My new Carr :)

See and that's the root of the divide as there is absolutely no problem legally, ethically or otherwise about what he does to address. The haters all manufacture a "problem" with them

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No Dave , lately that's how it seems you roll .

 

Baseball, I belive the mint probably owns the designs. Not to lend credence to his argument I just think your rebuttal in that regard may not hold water

 

Where Have I or Books said we hated anything . Are Daniels copies good for this hobbie , in my opinion no , but it seems you counter anything with the hater label . As a matter of fact a higher up at CONECA has already had people with these Carr copies bringing them up to him and not believing him when he explains what they are . Now this new collector is going to be quite mad when he finds out what Jim told him is true . Will we lose a new collector because of this copy , maybe that I can't say . But if it's happening now don't think it wont happen more in the future again I don't think it's good for our hobbie .

 

Can you site your posts of his that conform to this. If dave doesn't know for a fact he's right he prefaces his statement and he's always open to being corrected. Sure he can be brash but the very nature of this forum can breed that

 

I don't believe so. Carr has stated several times he won't use a copy write (owned whatever is the proper word) design and hes done a Morgan and an ASE.

But for the sake of argument even if they did ownership has never been what this has been about from what I have read. Its always been about "stolen" work. There is no way to make that claim against him and give the Mint designers a pass but I am curious to see the attempts.

 

We all generalize those of you who fight against his work as "haters". I didn't make it up. Why are you being so litteral?

 

Oh your right. I remember him telling me about the reverse of the sac dollar being copywriten I believe

 

Just put his name in the search box and his recent posts will come up . Search them if you want . I should add Most of what Dave says is from the book , and he knows his stuff on a lot of things but there were a few times were his opinions were more than lacking in fact .

 

At some point people need to be responsible for their own education. There is no void of information on these and there is actually much more than the contemporary counterfeits that the hobby readily accepts. If someone wants to fall on their sword over a Carr piece, if Carr didn't exist it would just be some Chinese counterfit instead.

 

Point out my mistakes. Back up your BS. You probably can; I'm not perfect. I probably put out more incorrect numismatic information than all you haters put together, but that's because I'm posting about numismatics and not looking for conflict while all you're doing is being cross and making yourselves uninteresting.

But that's all the attention any of you are getting from me tonight off the topic of numismatics; I'm here to teach, not argue, and I've reached my limit of non-numismatic posts for the day.

 

First, thank you for taking the time to clarify, and please accept my apologies for lumping you with the others as well.

Now, I'm not saying I think the mint reusing designs is okay or acceptable. In fact, I don't like it at all, and perhaps short of the 09 UHR (for the sole reason of technology finally allowing them to get it right) wish they would avoid and/or do away with it. However, what I am saying is that if any entity or person could reasonably reuse past designs, it is the US mint.

And just to clarify, no... this is not the case at all. I don't know I'm right about the Carr copy issue nor even think I am, but it is my sincere and well thought out opinion. I may not agree with most of the participants in this thread, but short of the one who likes to throw the little poo jabs, I do respect theirs.

 

I certainly cannot speak for the man, but I'm guessing it's because the term implies ignorance and carries with it negative connotations.

 

I would disagree with this completely. Once their exclusivity on a design expires ev everyone has just as much of a right to it as they do as long as its done within the required framework for a coin.

I like restrikes within reason, I particularly like Carrs because he doesn't pump out several thousand or destroy interest with bogus mintages like the Mint does, I am excited for the gold remakes given they don't make unreasonable mintages.

With that said the Mint has no special claim to anything.

That's fair enough. I can respect a difference of opinion. It's the ones coming in saying he is breaking this law or that ect as fact that annoy me a bit playing stay at home lawyer.

 

I guess we both have .

 

It is my feeling (belief, defined the same as any other "belief") that those who denigrate Carr's work are totally overreacting, and choosing deliberately provocative verbiage because their position is governed by emotion rather than any "real-world damage" his work is doing to the hobby. I call them "haters" because that's all they're doing - hating. They have no logical argument, so vituperation is all they have to offer. Who has he hurt?

I don't know how the Hell you and I got into this mode. Of course, I think you started it, and you probably think I started it, but you offer a ton of content in this place and are obviously not just here to pursue conflict. As for me, well, this place allows more conflict than any other forum I've ever been involved in (and I have 5-digit postcounts at a few), and I'm as susceptible to emotion as anyone. I get caught up, and since I cannot_stand conflict, I end up as mad at myself as you.

I am therefore offering to bury the hatchet and begin anew. If you feel apologies are necessary, I'll offer them whether I feel them warranted or not, publicly or privately.

 

I don't think this is entirely legally accurate. I believe the Mint contracted the design out. I'm guessing they, the U.S. Mint, have legal rights to that design. I'd be curious to see the contract between the U.S. Mint and the designers, but I doubt the designers retained any rights to those designs.

Just like Intellectual Property of companies.

Edited to ADD: Sorry, I replied to your post while still on page 6 of this thread. I see others have brought up this issue as well.

 

If a design is paid for with tax dollars, by law it can not be copyrighted. Almost all US Coin designs are public domain and not owned by anyone. Only the Sacagawea Dollar obverse and a few modern US commemorative coin designs are actually copyrighted.

 

Your original argument focused on the designs:

But now you are changing it to the format in which the designs are presented.
The point is, every work of art is based on (inspired) by something that came before it. Warhol closely copied the original graphic art of the soup can label. That originally was not his. But the painting is still generally recognized as an iconic work of modern art.

Your "better comparison" is not better. If you took a genuine can of Cambell's soup and used a red marker to change the "m" to an "n", what you have is an altered can of Campbell's soup, not a copy of a can of Campbell's soup. And you could legally sell it as your own soup can edition.

Another (actually better) comparison:
Buy some brand new Chevrolet Corvettes. Paint some stripes on them and install superchargers. Then sell them as your own [brand name] edition Chevrolet Corvette. This is perfectly legal and is an industry accepted practice, with several companies such as Greenwood having done it. There are many other examples like Yenko (Camaros/Novas/Chevelles/Corvairs), Saleen (Mustangs), etc.