Who is sending you these emails? Disney has the lawyers and the endless capital to sue everyone. Stern, Planetary, and others don’t have time of the patience to spend tens of thousands to get you to stop making you $5 part.

Also if production is low enough it doesn’t qualify under the same laws and can pass as personal use and such. I’m avoiding legalese right now but you’re not churning out hundreds or thousands. It’s simply not worth it nor if it enough of an issue *YET*

Releasing files to produce copyrighted works may runafoul of others due to the whole IP situation.
You copying and selling it is different from you posting protected “secrets”

It’s similar to those total illegal t-shirt shops at your local mall or carnival. They make whatever you want on a one-of-a-kind on-demand basis lawyers and companies would never get paid in that case.

However if someone big enough with dozens of chains starts selling those T-shirts, there’s a lot of money on the line and everyone will get paid if they win.

*Disclaimer* This is general, extremely casual advice and not legal in any way. If you’re really worried about being sued get an attorney.

Interesting. Gottlieb is also extremely protective of their copyrights and Steve Young at PBR is the sole licensee of their parts. He makes everything. The company that owns Gottlieb makes a lot of money defending their copyrights.

I see, looking into your posts, it makes sense now.
Sorry they got so defensive over your post. Sometimes they do that over random things like that, even if they aren’t producing it. It’s very silly. Your best bet is to privately give it to individuals.
For free and private use, you’re not breaking any laws at all. That’s too bad, especially considering the people they *don’t* go after!

I live in the land of manufacturing and this stuff comes up all the time. A couple things to keep in mind regarding the part in question.

1. You aren’t manufacturing anything
2. You aren’t selling anything
3. You haven’t stolen anything, you scanned something and made the scan repeatable.
4. The imperfect scan you made can be printed but it is not the same as a molded part.
5. Because the piece has been scanned and 3d printed it is easily the necessary 10% different than the original part.

And most importantly the effort to reproduce this part as a hobbyist and make it look original is possibly more than it’s worth when compared to purchasing a licensed original reproduction and it’s value will never be that of a licensed reproduction.

That being said I would print one just to play with paint and finish ideas.

I am not a patent attorney but this stuff is pretty standard.

Don’t feel bad I just got a cease and desist letter because my wife used # Barcade on instagram a few times.

Let me ask this, then. How about a new, retrofit part for a certain era of games from one manufacturer that has never existed before? I've got a part idea that I've already drawn up in Fusion360 and is ready for prototyping. If it works as I hope, it'll be a huge help for a lot of people and has a lot of potential to be really popular. I've been considering filing for a patent because I know as soon as it comes out there will be someone to copy it/them and produce their own "version(s)". There will need to be some small variations for specific games, so a copyright or trademark might be necessary as well. My other concern is the license holder for that manufacturer's line of parts might want to get involved and take over the line of parts or try to get a piece of the action since it could be seen as leveraging their brands.

Or, do I confirm their design then just start churning them out and selling as many as I can to flood the market because, no matter what, someone's going to just copy the parts anyway and make their own slightly different version to avoid any patents/copyrights I might have on them?

Patents are 100% a waste of time and money unless you have seriously deep pockets and are prepared to spend up big to defend your patent.

******************

Let's say you have a patent for widget A

I start making an exact copy of widget A and you send me a C&D letter

I tear that up and keep making widget A

You approach a lawyer and discover that they won't even begin any action for you without $10K deposit

I keep selling widget A

******************

Your BEST form of protection is to make a high quality product and sell it at such a sensible price that others won't waste their time copying it.

Hahaha, those people are relentless.

The part in question here is definitely something I'd consider to fall under copyright law and is protected for quite some time (Artists life + 70 years likely applies here.). It's not just the licensee that is at play, but the main company that actually owns the artwork is known to be extremely protective of their artwork. Much of the pressure comes from the owning company, and the licensee is legally obligated to enforce the copyright or he risks losing his license. He's not a bad guy at all, but he does run a business and has obligations that come with the license. The same issue has come up multiple times in the past when people would upload the artwork for playfield plastics and translights / backglasses. Oh, and the owning company has plenty of lawyers on their roster, as some folks have found out the hard way.

