2010 UD? Yup, full-on MLB logos.

Bob Loblaw · Feb 2, 2010

From sfnorton's post on the box break board... Looks like on these 2 cards they're obscuring the jersey, but have no problem with the hat. I'm very interested to read the complaint and response thereto.

As an aside, since they're not paying a massive licensing fee to MLBP... think they might lower the price of the cards?

Wishful thinking, I know.

subject to change · Feb 2, 2010

I find it very interesting they obscure the jersey lettering and the hat logo from any closeup headshots (Lincecum, the Scherzer patch that was posted, the Ultimate jumbo patches), while hat logos are left in full view on more zoomed out shots.

pigskincardboard · Feb 2, 2010

I actually think that UD believes that since the images were purchased in 2009 with copyright in tow, that they're free to use the unaltered images however they see fit having already purchased the license to reproduce the images as is, mlb logos all up in your face.

Bob Loblaw · Feb 2, 2010

pigskincardboard said:
I actually think that UD believes that since the images were purchased in 2009 with copyright in tow, that they're free to use the unaltered images however they see fit having already purchased the license to reproduce the images as is, mlb logos all up in your face.

All depends on what the licensing agreement that expired on 12/31/09 says. Although I can't see what the relevance of when they purchased the images is; it's the product itself that was issued in January 2010 that's infringing.

subject to change · Feb 2, 2010

pigskincardboard said:
I actually think that UD believes that since the images were purchased in 2009 with copyright in tow, that they're free to use the unaltered images however they see fit having already purchased the license to reproduce the images as is, mlb logos all up in your face.

But under that logic, why would they go to the trouble of selecting only images that obscure at least part of the front of the jersey? If their argument was that they have full rights to the images purchased in 09, why not take full advantage of it, instead of using shots entirely from the site or with the player partially turned?

pigskincardboard · Feb 2, 2010

subject to change said:
pigskincardboard said:

I actually think that UD believes that since the images were purchased in 2009 with copyright in tow, that they're free to use the unaltered images however they see fit having already purchased the license to reproduce the images as is, mlb logos all up in your face.

Click to expand...

But under that logic, why would they go to the trouble of selecting only images that obscure at least part of the front of the jersey? If their argument was that they have full rights to the images purchased in 09, why not take full advantage of it, instead of using shots entirely from the site or with the player partially turned?

I have no clue, at all -- I complained about their half-arsed production and said they "literally shot themselves in the foot."

Jeff N. said:
All depends on what the licensing agreement that expired on 12/31/09 says. Although I can't see what the relevance of when they purchased the images is; it's the product itself that was issued in January 2010 that's infringing.

Jeff, I have absolutely no clue what they're thinking. I'm just floating ideas out there because there's no consistency in what Upper Deck did. Because they seem so clueless and all over the map, it's hard to predict what they were going for when they printed the cards.

The fact that they purposely kept the product a secret, refusing to release preview images, is sinister and almost an admission of guilt. It's clear that UD wanted this product to go to market, and suit to bring the hype.

A judge is going to look them straight in the eye and say, "I'm appalled that you're using the courts as a mechanism to increase sales of products that're clearly in violation of registered trademarks"

rsmath · Feb 2, 2010

Jeff N. said:
As an aside, since they're not paying a massive licensing fee to MLBP... think they might lower the price of the cards?

Of course not. It's UD. lowering the price might make their product seem cheaper. UD also spent the offseason investing in two Yankee old farts and a retired cubs/dodgers/padres/braves pitcher, so they have to recoup autograph contract money paid to those three.

zep33 · Feb 2, 2010

rsmath said:
Jeff N. said:

As an aside, since they're not paying a massive licensing fee to MLBP... think they might lower the price of the cards?

Click to expand...

Of course not. It's UD. lowering the price might make their product seem cheaper. UD also spent the offseason investing in two Yankee old farts and a retired cubs/dodgers/padres/braves pitcher, so they have to recoup autograph contract money paid to those three.

what are they gonna do after they raise that $25 ?

cgilmo · Feb 2, 2010

rsmath said:
Jeff N. said:

As an aside, since they're not paying a massive licensing fee to MLBP... think they might lower the price of the cards?

Click to expand...

Of course not. It's UD. lowering the price might make their product seem cheaper. UD also spent the offseason investing in two Yankee old farts and a retired cubs/dodgers/padres/braves pitcher, so they have to recoup autograph contract money paid to those three.

