Super Mario
Well-known member
Topps doesn't really have any cards on the market that I care about at the moment.
I was more of. DLP and UD baseball card guy.
I do like Finest and Ginter off the top of my head though.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
So looks like Leaf is on to something....
- Thread starter BBCgalaxee
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Topps doesn't really have any cards on the market that I care about at the moment.
I was more of. DLP and UD baseball card guy.
I do like Finest and Ginter off the top of my head though.
HPC
New member
I've read what Brian's arguement is and I can only think to myself, "if it's that easy, why hasn't another company already done it?"
cardsrus1
New member
That is an easy one to answer, because the other companies are holding out hope for a license at some point. Once you cross any of the leagues you will have zero chance of ever getting a license from that point on.
mchenrycards
Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
Lets take a step back for a moment and look at what BG is saying. Now please know I am not a Leaf apologist and I own zero Leaf cards but he has a few interesting arguments.
In this thread BG Said:
"In cardtoons, while the primary issue was parody the judge goes a step further.
In his decision, he states that the cards would be 1st amendment protected if they have news , educational or informative value..
Stats and bio do the trick..
BG"
I looked up the Cardtoons decision and found this:
"Moreover, even if less common mediums of expression were to receive less First Amendment protection (perhaps out of concern for whether they contain any expression at all), trading cards do not fall into that category. Baseball cards have been an important means of informing the public about baseball players for over a century. "Trading, collecting and learning about players are the most common reasons for children to purchase baseball cards.... They are, in other words, an education in baseball." Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 501 F.Supp. 485, 495-96 (E.D.Pa.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 658 F.2d 139 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1019, 102 S.Ct. 1715, 72 L.Ed.2d 137 (1982). In addition, non-sports trading cards have also been an important medium for disseminating information. Some recent examples feature topics such as saints, Norman Rockwell paintings, presidential candidates, the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, local police officers, and Rodney King. All of these trading cards, regardless of their topic, convey information about their subject and therefore constitute an important means of expression that deserves First Amendment protection."
I am no lawyer and dont want to sound like I am but reading this decision from the courts makes me think BG might have a point here in that he could put a picture of a player in his uniform onto a card and NOT use logos on the card itself (other than what is on the uniform) and provide a bio or a list of statistics on the back. This type of card, with no logos other than the incidental logo on the uniform would be protected by the first ammendment. Per Brian's contention (I assume this is what he is saying) and per the court ruling it seems Brian could potentially win this type of case but I see it as a long, drawn out process that would only seem to make lawyers rich.
As to why have others NOT pursued this? Like I said before, I can only assume this will cost millions of dollars to defend and that will make most people shake in their boots and determine they cannot withstand that kind of financial outlay to defend their position.
I welcome BG's input and correct any errors in my understanding of his thinking but I think I understand what he is saying and understand where he is coming from.
In this thread BG Said:
"In cardtoons, while the primary issue was parody the judge goes a step further.
In his decision, he states that the cards would be 1st amendment protected if they have news , educational or informative value..
Stats and bio do the trick..
BG"
I looked up the Cardtoons decision and found this:
"Moreover, even if less common mediums of expression were to receive less First Amendment protection (perhaps out of concern for whether they contain any expression at all), trading cards do not fall into that category. Baseball cards have been an important means of informing the public about baseball players for over a century. "Trading, collecting and learning about players are the most common reasons for children to purchase baseball cards.... They are, in other words, an education in baseball." Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 501 F.Supp. 485, 495-96 (E.D.Pa.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 658 F.2d 139 (3d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1019, 102 S.Ct. 1715, 72 L.Ed.2d 137 (1982). In addition, non-sports trading cards have also been an important medium for disseminating information. Some recent examples feature topics such as saints, Norman Rockwell paintings, presidential candidates, the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, local police officers, and Rodney King. All of these trading cards, regardless of their topic, convey information about their subject and therefore constitute an important means of expression that deserves First Amendment protection."