The internet age and the 3D printing revolution are testing those laws much in the same way that Napster did with music sharing, and youtube did with video sharing. At the moment it's a free-for-all, as your example of the disney stuff all over the place, but at some point that will all come to a screeching halt. It just hasn't happened yet. But at some point the file sharing services such as thingiverse will get hit with the lawyers hammer and things will change pretty damn quick.

Is Barcade a trademark?? I was just looking that up recently and it seems some bullshit artist company is now preaching “the original barcade!!” How annoying! The owner is about 100 years too late on that idea. Amusements in arcades have been around forever!

Seriously?? For a hashtag?? I hope you told them to fuck right off.

Were not talking artwork but a physical part and for that matter were not talking about a physical part but the free blueprint for a physical part.

In the automotive world it is perfectly legal to make a replacement part available for sale without license fee as long as the part doesn't carry a manufacture logo on it.

Perfect example- I can buy an external mirror for my 1970 Plymouth with or without the Chrysler "Pentastar" logo. The version without the logo is notably cheaper as the vendor doesn't not have to pay the Chrysler Corporation a fee. My friend is in the business and is in regular touch with Chrysler lawyers what is allowable and what is not. He can churn out parts all day and Chrysler cannot do a damn thing about it, unless he uses "Chrysler Dodge Plymouth HEMI SuperBee" etc in marketing or on logos on such product.

Yep, and they seem to have people whose job is to watch social media and send C&D's to anyone who uses it as a hashtag.

He can't, they have the actual hashtag trademarked.

https://trademarks.justia.com/874/23/barcade-87423823.html

Yes Barcade is a trademark for a chain of bars. It is real and enforceable and there are several threads on Pinside about it.

Hashtags are trademarkable is the word is your company name or trade name used to sell a product or service.

#barcade_sucks

Looks like our posts crossed in the wire.

We received the C&D via FedEx and it included printouts of several posting my wife and son made on FB and insta advertising Vertigo Pinball. That's the problem. You can use the hashtag, but not for advertising.

They claimed they emailed and DMed us, but there was nothing in the logs.

We played around with retaliatory hashtags over beers, we liked #FUBarcade the best.

And with the prices Steve charges it can’t be any cheaper to do parts outside of him.

That’s outrageous. Barcade was a word before 2017. Just seeing these posts makes me so mad.
#FUBarcade is a solid one.

Functional components are different in a legal sense as compared to cosmetics. Like you said, your friend can make functional parts all day long provided the patents are expired and the appearance is different enough. But he can't use protected logos and emblems. He could make an aftermarket grill that fits a Jeep .... but it can't have the same orientation and number of slots as a factory Jeep grill, nor could he do it with the Dodge/RAM crosshair logo.

In this particular case, you can make an alternate head that fits in place of "Rudy" without any issue. It just has to be a different face on it. It's the look of the face that is in question, not the physical manifestation. Nor could you make a t-shirt, hat, or a sticker that features Rudy on it, and the 3D model is considered another medium regardless if a physical version is printed or not, and it's irrelevant if you've sold it or given it away. "Rudy" is still the property of Scientific Games, with the license administered by Planetary Pinball. Another way to look at it is you can make a head that fits into Funhouse and looks exactly like the head of a LEGO Minifigure. Williams couldn't stop you in the least..... but LEGO would probably send you a C&D instead. Make a face for Funhouse that is just some random generic face? Then you're completely in the clear.

Plastics and Translights are the same way. You can make blank/generic options as long as you want and nobody cares. Sell a whole conversion kit with your own artwork on it if you want. Once you put the original artwork on parts, then things start to get attention.

Your wrong- There is a huge aftermarket parts business that makes parts that look EXACTLY like the factory parts. The law allows for this for consumer choice.

Crash parts in particular which are VERY cosmetic.

My friend is making parts for brand new Challengers.

Were talking about a free blueprint of a model that was done by hand, PP would have a tough go of it in court if it even made it that far.

I still don't think what he's doing violates any laws. It's the same as someone drawing rudy's face and sending people the JPG to print it out. It's his own recreation of a copyrighted work and he's not profiting from it in any way. He's giving them the model he made and they are printing it themselves, it's not even a business transaction just a fan sharing his fan work.

