank Camaratta owned The Chess House he had contracts with his manufacturers and they were written and signed in India.  He traveled there himself to set this up.  And I remember a few times where he enforced the contract with the manufacturer.  Apparently those contracts are no longer in effect because Chess Empire and Staunton Castle are directly selling the exact same set designs that they used to contract for.

Sometimes they are doing nothing illegal but are definitely not being moral or honorable.  Carl of Official Staunton worked with Staunton Castle and created the first reproduction called the Piatigorsky set.  Carl redesigned the pieces to be standard to today’s tournament standards.  Well, when Staunton Castle decided to sell direct, they sold this set as well as some others by Carl in direct competition to Carl. In fact they even copied the pictures from Carl’s web site for their own.  This shows a distinct low business integrity.  Carl could really do nothing about it but find a different manufacturer that would be honorable about exclusively making the sets for only Carl to sell.  And this he has done.

Royal Chess Mall, Chess Bazaar, Chess Empire and Staunton Castle all have made copies that are in direct competition with originals still being made and sold by the originating company.  Yes, they are getting away with it, but they are certainly not being moral or ethical about it.
We, as consumers, basically have 3 things we can do about this:

1. We can boycott the company making these illicit copies completely.  We can choose to not buy anything from them.

2. We can refuse to buy any of these copies from the companies.  We could still buy other products from them.

3. We could not care and buy whatever we want even though it is a crass copy.

Yes, we could also tell the owners of our disagreement with their behavior, but I don’t see that making any difference.

Personally, I have done #2 in the past.  I refused to buy the CB version of that Tal 1960 set.  While I did still buy other stuff from them.

I was not nor am not perfect.  I did buy the CB copy of the Official World Championship set.  Many people complained of that set being poor quality.  And I agree with that.  I have since bought the official version from The Chess Baron, a recognized outlet to buy the original.  And that original is noticeably a better set than the CB copy, by the way.

I also note that CB currently offers neither the WC copy or the Tal set at this time.

I only own the Chavet version from The Chess Empire.   I do own about 6 CB sets with none of them being copies of currently available sets.  I do not own any sets from Staunton Castle or Royal Chess Mall.  I will not buy from Staunton Castle because of what they did to Carl, honor.  And they also are ripping off Camaratta designs as well.  I most likely will not buy from Royal Chess Mall because the sets I have looked by them are all smaller, lighter and sometimes of a lower manufacturing quality compared to all the other companies, plus they are ripping off the Camaratta designs.

The Chavet design is still a bit of a mystery to me.  Are Chavet sets still being produced as new, by Chavet?

To be fair and consistent, I note here that The House of Staunton also sells copies of some sets, specifically the Dubrovnik.

I have not nor will not buy such copies from anyone.  Hey, if you want the best of the Dubrovnik models buy a Noj.  They are licensed.

If you want a set with the great Camaratta Knight, buy it from The House of Staunton or from Frank himself at his web site.  
Don’t be cheap and sacrifice your own morals for a few dollars.

@Eyechess In terms of the Chavet B210 issue, I think you eluded to it earlier. Until someone does something it won't matter. For example, let's say I walk up to you and push you. If you don't do or say something then there is nothing to keep me from doing that every time I see you. However, let's say you tell me "Hey..." and then use some choice words after that. I might opt to stop. I can opt to ignore you and still continue to push you every time I see you even though you said something. At this point, you either have to push me back or call the police. Of course I can still ignore your request and continue to push you every time I see you. The next step would be for the police to arrest me for assault. I would face some big legal consequences here so I probably won't push you anymore after that. 

The point is unless Chavet does something nothing will change. Even if they send a cease and desist letter it is still up to the Chess Empire to stop. If they do not, then Chavet needs to get lawyers and others involved. If Chavet fails to do this part, then CE can continue to make the Chavet B210 set. We can protest and not buy from what we deem as an illegal copy, but that only goes so far because not all consumers will do that. At the end of the day it is not up to us. It is up to the person or company who was hurt by the 4 companies copying sets to do something.

A side example is "grass". It is legal to buy in some states. It is federally illegal. This federal law doesn't stop anyone in states where it is legal from buying grass. Until a federal agency comes down to those states that are violating the federal law and takes action, no one will stop buying grass. Action and enforcement is the key.