If Greg Maddux does not meet your high standards, than no one ever will.

ChasHawk · Feb 2, 2010

cgilmo said:
rsmath said:

Jeff N. said:

As an aside, since they're not paying a massive licensing fee to MLBP... think they might lower the price of the cards?

Click to expand...

Of course not. It's UD. lowering the price might make their product seem cheaper. UD also spent the offseason investing in two Yankee old farts and a retired cubs/dodgers/padres/braves pitcher, so they have to recoup autograph contract money paid to those three.

Click to expand...

If Greg Maddux does not meet your high standards, than no one ever will.

They also signed a couple other somewhat notable Yankees, one of the greatest hitters in
the history of the game, and a highly collected baseball pariah.

Some people just have an agenda, Gilmore.

011873 · Feb 2, 2010

What? What hogwash this is, I mean look at that Bummy card, a disgrace I tell you. WHERE'S THE OFFICIAL MLB "YOU'RE NOT A ROOKIE UNTIL WE SAY YOU ARE" LOGO? :lol: :lol:

Jaypers · Feb 2, 2010

011873 said:
What? What hogwash this is, I mean look at that Bummy card, a disgrace I tell you. WHERE'S THE OFFICIAL MLB "YOU'RE NOT A ROOKIE UNTIL WE SAY YOU ARE" LOGO? :lol: :lol:

Crash Davis · Feb 2, 2010

chashawk said:
cgilmo said:

rsmath said:

Jeff N. said:

As an aside, since they're not paying a massive licensing fee to MLBP... think they might lower the price of the cards?

Click to expand...

Of course not. It's UD. lowering the price might make their product seem cheaper. UD also spent the offseason investing in two Yankee old farts and a retired cubs/dodgers/padres/braves pitcher, so they have to recoup autograph contract money paid to those three.

Click to expand...

If Greg Maddux does not meet your high standards, than no one ever will.

Click to expand...

They also signed a couple other somewhat notable Yankees, one of the greatest hitters in
the history of the game, and a highly collected baseball pariah.

Some people just have an agenda, Gilmore.

Yes, but the notable Yankees were not exclusives, so I don't see your point.

011873 · Feb 2, 2010

So they werent exclusive, so what? They still cost a ton of money, money saved by not having a license.

Several years ago, Mo was charging $125 per auto to the companies and he was never exclusive. Thats a ton and the reason why you rarely see his autos now.

gt2590 · Feb 3, 2010

The Wally near me had rack packs, so I got ONE. Didn't want to show and wanted to check out the logos.

I'll post some pics tomorrow, but 90% of my "commons" and the 3 inserts all were "side" shots with obstructed logos. Easy to tell what they were, but the full logo was not in view. Hope that helps with early reviews.

MacK · Feb 3, 2010

gt2590 said:
The Wally near me had rack packs, so I got ONE. Didn't want to show and wanted to check out the logos.

I'll post some pics tomorrow, but 90% of my "commons" and the 3 inserts all were "side" shots with obstructed logos. Easy to tell what they were, but the full logo was not in view. Hope that helps with early reviews.

Yeah, I tried a pack too, and almost every card was a guy following through a swing or throwing, blocking the logo.

gt2590 · Feb 3, 2010

gt2590 said:
The Wally near me had rack packs, so I got ONE. Didn't want to show and wanted to check out the logos.

I'll post some pics tomorrow, but 90% of my "commons" and the 3 inserts all were "side" shots with obstructed logos. Easy to tell what they were, but the full logo was not in view. Hope that helps with early reviews.

That Cubs CL is about the closest to a Full logo, that I got, but even that's not 100% Full. The rest were all side shots, follow-thrus, showing name and number but no full logos.

predatorkj · Feb 7, 2010

Raul Ibanez has a full P showing. Some of the other players do. One of the Indians players has the Indian logo clear as day. That is why I asked in the other thread if these are really being held or if they will end up being distributed as normal. Right now I am assuming they are going to definitely be left at retail stores. Maybe this might be a retail only thing? And if MLB does win their suit...will there only be a couple of batches released to retail or how does that work?

darocker80 · Feb 7, 2010

nice choices for examples

scotty21690 · Feb 7, 2010

Sharp looking base cards IMO..

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

2010 UD? Yup, full-on MLB logos.

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Super Moderator

Active member

Super Moderator

Active member

New member

New member

Similar threads

Log in