Question about Daniel Carr offerings

You don't know how to reason through it, your reasoning is too tight. The law isn't like two and two make four. It's not a mathematical construct. In a case like this, HPA provides an exception to 18 USC 487, as though it were written into 18 USC 487. If the manufacturer were prosecuted for the unmarked die that would undermine HPA which requires only the coin be marked. As such, the prosecutor is going to let that unmarked die alone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Oh, please... now you've taken the crown for most asinine (no less ridiculous) post in this thread. On the other hand, perhaps this is just your xenophobia showing through again?

So in order for you to actually sign, or even properly identify your copied "work", one must pay a third party (and you again)? How classy of you! Your man Warhol would be very disappointed though, along with most other genuinely talented "artists" who felt it proper to do the obvious.

At least @C-B-D now has his often requested answer...

Okay, but there are people capable of using the God-given talent in their hands, and you're not one of them. I remember reading a past post of yours in which you admitted that you're unable to "engrave" by hand, at least to a level anywhere near that of your CNC, which suggests without it and your little computers, you're very much just like everyone else.

If "talent related to art" means having to resort to copying those with actual talent all while pretending to be some great talent, and even going as far as to throw mud at some the very artists you copy, count me fortunate to be without.

It's doesn't matter. Since you so like to bring up the two meh quarters you designed as if it lends any legitimacy to your copying, it's only fair to bring up your strikeouts as well. Of course advertising the fact you "designed" something, even if used by others, to swindle countless people isn't good for business, so I can't blame you there.

Oh, no! You mean you haven't changed your mind since the last time you threw a little hissy and told me I can't play with your toys? I'm devistated, just devistated (roll eyes here)! I guess, since we've now entered the Romper Room stage, I should run to the playground monitor to tell him lil Danny won't let me play too? Sniffle, sniffle..

Oh, please... I've given you nothing but credit for your craftsmanship, and have many times written of my respect for your entrepreneurial spirit, both of which can most certainly be considered "niceties". Just because I refuse to buy into your deflective nonsense or never-ending hypocrisy, and refuse to see someone who exactly copies the work of others using modern technology as some great "artist" doesn't mean everything I've said, or positions I've taken, have been unfair or unreasonable. Try the truth for once; you just might like it.

 

You're actually race baiting at this point? That's a new low

 

Your entire post contradicts this, but I know I know I am putting words in your mouth again by pointing out what you have actually said

 

Yup, sounds like press envy to me.

 

No, I never thought or wrote that Gallery Mint dies were illegal (see below).

No, you do not recall correctly, and rarely ever do, it seems.

In that old thread I asked a question so as to point out the apparent contradiction in the laws.

The only way to reconcile the legal conflict is to interpret a fraudulent intent requirement for 18 USC 485 and 18 USC 487, just as US Mint Counsel Gubin indirectly indicated.

 

The point of no return.

 

Kiss the rosie red one.

 

Are you an expert in CNC ?

Please tell us your education and work experience in the field of CAD/CAM and CNC, both hardware and software.

I have worked in these fields for over 30 years. So I have an idea of what is possible.

On request, and for no additional charge, I also hand-sign the flip inserts that go with my products.

No, that is not what I said. I engrave by hand on occasion to touch up a die. But I generally use a digital reduction process which is not much different than a Janvier reduction lathe process. This is what the US Mint used previously, but now they frequently use a digital reduction process like I do.

Wrong. I never claimed I was "talented". I don't even care if I am or not. I like making coins/tokens/medals and I do so whether anyone else likes them or not. Some do, some don't. Those that don't usually just pass on by. A few, as evidenced by this thread, seem to be bitter and jealous and can't just let go and move on.

I've designed hundreds of coins. Most of them I never bother to mention. So it isn't at all unusual for me to not mention any number of coins/tokens/medals I've designed in the past. All are documented on my website, however.

But since you bring it up, one of the "meh" state quarters I designed (Rhode Island) received a Krause Publications Coin of the Year (CotY) award as the best circulating coin in the world for 2001.

Here is my listing in the Metal Artists Databank:
http://www.medalartists.com/carr-daniel-james.html

I remember when you said that I was "robbing the legacy" of a coin's original designer by over-striking it. And I pointed out a prior post where you wrote that an Indian Head Cent, carved into a Caucasian-looking cartoon character, was "good work". And I pointed out that if anything was robbing the legacy of the original designer, "hobo" carving of a coin like that was more egregious than over-striking a coin in such a way that is faithful to the original. Is that what you are talking about ?