I agree with you about the moral aspect and to just buy from the creator or licensed party. However, I would say it is hard to know sometimes. I didn't know Noj was licensed. I just saw the Dub 1950 set as being something someone made 70 years ago and no one knows who they are. I highly doubt they created a copy right of their design in 1950. Also, I would say 80% of the sets out there are copies. Every 1849, Cooke, Morphy, etc set is a copy of the Jaques design. Of course, I suppose those designs or patents ran out long ago.

This is a quote from Noj Dubrovnik site:

”A company called Šahovska Naklada, from Zagreb, owns Maurovič's original blueprints and drawings (along with its copyrights), and they gave us permission to recreate this interesting version of the Dubrovnik design.”

Of course you will note that I am talking about sets that are currently being produced by the originator, not designs that are very old.

The Camaratta designed sets have the Camaratta Knight not seen before, for instance.

Carl’s creation of the Piatigorsky design also originated from him.  Copying his specifications is or at least was wrong.

@Eyechess, @MCH818 Thanks for the excellent posts. It is very difficult to know whether a design is IP protected or not. Is the design unique and original enough to merit protection under the law. These are complex issues. Assuming something has protection just because it is slightly different from an original isn't right, but neither is assuming that all sets that are slightly different can be copied free gratis by anyone. The case law out there currently doesn't offer much help. BH Wood was allowed to copy not just the Jaques design but to call his set "Original Staunton Chessmen" even though this descriptor had only been used by Jaques previously. The DuChamp set was deemed to be unique enough to warrant protection in France bit not apparently anywhere else and to be fair it is a very unique design. All staunton chess sets today are basically copies of Cooke's 1849 design, with a few minor changes. The Man-Ray and Bauhaus sets aren't staunton sets and are clearly unique and probably have enforceable IP protection(?).

As is pointed out above and elsewhere it would be impossible for a consumer to carry out detailed research on an item to see if it is covered by IP and to then make the determination as to whether that IP is valid or not. And why just for chess sets? If you buy a chair, clock etc. they could potentially be subject to IP. This has to be left to the manufacturers/retailers etc. to sort out, unless there is clearly evidence of issues. I imagine most people buy chess sets as a functional item not as a work of art. It is clearly different to books, movies, photographs etc. where every one is absolutely unique.

Like @Eyechess, in the absence of relevant legal information I would base my purchasing decisions on ethical considerations. I have no problem buying copies of sets where the original is no longer made (Chavet/Lardy etc.) or does not appear to still have protection (Jaques). But if the original is still made and I want one, I would buy the original. Obviously I respect the law and if IP protection is proved in court then I would follow that regardless of my own feelings on the issue. In terms of spirit the entire concept was developed to promote innovation not to have unused "rights" siting around.

There is also a tendency to view certain parties as ethical and assume that they have obtained all relevant permissions (also assuming they are in fact required) and at the same time assume that other parties are "rogues" and obviously didn't. This is not the case. The lack of clarity/possible infringement of rights is pervasive in the industry and always has been. The Weil World Championship set has been copied by Indian manufacturers but is/has also been sold by "reputable" sellers (e.g. https://www.officialstaunton.com/products/world-championship-chess-pieces?_pos=2&_sid=6e3fbac19&_ss=r. I'm not having a go at anyone here, Carl is an excellent retailer, just pointing out that relying on source is no better a strategy than conducting your own detailed IP search. Neither really get the job done.

I had not looked for and did not see that Carl has a copy of the World Championship set fo sale.

I am not completely loyal to anyone so that I would overlook or ignore them copying sets like this.  
I don’t understand why Carl, a retailer, would not simply become an official supplier of the real set.  Chess Baron does this and they also retail other sets like Carl does.

I know that Carl changed manufacturers when Staunton Castle opened and ripped off his web site pictures as well as direct selling sets they had contracted with Carl to be exclusive.  And he actually has gone to China and away from India.  
The copy he sells is cheap, really cheap.  I don’t approve.

Last year I spoke with The House of Staunton a few times about getting a Chavet reproduction, specifically the Championship version from the 1990’s.  They told me they did not think they could do that, mentioning that Chavet was still in business.  I didn’t realize then what they meant.  Now I do.

