Don't assume you have a copyright in a photo of a chip, even if you are the photographer. Not every photograph is an original work within the meaning of the statute.

Don't assume you can just make a simple modification and gain your own copyright in a derivative work. That issue was just accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday.

It is also to understand educational and other fair uses, even when valid copyrights exist. Not every use of a copyrighted work is punishable.

Just as briefs filed in courts are not a quarter-page long, it's hard to resolve complex legal issues in short chatroom posts.

Signed, a former copyright attorney

As a photographer and not an attorney, I often have to deal with these questions and issues. What happens when I make a photo, who owns the rights, what is public domain, or fair use or creative commons. I might own the rights to a photo of a casino chip, but I don't own the rights to the content and the design of the chip.

I never said anything in the past, but Chipguide could have a simple creative commons release from anyone uploading the chip images, which means, they can be used, as long as proper credit is given to the source. The source being the collection and the ChipGuide.com

I think what you wrote is interesting as the simple modification part is always open ended. Or better put from my perspective, and probably more in line with the legal question, what is substantial modification? At any rate and pretty simple, copying something to document it, such as a casino chip, is not going to grant rights to the photographer, except for the individual image. Nothing to do with the content. And I'll add, color corrections and alignment or cropping are not substantial modifications.

However... if Chipguide.com publishes a website with data and images, that information is protected, as a collection. The instant it goes online. And if the Chipguide says, people can use images as long as there is proper credit recognizing the source, then any use is allowed, as long as the person follows the rules and recognizes the source. Chipguide.com should be listing their images as Creative Commons so the terms are easily understood and in line with accepted restrictions and allowances.

Nothing I'm writing is anything about anyone being right or wrong, just the facts. If you want to protect the contents of Chipguide.com, you need to do that properly, just as anyone who uses one of those same images, need to do that with proper attribution.

https://marketing.istockphoto.com/blog/what-is-creative-commons/#:~:text=A%20Creative%20Commons%20license%20allows%20creators%20to%20maintain,There%20are%20several%20types%20of%20Creative%20Commons%20licenses.

As for the supreme court I welcome any decision if they actually look at the question. Because circuit courts and lower courts have many cases and they are in conflict. One case the appropriation of someone else's art is allowed, while in another case, the original artist was damages. There's no hard and fast law and no well defined rules for what's allowed and what isn't.

Anyone wonder about those postcard images and RPPCs that we post here? Does the card company still own the rights? What about the artist or photographer. What happens when the company is out of business? Ha Ha, chips are simple in comparison.

I own this scan, I don't own the rights to the contents nor the design and possibly everything is public domain if the chip is older than before January 1927.

Listen to Jim, this is not simple!