I would think that this would be okay, but I am not a lawyer. And even if should be okay, there is nothing to stop some company from saying it is not okay and threatening legal action.

As could the grill for my wife's car, which is available from several places besides mopar. No logo on the grill, but neither does the original and its identical.

Stating Rudy is sculpture is a steep hill, now PPS would have to argue in court how their talking head sculpture is somehow different from all the others made the last 100 years and how does the OP's software text file violate that?

There really is no difference in supplying him cut into pieces or as 1 piece. You are allowed to do either just the same

I'm tempted just for the entertainment value, not my first rodeo when i making parts for Chryslers.

You're right--it's up to the lawyers to argue all that, but I doubt anyone cares enough or has pockets deep enough to actually do that.

There is some misinformation in this thread, especially the Gottlieb stuff. Anyone can make Gottlieb stuff, you just cant reproduce artwork related things like printed plastics, decals and playfields.

Copyright/IP
The line between IP infringement and not infringing is artwork. Making a physical part, like a ramp, is not protected. Making the decals or adding logos to the ramp is protected. This is why you don't see me offering decals with any ramps...too much BS and overhead. The holders of the IP are welcome to reproduce the decals and make 100% of the profit on them as far as I'm concerned. A grey area here are sculpts and decorated items like the Rudy face and the lizard mask in Grand Lizard.

Patents: The longest a patent is good for is 20 years, and even that is not enforceable if the fees to maintain the patent are not paid. This means everything before this date 2002 is fair game without even looking it up. Most pinball stuff was never patented...it would be a waste of time and resources.

Enforcement: The rights holder must make an effort to keep unauthorized people from using their IP. If they make no effort to block unauthorized use, they could lose their rights to the IP. This is why you shouldn't take it personally if you get a C&D for this kind of thing if you are infringing. Most of the time, there is no intent to sue...its just a gentle nudge to stop infringing or more action will be taken.

The mechanics of duplication are not the concern - this has been covered extensively before (and why we are allowed VHS recorders, etc). And why 'taking a photo and printing it' isn't a valid defense of why you can duplicate copyrighted work and distribute it. The method of duplication is irrelevant - it's the original work that is protected under copyright.

The key as you point out is 'what are we claiming is protected'. The lay commonly interchange copyright and trademark - which are not the same at all.

If we are talking physical pinball parts.. walk through the potentials..

- Trademark
Trademark isn't a concern.. unless we are trying to print things like logos/phrases. Trademarks must be registered. Trademark doesn't cover utility. But interestingly enough this is the topic covering the term 'Multiball' and how WMS sued people like Data East. But not a parts topic..

- Copyright
Copyright doesn't need to be registered to be valid, but isn't applicable to just shapes/forms of parts. Copyright only applies to literary, musical, plays, choreography, graphic, sculpture, audio and visual works, and architecture. Copyright doesn't apply to a coil sleeve, to a ramp, to a utility part. You can't copyright a gear which has utility purpose and call it a 'sculpture'. Copyright is not for utility. For the obligatory cargument.. this is why we have reproduction auto parts.

The grey area would be if you had something that itself could be considered sculpture or art instead of utility. Like, what if you made a ark of the covenant to be a topper... or maybe a figurine of certain big green monster that was a target in the game.

- Patents
A part maybe patented and would then be limited in its reproduction.
You have DESIGN patents, which cover the ornamental, configuration or pattern intended to give it a unique or distinct appearance. Think the Coca Cola bottle. Only the appearance is covered - not the utility/purpose. Patents must be registered and pass tests to be awarded. Obviously this doesn't apply to utilitarian pinball parts, and the few ornamental/appearance things out there that could be patented, probably aren't for costs or upkeep (unless you were deeproot.. lol)

You also have UTILITY patents, which cover the unique design and how it works. A unique part could be covered as part of a patent and be restricted. This could be a concern if you were reproducing some parts of a mech or feature that was considered unique enough the company made a point of filing a patent to cover the implementation. But utility patents would be applied for and registered if awarded.

So where does all this leave us?

If you are talking about logos or art - It's copyrighted w/o any registration and you can't reproduce it except within fair use purposes. Companies must register it if they were going to pursue further damages.. but they don't have to force someone to stop using their copyrighted material. Hence, why people avoid including other people's unique art in reproduction parts.

