Pete,

I don't think anyone would disagree with the general legal principles in the response you received. If someone simply downloads another website's copyrighted images and republishes them without permission or without a valid legal defense, that certainly may constitute copyright infringement.

The important point, however, is that your question describes a hypothetical. Real copyright disputes are decided on the specific facts, and those facts matter.

The response itself recognizes this by repeatedly stating that the outcome depends on additional information, including the nature of the images, how they are used, whether any licenses or permissions exist, and whether defenses such as fair use apply.

It is also important to remember that copyright protects original creative expression, not historical facts. Casino names, locations, chip denominations, manufacturers, issue dates, mold names, catalog numbers, and the history surrounding casino gaming are factual information. Those facts belong to history itself and remain available for anyone to research, document, and publish.

Likewise, casino chips are historical artifacts. They can be photographed, studied, cataloged, and documented by multiple collectors, museums, libraries, archives, historians, and reference guides. No single organization owns the history of those artifacts simply because it has documented them.

There is also a meaningful distinction between photographing a historical artifact for identification and creating an original artistic work. A painting of a casino chip reflects the artist's own creative vision and expression. A straightforward reference photograph taken simply to document what a casino chip looks like serves a fundamentally different purpose. While both may be protected by copyright, the nature and scope of that protection can differ because copyright protects original expression—not the historical object itself. The law has long recognized that the degree of originality matters when evaluating creative works.

More importantly, one of the purposes of copyright law is to strike a careful balance. It protects original creative works while also ensuring that education, scholarship, research, historical preservation, commentary, and the dissemination of factual information can continue to benefit the public. That is precisely why Congress included the fair use doctrine in the Copyright Act.

Museums, historical societies, universities, libraries, archives, documentary filmmakers, auction houses, and researchers rely on these principles every day to preserve and share history. Their mission is not to replace the original works but to educate, document, and preserve knowledge for future generations.

For those of us who collect casino memorabilia, that mission is especially important. Every year casinos close, buildings are demolished, chips are destroyed, records disappear, and firsthand knowledge is lost forever. Historical documentation becomes more valuable with each passing year.

Personally, I believe the hobby benefits from having more high-quality historical resources, not fewer. More research, more documentation, more historical articles, more databases, and more collectors sharing information help preserve a history that might otherwise be lost. Multiple reference sources encourage discussion, uncover new discoveries, correct mistakes, and attract new collectors who may never have found the hobby otherwise.

None of this suggests that copyright should be ignored. Original creative works deserve respect and legal protection. But copyright law was never intended to grant exclusive ownership over history itself. Its purpose is to encourage creativity while also allowing education, research, scholarship, and historical preservation to flourish.

At the end of the day, I hope every organization devoted to casino collectibles shares the same objective: preserving the rich history of our hobby and making it available to current collectors and future generations. That goal is best served when knowledge is expanded, historical information is preserved, and more people are inspired to appreciate and participate in this wonderful hobby.

If it's my "legal team" you are referring to, well, that may consist of a family law firm and members of the chipping community that include ACTUAL copyright lawyers and law professors, so if the club or Kaplan wishes to invest a bunch of club money in some kind of claim process I'd suggest a go fund me. Maybe name it the "we own history fund", I'm sure it would be good publicity for all of us! If you think that there was just a reckless build with no consultation, well, that's not the case. (I added that)