I am no lawyer and dont want to sound like I am but reading this decision from the courts makes me think BG might have a point here in that he could put a picture of a player in his uniform onto a card and NOT use logos on the card itself (other than what is on the uniform) and provide a bio or a list of statistics on the back. This type of card, with no logos other than the incidental logo on the uniform would be protected by the first ammendment. Per Brian's contention (I assume this is what he is saying) and per the court ruling it seems Brian could potentially win this type of case but I see it as a long, drawn out process that would only seem to make lawyers rich.
As to why have others NOT pursued this? Like I said before, I can only assume this will cost millions of dollars to defend and that will make most people shake in their boots and determine they cannot withstand that kind of financial outlay to defend their position.
I welcome BG's input and correct any errors in my understanding of his thinking but I think I understand what he is saying and understand where he is coming from.
mchenrycards
Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
Reading further down in the lower courts decision I found other interesting tid bits:
MLBPA also maintains that the parody trading cards are commercial merchandise rather than protected speech. However, 970*970 we see no principled distinction between speech and merchandise that informs our First Amendment analysis. The fact that expressive materials are sold neither renders the speech unprotected, Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 761, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1825, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976), nor alters the level of protection under the First Amendment, Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750, 756 n. 5, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 2143 n. 5, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). Cardtoons
need not give away its trading cards in order to bring them within the ambit of the First Amendment. See Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 756 n. 5, 108 S.Ct. at 2143 n. 5.
MLBPA further argues that the parody cards are commercial speech and should therefore receive less protection under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has defined commercial speech as "expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience." Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 561, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 2349, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). Speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction, for example, is commercial speech. See Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U.S. at 762, 96 S.Ct. at 1825. Thus, commercial speech is best understood as speech that merely advertises a product or service for business purposes, see 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 116 S.Ct. 1495, 1504, 134 L.Ed.2d 711 (1996) (plurality opinion) (outlining a brief history of commercial speech that is, essentially, a history of advertising). As such, commercial speech may receive something less than the strict review afforded other types of speech. Id. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 1507.
Cardtoons' trading cards, however, are not commercial speech — they do not merely advertise another unrelated product. Although the cards are sold in the market-place, they are not transformed into commercial speech merely because they are sold for profit. Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U.S. at 761, 96 S.Ct. at 1825. Contrary to MLBPA's argument, therefore, the cards are unlike the parody in the only other circuit court decision addressing the constitutional tensions inherent in a celebrity parody, White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2443, 124 L.Ed.2d 660 (1992). In that case, defendant Samsung published an advertisement featuring a costumed robot that parodied Vanna White, the letter-turner on television's Wheel of Fortune, and White sued for violation of her right of publicity. The court noted that in cases of noncommercial parodies, "the first amendment hurdle will bar most right of publicity actions against those activities." Id. at 1401 n. 3. However, without engaging in a methodical commercial speech analysis of Samsung's First Amendment defense, the court ruled that White's claim was sufficient to withstand Samsung's motion for summary judgment. We disagree with the result in that case for reasons discussed in the two dissents that it engendered. Id. at 1407-08 (Alarcon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 989 F.2d 1512, 1512-23 (9th Cir.1993) (denial of rehearing en banc) (Kozinski, J., dissenting). Moreover, our case is distinguished by the fact that the speech involved is not commercial, but rather speech subject to full First Amendment protection. White, therefore, is inapposite, and we must directly confront the central problem in this case: whether Cardtoons' First Amendment right trumps MLBPA's property right.
I thought this part was interesting from the above quoted case:
"Cardtoons' trading cards, however, are not commercial speech — they do not merely advertise another unrelated product. Although the cards are sold in the market-place, they are not transformed into commercial speech merely because they are sold for profit."
So given this....I think BG has a even stronger case from a Layman's perspective. Again, not being a lawyer I would like to hear anyone that can give a differing educated opinion. Lets discuss this here and not XXXXX and moan about the quality of Leaf of the business practices of the owner.
MLBPA also maintains that the parody trading cards are commercial merchandise rather than protected speech. However, 970*970 we see no principled distinction between speech and merchandise that informs our First Amendment analysis. The fact that expressive materials are sold neither renders the speech unprotected, Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 761, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1825, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976), nor alters the level of protection under the First Amendment, Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750, 756 n. 5, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 2143 n. 5, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). Cardtoons
need not give away its trading cards in order to bring them within the ambit of the First Amendment. See Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 756 n. 5, 108 S.Ct. at 2143 n. 5.