I think if there was any recourse for a company for 3d printed parts like this you wouldn't see so much on thingiverse. Disney's stuff is all over thingiverse and has been for years. If you think they haven't even tried issuing takedown requests I'd say the chances of that are probably closer to 0 than 100.

EDIT: Maybe I'm wrong. I do see a takedown section on thingivserse but I don't get how Metallica, Disney and all the other notorious DMCA loving companies
would just let their stuff be up there when they could have it taken down.

https://www.thingiverse.com/legal/dmca

I just know how this has played out in the past. Multiple websites got lawyered and taken down for sharing scans and re-draws of plastics. Once in a while somebody will pop up with a re-draw of drop target art for download, and those get hammered pretty quick usually. Gottlieb ROM files and schematics are verboten online. The patch file to fix ghosting on early WPC games, which wasn't even based on Williams code, got squashed almost instantly.

Whatever I personally think isn't relevant, I just know that everybody who tried to fight Scientific Games or Gottlieb has lost. They both have lawyers either employed or on retainer, and aren't afraid to let them off the leash.

Right of repair applies to cars, iPhones or pinball.

Burying someone with lawyers employing lawfare does not make them right.

This topic comes up every couple of years and it gets pretty heated at times.

I'd also prefer things to be a lot more open than they are. The main thing holding down the value and appreciation of solid state Gottlieb games is how restrictive they are with manuals, schematics, and ROM files. Until somebody with enough money and horsepower can fight there way through and change it all though, there's not much we can do but play by the rules as they're dictated to us.

I know Stern used to be very liberal about using their material for the classic Stern lineup that wasn't licensed. It gets a lot trickier with the DE/Sega/New Stern products though simply because everything is licensed.

ROM files are understandable as that has fallen under certain protected groups on software (IE you must own a physical machine or at least the board to have rights to backup said software), manuals might be more of a grey area.

But if the IP holder is currently licensing and selling manuals through PBR than I'd say they have some legal grounds in court as they are currently "still in production"

Again- This is about someone making a replacement part BLUEPRINT. They are not selling a physical part nor the blueprint. This isn't a scan of the original part. The part should you have the luck to print one out correct can easily be told apart from the original as can most 3d parts.

The likeness of rudy is copyrighted. The likeness of a fender is not necessarily. Also, sometimes people who make these car parts you're talking about just get away with it, whether its flying under the radar, or being out of the jurisdiction of where the license holder can easily get a hold of you. Sometimes they find another loophole. The one that comes to mind for me is the Ford Raptor knockoff grills that you see for f150's. They used to all say FORD on them, but Ford put a stop to that. Now they say say OOOO or similar and sometimes come with extra parts that you can put on that make it still look like it says FORD. So no you can't just make car parts all willy nilly.

71gcvm9nUYL._SY355_ (resized).jpg

Sure about that?

The copyright office has NO LISTINGS for Funhouse or Rudy under Williams Electronics or WMS.

Feel free to look, I just did.

I already stated that a manufactures ***logo*** was off limits without license fees.

Again right of repair applies to pinball, cars or iphones.

Well shit, feels like a word that would already be too diluted to be used as a specific trademark. Would take a case against them to change anything though.

I doubt they could make it stick in court BUT do you want to be the one to test that?

Sometimes I wish I had unlimited funds to spend just to test stupid things like this.....

I believe that being granted a trademark means you have to perform due diligence defending it or you can lose it.

Years ago, some outfit trademarked the phrase "shabby chic" and I think still has eBay, etc pull down ads that dare to use it as a general descriptor (not selling something the trademark owner produced). I say that was baloney, the phrase was common before they trademarked it. I thought the function of trademarks was to prevent others using something you spent time and money popularizing, stealing goodwill. What the hell is shabby about brand new merchandise, anyway?

Same as "I'm Lovin' It" - "The Real Thing" etc etc - how are these even allowed?

Well, at least McDonald's and Coca-Cola spend a bunch of money advertising those trademarks! (Which of course is why I knew whose they were.)

When I heard "shabby chic" was trademarked and verboten, I had no idea whose it was, and when I heard it was Rachel Ashwell's, I still had no idea who that was, or what crap they made that they thought it a good idea to call shabby! I thought "shabby chic" was like used but nice condition country style decor from garage sales and thrift stores!