If you are talking about logos or ornamental designs - you are at risk of violating Trademarks or even design patents. Both must be registered to be enforceable... but in pinball this is generally why you shouldn't be including other people's logos or names. Part numbers are NOT copyrightable or trademarked.

If you are talking about a part's physical design and purpose - you are really only concerned with Utility Patents.. and those must be awarded and active to be enforceable.

Sat down and outlined the situation with a friend of mine who is a lawyer. His response?

Show me proof of your claim you have of ownership.

Till then, do as you please.

To add, another grey area of the copyright claim is for the elements that are NOT utility and could be considered artistic and unique.

Another angle that is common with 3D parts is the idea of licensing.

Designs maybe distributed under certain license conditions - if someone takes that design and reuses it in ways that violates the license agreement, this opens up both contract and copyright concerns. The 3d work can be copyrighted the same as a part in the sense for the non-utility elements. Contract liability depends on the license definition.

So in the world of 'taking someone else's work and modifying it' becomes even MORE murky as you add in the element of derrivative works vs unique... on top of the licensing discussion.

Add in the idea of a small hobby - It's best to start with 'don't screw your neighbor'

In the 3d world.. at least if you start with a fresh design vs interating on a design you got via a licensed download.. you streamline the concerns SIGNIFICANTLY and you largely then have to be concerned with derivative works or not under copyright... of course once you are clear there are no patent or trademark concerns.

I've actually had this discussion with Rick at PPS in the past, due to some of the boards I've sold in the past or planned on selling, and have actually gone through the process of getting stuff licensed. Most of us guys making boards for any length of time have, particularly anybody making anything for WMS that has software installed.

I can make a circuit board that functions identical to anything Williams put into a pinball machine from an electronic standpoint, using an identical schematic, identical parts, and identical location ID's for the parts, and has the same exterior dimensions. The functional aspect falls under patent law, and the patents have all expired decades ago for any Williams pinball circuit board. Even the last of the Pin2K stuff has expired at this point I believe. Same holds true for all the old Bally, Classic Stern, older Gottlieb boards, things from the 1990's and earlier. I don't remember the dates on Gottlieb System 3 though.

The layout of the traces are considered artwork. So I have to draw my own traces and do my own board layout work, I cannot just take a blank Williams board and do a 1 copy of it unless you have permission from WMS. As a side note, he's also said that if anybody wants to make exact duplicates of the original boards, and you're willing to pay the associated fee's, he will even provide you the original design data or source the bare boards for you. I also can't use the original Williams part numbers, I can say "compatible with" or "equivalent to", but that's as close as I can get to using the original part numbers.

Software and firmware is a different beast though. Once you slap a ROM file into an EPROM, burn a PAL chip, or burn an ASIC chip, the software and firmware are protected under copyright law because it contains software or firmware that is under copyright protection. It's not the PART, it's the CONTENT. WMS specifically granted open permission to use the ROM files for use in repair work, the documents are out there somewhere if you want to dig. So if I'm repairing an original board I can download and burn the ROM files onto an EPROM, and install that EPROM onto the original board, no licensing required. If I were to SELL an EPROM separately, with ROM data on it, I have to pay a licensing fee. Some guys skirt under the radar with this, but most of the bigger ROM suppliers will sell you chips that have the WMS holographic decal on it. As far as I know, the PAL and ASIC files have never been released to the public, which is why so many WPC CPU boards are sold without the ASIC.... nobody else is able to make them.

The two main legalities that usually dictate whether you can legally manufacture replacement parts are:

• Patents
• Copyrights

I manufacture replacement parts but make sure I am not infringing on either of the two above.

Since my specialty is 70s and 80s Bally, patents are no longer a concern. They have long expired.

A patent lasts for 20 years if it is maintained.

A copyright lasts a lot longer though. Usually 80 years after the death of the creator.

So that means I can only legally manufacture replacement parts that do not bear any copyrighted material such as the Bally logo or 3rd party artwork related to the title.

It is highly unlikely that I will ever manufacture copyrighted parts. The current owners of the copyrights I would be interested in do not encourage it (or at least don't act like they want the business). So that will leave only bootlegs or nothing at all for a lot of the HTF parts.