MLBPA further argues that the parody cards are commercial speech and should therefore receive less protection under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has defined commercial speech as "expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience." Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 561, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 2349, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). Speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction, for example, is commercial speech. See Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U.S. at 762, 96 S.Ct. at 1825. Thus, commercial speech is best understood as speech that merely advertises a product or service for business purposes, see 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 116 S.Ct. 1495, 1504, 134 L.Ed.2d 711 (1996) (plurality opinion) (outlining a brief history of commercial speech that is, essentially, a history of advertising). As such, commercial speech may receive something less than the strict review afforded other types of speech. Id. at ___, 116 S.Ct. at 1507.
Cardtoons' trading cards, however, are not commercial speech — they do not merely advertise another unrelated product. Although the cards are sold in the market-place, they are not transformed into commercial speech merely because they are sold for profit. Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U.S. at 761, 96 S.Ct. at 1825. Contrary to MLBPA's argument, therefore, the cards are unlike the parody in the only other circuit court decision addressing the constitutional tensions inherent in a celebrity parody, White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 2443, 124 L.Ed.2d 660 (1992). In that case, defendant Samsung published an advertisement featuring a costumed robot that parodied Vanna White, the letter-turner on television's Wheel of Fortune, and White sued for violation of her right of publicity. The court noted that in cases of noncommercial parodies, "the first amendment hurdle will bar most right of publicity actions against those activities." Id. at 1401 n. 3. However, without engaging in a methodical commercial speech analysis of Samsung's First Amendment defense, the court ruled that White's claim was sufficient to withstand Samsung's motion for summary judgment. We disagree with the result in that case for reasons discussed in the two dissents that it engendered. Id. at 1407-08 (Alarcon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); White v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 989 F.2d 1512, 1512-23 (9th Cir.1993) (denial of rehearing en banc) (Kozinski, J., dissenting). Moreover, our case is distinguished by the fact that the speech involved is not commercial, but rather speech subject to full First Amendment protection. White, therefore, is inapposite, and we must directly confront the central problem in this case: whether Cardtoons' First Amendment right trumps MLBPA's property right.
I thought this part was interesting from the above quoted case:
"Cardtoons' trading cards, however, are not commercial speech — they do not merely advertise another unrelated product. Although the cards are sold in the market-place, they are not transformed into commercial speech merely because they are sold for profit."
So given this....I think BG has a even stronger case from a Layman's perspective. Again, not being a lawyer I would like to hear anyone that can give a differing educated opinion. Lets discuss this here and not XXXXX and moan about the quality of Leaf of the business practices of the owner.
Erich
Active member
Why in the name of Baby Jesus did Jeff get suspended/banned before he could comment on this thread
mchenrycards
Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
I bet Jeff is reading this somewhere and his head just exploded!
Hi Jeff! Who in the blue hell are you anyway?
Hi Jeff! Who in the blue hell are you anyway?
maxe0213
New member
A+ response right here. Leaf does so many more things correct over Topps. The only issue with their cards is the no logo.
This is a good arguement.
The first thing I would attack is the assertion that the main reasons children collect cards are for "trading, collecting and learning about players" by pointing out that few children collect cards anymore and that the adults that collect are not focused on learning about players, but that they get information almost exclusively from TV and the internet. Then I'd march out collector after collector to highlight reasons for why they buy trading cards, making sure that none of them do it, as the ruling noted, to "get an education in baseball."
mchenrycards
Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
I agree with this but Topps themselves has billed their products as "educational" for many many years. It is was even printed on their flyers and, if I remember right, was even on their cases they packed their boxes in. It would be easy to show that even Topps thought of their product as educational which would negate any argument that they had against their product being so.