It is not necessary to register works to obtain copyright, although it is certainly far easier to prove ownership later on if there is an issue. Works are automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation.

Otherwise, you can still enforce a C&D on unregistered works. You would need to register copyrights with the copyright office to be able to get statutory damages, plus a few other benefits.

Copyright infringement in manufacturing back in the 80s/90s was probably fairly limited, so I imagine there wasn't much of a need to bother with registration, especially for a product that was only going to be manufactured for a short period of time.

But of course, now we have all there incredible tools available to pretty much anyone at affordable prices. So, there is a demand for reproduction parts, and pretty much anyone can potentially have the ability to make them. Neither of which were probably situations that were foreseen back then.

Some research may need to be done on the subject- Is the item we are discussing covered under copyright, patent or trademark?

Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work.

Looking into it a bit, the claim of a file that reproduces Rudy's head is a copyright violation is a difficult on its face.

Is PPS claiming they have a 3d printer file of Rudy's head as well? The OP has a greater claim to copyright than PPS does on this point.

Is PPS going to threaten photocopier companies as well? They enable me to run off perfect manuals and game flyers.

This is overreach plain and simple.

Since we are deep into trademark and copyright law I figure this a good place to throw it out there.

I have been fantasizing for a while of doing a T-shirt line with a Whacky Packages type theme if anyone remembers those. The focus on failed companies such as:

DerpRoot
ZitWare
FlyAway Pinball
BullaRama

And even perhaps some more successful ones:

Churn
Jersey Joke Pinball
Kooky Pinball

I’m struggling with American…

I’d be happy just doing a limited run without sales just to satisfy my own ego. But could I still run into trouble? And I if I sold them would that all but guarantee it? What are the provisions if any for satire products?

Weird Al has made a career out of satire and parody, typically protected.

You want to be sure that you do NOT use pieces/parts of actual logos or other trademark items. You would need to do your own actual artwork, not just cut and paste pieces of other stuff. If you create your own artwork, I would expect you to be fine.

So a custom created or even hand drawn spoof with unique humorous elements of the artwork even if it loosely resembles the original is ok?
61F3809D-C1AE-44E9-811C-78B724FF6E31 (resized).jpegFAD2461D-6DBA-4DAB-A292-1EA7C74D8B75 (resized).jpeg

Note the lying Pinocchio nosed OCTOpus with infamous PinPod behind it… I crack myself up lol!

I had an example here but deleted it.

You can use your imagination in regards to parts that are available for pinball machines from small vendors and hobbyists.

ANY replacement part made for a pinball machine qualifies for C&D letter if you buy into PPS's interpretation of the law.

I told my wife about this story and she had no idea what a Barcade was. I was a bit shocked…

But that means it’s not a word everyone knows and uses regularly so a court wouldn’t give a shit - even if I had the resources and reasons to file a case.

Sounds like a small modification needs to be made so the rudy face can't just be dropped into a machine. Fill a hole or something so people have to drill it out by hand to make it functional.

I don't even have a funhouse, I just wanted to print Rudy's face because my gf loves that pin and I thought it would be neat.

In this case (and many others) I don’t think the issue is what the courts think. It’s how much do you want to spend to find out?

Well that’s always the way but you don’t even stand a chance if you have no case to begin with.
My initial reaction was barcade is too common of a word but my SO proved that wrong real quick

My wife and son make these wreaths and sell them for $25 on Mercari, Facebook Marketplace. They sometimes add little cutouts to them. They did a Wizard of Oz themed one and got a C&D from Disney.

20220118_093209 (resized).jpg

Technically, running those copies is infringement. But, Gottlieb is the only one who really enforces it.

Technically, it could be classified as sculpture, and therefore a work of art. Not a functional/mechanical part.

Think of it this way--if instead you replaced rudy's head casing with a plain square box, would the functionality change at all, or just the appearance?

Also, it doesn't really matter what medium the work is reproduced in unless you're changing the message/meaning in some way. In this case, no meaning or artistic expression is being changed. It's simply a copy.

I'm sure enough to bet that the litigious person and/or company in question will do everything he can do to make you think he has that license. Let me know when you've dealt with them. Many of us have. Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Exactly.

What it boils down to is they will send lawyers after you whether they actually own it or not if its tangentially related to their business.