|
|
#61
12-01-2004, 09:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Three new chips for the Egyptian set. New Colors?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I personally am very interested in getting in on this set. I think that your idea of making the $5,000 plaque a deep purple is the best way to go because (If I am not mistaken)in ancient times purple was the color of royalty because it was so expensive to make. I think it will contrast nicely with King Tut's mask BTW--Love the vulture image for the $1000 chip as well and love the idea of making the 1k and 5k denoms unorthodox shapes in order to make them extra special. [/ QUOTE ] I agree 100%. By the way purple came from grinding seashells and it was very expensive and time consuming to make due to the massive quantities of shells required: The colorless dye is present in shellfish and in the hypobranchial gland of snails which was removed and by exposure to sunlight and air developed. The shells of species found were in 2 piles, 1. the banded dye-murex (Phyllonotus (Murex) trunculus), 2. the spiny dye-murex (Bolinus (Murex) brandaris), 3. rock shell or oyster drill, Thais haemastoma. [/ QUOTE ] This goes to #1 on the list of things I never thought I'd learn on a poker forum [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Seriously, though, its interesting info. Speaking of colors and royalty, wasn't there a particular color of ink that was used only by the emperor in feudal Japan (vermillion, maybe)? If I recall correctly, anyone else using that particular ink was put to death in some gruesome fashion. Doesn't directly apply to an Egyptian set of poker chips, but its still interesting. 
|
|
#62
12-04-2004, 07:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three new chips for the Egyptian set. New Colors?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Umm pardon my ignorance, but what is an 89mm plaque, and 44mm octagon? Please explain, thnx Craig [/ QUOTE ] In addition to the picture above, here's what they actually look like. That's the plaque and also you can see an octagon, which will be my $1,000. Ten  [/ QUOTE ] This is a photo I took in Vegas last year. I wish there was a way I could use it on a plaque. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Ten 
|
|
#63
12-04-2004, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three new chips for the Egyptian set. New Colors?
It might be as simple as asking them for permission. Another option would be to have it converted from a pixel photo to a vector based graphic. I'm sure there wouldn't be any infringement problems then.
peace. unloaded PS: This page shows a cartouche with Tut's name, not sure of the validity: http://www.egyptianmyths.net/cartouche.htm
|
|
#64
12-05-2004, 03:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three new chips for the Egyptian set. New Colors?
[ QUOTE ]
This is a photo I took in Vegas last year. I wish there was a way I could use it on a plaque. [/ QUOTE ] You know I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I'm not so sure that you would have a problem using that image. According to wikipedia, "displaying a photo of a sculpture or building doesn't violate the "copyright" of that sculpture or building." Under that theory, you would be the owner of the copyright of the picture (and would not be infringing the rights of the owner of the building). Again, I'm not an expert in the area, but if you like the image (I think it's great) it's probably worth checking on the question with a copyright lawyer (if you know one). Also, if I'm wrong and your photo would be an infringing "derivative work", my guess is you will never get anyone to consent to your use of the image. Just my 2cents.
|
|
#65
12-05-2004, 04:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three new chips for the Egyptian set. New Colors?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is a photo I took in Vegas last year. I wish there was a way I could use it on a plaque. [/ QUOTE ] You know I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I'm not so sure that you would have a problem using that image. According to wikipedia, "displaying a photo of a sculpture or building doesn't violate the "copyright" of that sculpture or building." Under that theory, you would be the owner of the copyright of the picture (and would not be infringing the rights of the owner of the building). Again, I'm not an expert in the area, but if you like the image (I think it's great) it's probably worth checking on the question with a copyright lawyer (if you know one). Also, if I'm wrong and your photo would be an infringing "derivative work", my guess is you will never get anyone to consent to your use of the image. Just my 2cents. [/ QUOTE ] This makes sense. Think "paparazzi." What do you think of using it though, copyrights aside? Ten
|
|
#66
12-05-2004, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Three new chips for the Egyptian set. New Colors?
As a photographer and someone who owns a record company I'm familiar enough with copyright law to be pretty sure you wouldn't be able to use that photo. If it was a picture of a downtown skyline it would be ok, but since it focuses on the one building, you would have to get permission.
For example, in Seattle, you can use the skyline with the space needle, but not JUST the space needle without permission. Or in NY you could to the skyline, but not just a picture of the Empire State Building. But, you personally probably wouldn't even get stress since your not profitting - but chipco could.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
