ANNC: New Gottlieb Backglass Manufacturer

[yourdreamin]

centaur 2 backglasses  3 definate orders ????

[greatwichjohn]

Centaur 2 glass. I would love to produce Bally/Williams glass. Have that art ready to go. Planetary Pinball received 3 sample Stern backglass samples a week ago. No word back on licensing yet.

[greatwichjohn]

Just an update on WMS backglass. Was looking promising for Bally/Williams glass, but the deal hit the skids for what is expected. Unless Rick changes his mind, I will focus on Classic Stern & Gottlieb glass.

[Strangeways]

Just an update on WMS backglass. Was looking promising for Bally/Williams glass, but the deal hit the skids for what is expected. Unless Rick changes his mind, I will focus on Classic Stern & Gottlieb glass.

Do you mean Bally Williams translites ? You should have no problems reproducing BALLY or Williams backglasses prior to 1983 ish. From what I understand, no one owns the rights to these machines and the only issue you will have will be with third party licenses. You could easily do a run of Supersonic or Gorgar (as an example). You would not need to ask permission, as no one holds these right - in fact, I don't think they exist (the "rights").

[greatwichjohn]

When Rick went sour on my production method. I offered to do EM or older titles, no response. I would think the licensing applies also to early work also. It's really no big deal to me at this time. He knows what I'm doing, I'm still trying to work on a deal for WMS for playfields also. But until uv inkjet production is accepted, my focus won't be in that direction quickly for Bally & Williams. The only people affected are those looking for another source of product.

[greatwichjohn]

Here is pictures of the first 2 Gottlieb glass projects going to Steve Young for approval. I have to get the license text on the glass before they ship. I'm still working on Williams/Bally em glass with Rick, hoping for approval.

http://s36.photobucket.com/albums/e28/greatwichjohn/Gottlieb%20Glass/

[Redback]

John,

Excellent work!!!

Red

[Caveoftreasures]

Well done on all the hard work u have done which is now paying off for you.
Hopefully people at the upcoming Canadian show will see your great work.

People will get to see John at the link he provided on the other post for the upcoming show. link below John supplied.

http://hal-con.com/

[v8racefan]

Great work John

[Strangeways]

When Rick went sour on my production method. I offered to do EM or older titles, no response. I would think the licensing applies also to early work also. It's really no big deal to me at this time. He knows what I'm doing, I'm still trying to work on a deal for WMS for playfields also. But until uv inkjet production is accepted, my focus won't be in that direction quickly for Bally & Williams. The only people affected are those looking for another source of product.

John, I believe the WMS license does not go as far back as EMs. I was told the license covers games produced AFTER 1984 ish. So anything beforehand should be fine. But it would be worth contacting Williams to have it in writing.

[Retropin]

When Rick went sour on my production method. I offered to do EM or older titles, no response. I would think the licensing applies also to early work also. It's really no big deal to me at this time. He knows what I'm doing, I'm still trying to work on a deal for WMS for playfields also. But until uv inkjet production is accepted, my focus won't be in that direction quickly for Bally & Williams. The only people affected are those looking for another source of product.

John, I believe the WMS license does not go as far back as EMs. I was told the license covers games produced AFTER 1984 ish. So anything beforehand should be fine. But it would be worth contacting Williams to have it in writing.

Not sure you'll ever get this in writing.. it was the previous rights owners main weapon.. grey areas of copyright. The only thing that is absolute is that pre 1982 if copyright was not requested then it did not exist... a case in 1982 changed all this when the artwork was reproduced for profit.. artist claimed copyright and it was denied.. but... a precedence was then made that anything POST this case was subject to automatic copyright. So we then hit this ' grey area" where any copyright owners will not tell you what is subject and what is not.. reason for this?.. Common sense tells us that most is NOT subject to copyright and that is why owners will not disclose.
It is however good to get approval if you can as it shows a quality of reproduction... but it is not absolutely necessary