Your statements seem contradictory.

 

There is no conflict between 15 U.S.C. 2101(b) and 18 U.S.C. 487. Any putative conflict is with the FTC's administrative regulation promulgated under the HPA. There is a big difference legally. The FTC is only authorized to issue administrative regulations in accordance with federal statutes. Where an FTC administrative regulation conflicts with a statute it is void - it lacks the power to issue rules that conflict with statutes. No one is going to harmonize anything.

Gubin never addressed 18 U.S.C. 485 or 18 U.S.C. 487 either directly or indirectly. Gubin indicated that alteration is not illegal unless there is an intent to defraud or some "other factor." The basis for Gubin's statement is 18 U.S.C. 331 which states that it is a federal crime to fraudulently alter money. (No kidding!) The text of the statute does not say that all alterations are legal absent fraudulent intent. Those are two very different statements. Nothing in 18 U.S.C. 331 prevents the application of other applicable statutes including 18 U.S.C. 485-489 when appropriate. Those are separate statutes setting forth separate offenses.

As Gubin correctly asserts, alteration is legal in the absence of fraudulent intent or "other factors." Those "other factors" include other statutes/laws providing to the contrary. As applied to novelty items, the overstriking of a Morgan Dollar itself is not illegal. If you overstrike the in the resemblance or similitude to the design or inscription of a U.S. coin with your own dies, you have crossed the line.

 

There's one teensy, tiny problem with your scenario, @-jeffB... the word COPY has to be incuse on the coin, which means it needs to be raised on the die. So, you can't stamp the word COPY into the die and be in compliance with the HPA/CCPA.

 

It is merely a restatement of the mens rea and due process principles. Criminal statutes (with very few exceptions) require mens rea.

 

This is what US Mint Counsel Gubin wrote:

As you are already aware, a federal statute in the criminal code of the United States (18 U.S.C. 331), indeed makes it illegal if one "fraudulently alters, defaces, scales or lightens" any U.S. coin. However, being a criminal statute, a fraudulent intent is required for violation. Thus, the mere act of impressing coins into souvenirs is not illegal, without other factors being present.

He made a general statement that for all criminal statutes, fraudulent intent is required for violation.

 

I think you could. You could stamp the die with a rectangular punch with the letters spelling copy hollowed out into the surface of the rectangle. "COPY" would be recessed/incused in the rectangular punch and the die would then have a rectangle with "COPY" being raised.

 

I don't think he meant to suggest anything beyond 18 U.S.C. 331, but I will tell you that stating that every criminal statute must have a fraudulent intent is wrong. "Other factors" includes other statutes.

 

No, this thread hit rock bottom around page 3.

 

I actually thought of that, but I doubt it would work. To ensure the letters are the required depth, you'd have to use a lot of striking pressure. That would probably ruin your punch, at least, and you'd probably end up with an unusable die as well.

 

It looks like it might have been the method used to strike this. I don't know enough to comment on the technical aspect of your post.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964P-Fanta...170545?hash=item3ad4f8ae71:g:aIkAAOSw4GVYPLQq

P.S. The required depth is only 0.3 mm.

 

@dcarr - Have you seen the Mint's advice page on dealing with businesses involving replicas of U.S. coins? Disclaimer: The U.S. Mint does not have jurisdiction over the Title 18 statues and cannot provide legal interpretations of them. Here are some excerpts:

Do consult with your attorney before embarking on any activity involving the reproduction of genuine United States coins.

Do be aware of existing counterfeiting laws.
Counterfeiting laws fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service and the United States Department of Justice, and appear at 18 U.S.C. Chapter 25. Existing laws generally cover those coins, tokens, devices, etc. (and their dies) that are intended either for use as genuine currency or are in similitude to United States or foreign coins. The laws apply equally to all coins, including those coins not currently in circulation.

Do mark the obverse of your coin replicas with the word "copy."
The Hobby Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2106), requires manufacturers of imitation numismatic items to mark plainly and permanently such items with the word "copy." Failure to do so may constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Federal Trade Commission administers the Hobby Protection Act. If you need further assistance, you can contact the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-3038.

https://www.usmint.gov/consumer/indexdf40.html?action=busReplicas