@Audioq You make some really good points. I feel slightly different than you and @Eyechess. If someone comes out with an exact device like Apple's iPhone or Samsung's Galaxy I would definitely not buy it. I would always think why not just by Apple or Samsung even if it is twice the money. The same goes for Coke. I rather have a Coke over some other no name cola. However, when it comes to chess sets, I must say the line is bit blurry for me. I know Frank designed the knight in the Cooke Luxury @Eyechess and I were discussing in the other thread but I have to say when I considered buying a set with that knight I did consider the 2017 Sinquefield Cup set from CB over the version from HoS. Price was a consideration. It is much cheaper for the CB set. The way I see chess sets is if the original owner/designer does not do anything then who am I to do anything. It is not like CB and others are hiding these copies. They are selling them out in the open for all to see including the owners of the design. I agree with you and @Eyechess in principle. I think you are on the right side of things. However, I am not sure I would not buy CB just because they may or may not have infringed on an original design from someone else. That's just how I feel about it.

Thanks! I was not aware of this. 

Thanks for your reply. As I say I am not trying to single out anyone. I bought almost all of Frank's Timeless reproductions and was extremely satisfied with them. I haven't bought from Carl since all/most of my purchases these days are of older vintage originals, but he seems to do a good job and I would have no problem buying items from him.

By the way if Chavet is still around and reintroduced the B210 tomorrow, I would buy a copy. Even though I already have 3 originals and 1 reproduction. I would buy it to support a company who makes/made great sets. No doubt I would also take a few photos and post them on here 😁

Note that I have only boycotted or refused to buy specific sets from Chess Bazaar.  And I did buy their WC copy, which I would not do now.  I certainly am not judging anyone negatively for buying these copy sets.  It is their choice.

Chess Bazaar has increased their quality quite a bit in the last few years.  Comparing the set size and weight details shows the CB version to be very similar to the original.  If you really want the set in Ebony, there is about a $1,000.00 price difference.  Heck, that much of a price difference sure puts a strain on a moral judgment.

For, the Rosewood version, my choice would be obvious.  The HoS Craftsman Series in Blood rosewood is a much better option than the Bud Rosewood CB set.

Of course I do not and will not buy Ebony because of cracking.

But remember, just because someone or company gets away with stuff like this legally, it does not make their actions correct, ethical or moral.

@Audioq I think you would like OS sets since you like Jaques stuff.  I bought one recently from Carl. The Cooke 3.5" set is beautiful. The knight is very close to a Morphy and the bishop cut is very different. It is also not super heavy like all other sets these days. It is very light which I prefer.I love that set and is my #3 favorite now behind the Collectors and SC Morphy. There were issues with 3 pieces. I sent photos to OS and Carl responded and said he would take care of the issues. My one and only experience with OS has been very positive. I think his Jacques sets are amazing. I love the 1849 and early 1849 sets. The Leuchars is very close to the original but I don't like the knight. 

Average-Joe-online-buyer would never ever have any clue about this.

@Eyechess Yes! When comparing apples with apples the Sinquefield Cup sets from HoS are ridiculously expensively so I was actually comparing HoS Cooke Luxury and the 2017 Sinquefiled Cup from CB. The sets are very similar. I think the price difference was a $200 to $300 range. At the time, I thought it would be better to go with HoS but it wasn't to be moral. It was because HoS is here in the US. Dealing with issues would be much easier.

Anyhow, I wouldn't judge you if you did or did not buy unofficial copies. I think to each their own in this matter.

@Martyn-n Exactly! There would be no way for us to know.

Patents only last for 25 years. Once they are up. It's fair game. No need to ask for license or permission.

Morals don't pay the bills nor create jobs. It's just business man and not personal. Why should a small group have a monopoly on chess set manufacturing and design? In the end this ends up hurting the consumer and the business as a whole. The competition the lower cost and the environment of innovation and improvements. Also international laws are very hard to enforce. Without economic IP rights treaties between nations. Good luck taking them to court.   

Agreed. I already have the HOS New Cooke 3 1/2" ebony set though and these are very similar. I'm thinking about the 1849 and the new 2 1/2" framed boards he shows it on. These look amazing as a combo.