While the cases cited here are interesting, I doubt that there would be a similar finding on a non-parody product that intends on using said logos multiple times a year, and presumably in multiple sports. I can't imagine that the other companies that have the exclusive licenses in other sports would be willing to take the risk of losing the exclusivity of their deals by going after MLB. At the end of it all though, I keep coming back to the idea that using the first amendment to be able to feature Derek Jeter in a Yankees uniform because MLB signed an exclusive contract with one of your competitors is just sad and part of the problem this country faces, quite simply: "If at first you don't succeed, contact your lawyer and tie each other up in court for years."
DaClyde
Well-known member
Yet it is that very same tactic that has kept us from enjoying Federal League baseball for the past 90 years. Poor MLB. I agree, it is sad that someone might get the better of them in court and not have the deck stacked in MLB's favor.
If MLB were to grant a second license right now, it would be Panini's. And if BG really believed what he was saying, he'd just print the stupid logos & then fight the good fight. Upper Deck did it, once. There's a reason they didn't repeat that move.
This ruling seems to bolster the Leaf case. Can previous baseball seasons be considered historical events?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mon...suit-against-trading-card-company-tossed.html
Aldrin accused Topps in a lawsuit filed last year of improperly using his image in a series of historic trading cards.
U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson ruled that Topps’ use of photographs from the Apollo 11 mission was protected as “free speech of an issue of public interest.” He dismissed the lawsuit Sept. 27.
Aldrin has appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
At the center of the disagreement is a series of trading cards Topps issued in 2009 called, Topps American Heritage. The set of cards includes hundreds of images of well-known American politicians, actors, athletes and events, including a photograph of Aldrin during the historic mission.
Aldrin argued that Topps’ use of his image was “unprotected commercial speech,” for which he was entitled toc compensation.
"We believe that the federal trial court's ruling could effectively end California's well-established and statutory right of publicity law as it affects the use of celebrity images on trinkets such as plates, pencils, trading cards and the like," Aldrin's attorney, Robert C. O'Brien, said. "Accordingly, Dr. Aldrin has appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. He is hopeful for a positive result from the appeals court."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mon...suit-against-trading-card-company-tossed.html
Aldrin accused Topps in a lawsuit filed last year of improperly using his image in a series of historic trading cards.
U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson ruled that Topps’ use of photographs from the Apollo 11 mission was protected as “free speech of an issue of public interest.” He dismissed the lawsuit Sept. 27.
Aldrin has appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
At the center of the disagreement is a series of trading cards Topps issued in 2009 called, Topps American Heritage. The set of cards includes hundreds of images of well-known American politicians, actors, athletes and events, including a photograph of Aldrin during the historic mission.
Aldrin argued that Topps’ use of his image was “unprotected commercial speech,” for which he was entitled toc compensation.
"We believe that the federal trial court's ruling could effectively end California's well-established and statutory right of publicity law as it affects the use of celebrity images on trinkets such as plates, pencils, trading cards and the like," Aldrin's attorney, Robert C. O'Brien, said. "Accordingly, Dr. Aldrin has appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. He is hopeful for a positive result from the appeals court."
I disagree.. The main purpose is ti sell advertising.. Bg
I won't stoop to saying the sane kind of uneducated opinions you make above..
I invite you to start a card company and get the company to $20 million a year in sales from scratch.. Good luck! It takes way more balls (and requires more than typing in a message board).
Bottom line, you don't know me.
You talk crap because it's fun for you.
The proof is in the pudding..
I'm in business and making money while most of the other guys are not making money..
I guess that makes me a dumb guy.
I've done the leaf name shame by making it a relevant brand instead of a brand left for dead by donruss (obviously, dropping with sarcasm)
BG
P.s.- Mario, I put myself out I front of everyone. Why don't you do the same?
What's your name? How do you know me personally to make the statements above? Expecting crickets..
And you think the current incarnation is remotely similar to the old Topps?
Silly.
1. $1 million minimum legal expenses
2. The companies with licenses now do NOT want people like me in the game. Because on level playing field, I would be a major force.
3. Someone has to break ground. Why didn't before Rosa Parks refuse to sit in the back of the bus?
We'll see what CLC decides...
Maybe I will go for the gusto and push the red button?
BG
Similar threads
