- Thread starter
- #1
Bob Loblaw
Active member
The photoshopping is good...
Same pic? Definitely the same splitfingered fastball...... One would think that both manufacturers would have exclusivity agreements re: the pictures.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Same photo, different manufacturers?
- Thread starter Bob Loblaw
- 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.
The photoshopping is good...
Same pic? Definitely the same splitfingered fastball...... One would think that both manufacturers would have exclusivity agreements re: the pictures.
gracecollector
Well-known member
It's like one of those "Can You Spot the 10 Differences" photos?
1) No undershirt
2) No "P" logo on hat
3) Shirt is now black
4) Double stripe on pant leg
5) No stripes on sleeves
6) No team name on front
7) Crappy, blasphemous imitation of iconic 90's insert set background
8)?
9)?
10)?
1) No undershirt
2) No "P" logo on hat
3) Shirt is now black
4) Double stripe on pant leg
5) No stripes on sleeves
6) No team name on front
7) Crappy, blasphemous imitation of iconic 90's insert set background
8)?
9)?
10)?
- Thread starter
- #3
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Topps airbrushes/photoshops most cards for Bowman Chrome. The underlying picture, though, I believe is the same... which is my point.
TBTwinsFan
New member
Here is another example.
Hendersonfan
New member
I don't have pictures, but Topps has been using many pictures that were used by Donruss for Henderson cards. That and the fact they keep using the same 2-3 pictures for everything else they make.
gracecollector
Well-known member
Ummm... yeah? Pretty common knowledge. And my point is... it's like one of those "Can You Spot the 10 Differences" photos.
I thought your point is "Why is Leaf using a Topps photo?" To that, I have no answer. It's either that 1) the original photographer did not issue an exclusive license and Topps did not require it, 2) Topps did require an exclusivity provision but the photographer ignored it - possibly opening him/herself up to lawsuit, or 3) Topps sold the photo rights to Leaf. Lots of possibilites with photo rights, including one time usage provisions, exclusivity provisions, and rights management. It's all dependent on what is negotiated at time of purchase.
bradical
Active member
It's neither Topps nor Leaf's photo, much like Newspapers, they just purchase the photos from a service and print them on their cards.
Think of it as stock photography.
Think of it as stock photography.
All In Cards
Super Moderator
where is scuba when you need him. He will know the answer. He has sold pictures to Panini and others I think.
gracecollector
Well-known member
Stock photography services such as Corbis, Getty, AP all have rights management provisions for commercial applications. Newspapers have editorial licenses, not commercial.
bradical
Active member
- Thread starter
- #11
Bob Loblaw
Active member
That's why I posted. I would think a manufacturer -- especially Topps -- would all but require that the photo be exclusive and "******" -- never used before in another product.
bcubs
Member
It's been happening forever. Check out 1982 Topps Rod Carew In Action card and compare it with his 1982 Fleer card. Nothing new here.
mchenrycards
Featured Contributor, Vintage Corner, Senior Membe
Topps and Fleer did the same thing back in 1982 with a Rod Carew base card from Fleer and the "in action" card from Topps. The picture was identical from each manufacturer and no airbrushing was done on either picture.
I dont think there is an exclusive on photos that are used on sports cards as they usually pay a one time fee for the use of the photo unless the photographers are working as an employee of the card companies. I might be totally off base on this one.
Edited to add:Bcubs beat me to it
I dont think there is an exclusive on photos that are used on sports cards as they usually pay a one time fee for the use of the photo unless the photographers are working as an employee of the card companies. I might be totally off base on this one.
Edited to add:Bcubs beat me to it
rico08
Active member
Looks like a 4-seam fastball, no?
ru4scuba
New member
This is more or less correct. For minor league and draft related products both Topps and Panini use wire services or buy from individual photographers. They generally do not pay for exclusive rights for photos. I have sold the same photo to both of them in the past.
Topps uses staff photographers for most of their MLB cards.
- Thread starter
- #16
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Mighty Bombjack
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 6,115
- 12
Yeah, when I was a photo editor at Topps, we usually had photos of guys that had been at Spring Training, but if we wanted to use a guy that we didn't have a photo of, we went to the AP for current guys and the Sporting News for historical pics. We paid the lowest price we could, which is obviously non-exclusive.
Hallsgator
New member
Jenkinssssss
New member
- Nov 21, 2011
- 248
- 0
OP aren't you a lawyer? Can't identify a basic licensing transaction? or are you just trolling card manufacturers?