Here are some non-copyrighted reproduction parts that I make.

Pinball Parts Flyer (resized).jpg

Since the Rudy character is owned by this company, you could instead create a replacement part that doesn't "look" like Rudy but functionally does everything else. There's no law against that. I'm not saying any of these heads are better, but they're not Rudy: https://www.yeggi.com/q/ventriloquist+dummy/

A good character modeler could almost certainly make a better-than-Rudy take on the ventriloquist dummy. Obviously, you can't use Toy Story or Goosebumps either, but I like both of these better than Rudy.

Screen Shot 2022-01-18 at 3.04.01 PM (resized).png

Screen Shot 2022-01-18 at 3.04.36 PM (resized).png

Maybe OP shouldn't release Rudy's face, but he should release Judy of Judy's Clubhouse. She looks a lot like Rudy because they're cousins, but it's definitely not Rudy. wink wink nudge nudge

Perhaps “Judy” could have some easily sandable pimples or freckles.

Just move to Poland and sell them on your discord

If you do it, please make stuff for Capcom's

This stuff is weird when you think about the winners an losers. There was a kid that created a t-shirt brand called South Butt. It was a spoof of North Face. The Goliath sued David and David settled.

Pretty sad that a company which left the pinball business to make slot/gambling machines is trying to actively keep people from fixing games they (or their predecessor companies) used to make. It's enough to make me avoid their machines on the rare occasions I'm in a casino.

That company is no longer associated with their legacy pinball business, whatsoever. All of that was sold to Planetary Pinball (Rick) who is the one that now guards things like a hawk.

If you play along with the licensing on areas where it's applicable, it's not particularly hard to make parts or get them made. They just want their cut of the proceeds for using the artwork. Hell, most guys I know that approached PPS about reproducing a part tended to also get a purchase order at the same time.

This is not correct. Scientific Games / Williams still owns everything. There's been slot machines themed on Black Knight, Attack from Mars, and even Funhouse. So Williams still has a stake in their intellectual property and are actively utilizing them.

Rick paid for licensing rights but not ownership, so he is the primary licensee and can sub-license as well, but he doesn't own the rights to any of it. Part of the reason he has to guard everything so tightly is that he is required to do so as part of the contract. I believe this is the same agreement that Wayne had previously with WMS, for those who remember when the conversation was the same but with different names. Neither of them are the bad guys that the situation makes it seem to be, I've dealt with Rick in the past and it was a quite pleasant experience. His first order of my EPROM adapters are what really got my company going. Wayne is just another pinball guy on the forums now that he's not having to be involved in this licensing mess, and I enjoy seeing his posts and interacting with the guy.

Like I've said in the past, I don't LIKE how things are, but I also want people to know the facts. This way if they want to make things they understand why they've got to play along.

No, rick is just a licensee - not the owner. SG is still in the driver seat… and he still has SG approve things when it comes to creative modifications.

Eta - see siegecraft beat me

Wasn't aware, thanks for the info.

We
Own
Everything

image000002 (resized).jpg

Only SG can License a licensee Cant sub License, they can approve products by a 3rd party under their License, Remember its a hobby for you all but a Business for PPS and SG Gaming.

I can tell you we added 20% to all our products to cover Piracy and legal fees worldwide, so people paid to protect Copyrights in the end.

So think about that when you complain about the prices of Pinball Machines and Parts when you support Copyright Infringement.

I bet the number of people who own a funhouse and would be willing to use a 3d printed Rudy head rather than buy a new one can probably be counted on one hand and you'd probably have fingers left over.

I don't think anyone is losing any sales in this situation.

It's like when I was 14 and pirating every Playstation 1 game that came out. I didn't have the means to buy those games in the first place so me pirating them was not a lost sale. If anything my ability to pirate those games made me a lifelong fan and led to me spending tens of thousands of dollars on the hobby once I got a job and actually had the means to pay for games. Not to mention services like Steam coming out and making it easy to get access to games which goes a long way to reduce piracy.

In this situation I think it's even less likely to lead to a lost sale since the 3d printed version needs to be finished and even after finishing would look worse and be more fragile than an injection molded one. I don't think you're protecting anything by going after this kind of infringement. It's immaterial.