So looks like Leaf is on to something....

[Leaf]

As far as I know, Broders were illegal and unlicensed at all points, even the ones that put the MLB logo on the backs of them. The magazine inserts (whether it was BCM, Legends, or the junky Rookie Review) didn't need licensing because they were considered to be part of the periodical, and thus exempt.

They were only forced to shut down because they either didn't have the money (or weren't willing to invest it)..

I know guys that ran these companies and frankly they were hit and run guys with no long term vision of desire to do things they needed to do to be sustainable..

BG

 

[tpeichel]

They were only forced to shut down because they either didn't have the money (or weren't willing to invest it)..

I know guys that ran these companies and frankly they were hit and run guys with no long term vision of desire to do things they needed to do to be sustainable..

BG

Meaning they didn't appeal to a higher court?

I wish you the best of luck, I just don't see how you get around the fact that the main driver of your sales is player/team images. That is the true value of your product. After all, if the main purpose of your company is providing information, why do you even need the logos? You want them because they make your product much more desirable and in the end, much more profitable.

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but using the arguement that stats provide information, couldn't I just scan any copyrighted image, overlay some text to describe what it is, print up a few thousand copies and sell them?

 

[sportscardtheory]

I wish what BG is talking is possible. But unfortunately, I don't see it ever happening. No way the courts will allow anyone to make profit on others' images.

But, what if Leaf, for example, sent out their own hired photographers to take photos of Major League ballplayers from the stands during games? Wouldn't they then own the photos and can do what they wish with them, ie make a profit? I could see what BG is talking making sense in this instance as Leaf would own the rights to the photos, regardless of the MLB logos on the uniforms.

 

[sportscardtheory]

1. Send out hired photographers to take photos of players from the stands during games.

2. Use those photos to create baseball cards.

3. Airbrush out all MLB logos and replace them with a hand-drawn logo that looks nearly identical.

4. Profit.


lol Could it work?

 

[mchenrycards]

1. Send out hired photographers to take photos of players from the stands during games.

2. Use those photos to create baseball cards.

3. Airbrush out all MLB logos and replace them with a hand-drawn logo that looks nearly identical.

4. Profit.


lol Could it work?

A logo is a logo regardless if it is hand drawn or in a photograph.

A fan can take photos from the stands all he/she wants. The teams do not prohibit this at all as this is part of the fan experience. It is when they try and sell these images is where the trouble can start. BG can correct me but I dont think his stance is regarding logos but his right to use logos in conjunction with educational text such as statistics or a biography on the card. I am not a lawyer and I certainly didnt stay at a Holiday Inn last night so I have zero legal background on this but from a layman's point of view, his argument is an interesting one.

 

[cardsrus1]

A logo is a logo regardless if it is hand drawn or in a photograph.

A fan can take photos from the stands all he/she wants. The teams do not prohibit this at all as this is part of the fan experience. It is when they try and sell these images is where the trouble can start. BG can correct me but I dont think his stance is regarding logos but his right to use logos in conjunction with educational text such as statistics or a biography on the card. I am not a lawyer and I certainly didnt stay at a Holiday Inn last night so I have zero legal background on this but from a layman's point of view, his argument is an interesting one.

The photos would not be an issue, those must be purchased or taken by whomever is going to use them. The same goes for a licensed product. The key is to argue that the logos are not the focal point of the pictures.

If the test does indeed have the backing of the other companies, release a product with everyone involved. Each company include 25-50 players, all using the same design with their own logos. It can be packed out together as one product.

 

[BowmanChromeAddict]

doing it wrong = buying a box at a time

with this stuff you have to buy enough to let the averages level out.

It's not just that, but I will admit that helps. The value in a case is definitely more level than any single box. How you sell it is equally as important. I'd like to think it's mind over matter or something because I think the cards should be worth more, but I just tend to get better prices using BIN/BO than what most get selling at .99 and 7 days.

 

[Leaf]

Meaning they didn't appeal to a higher court?

I wish you the best of luck, I just don't see how you get around the fact that the main driver of your sales is player/team images. That is the true value of your product. After all, if the main purpose of your company is providing information, why do you even need the logos? You want them because they make your product much more desirable and in the end, much more profitable.

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but using the arguement that stats provide information, couldn't I just scan any copyrighted image, overlay some text to describe what it is, print up a few thousand copies and sell them?

Why does sports illustrated or your local newspaper or even sbnation need the logos?

 

[Leaf]

A logo is a logo regardless if it is hand drawn or in a photograph.

A fan can take photos from the stands all he/she wants. The teams do not prohibit this at all as this is part of the fan experience. It is when they try and sell these images is where the trouble can start. BG can correct me but I dont think his stance is regarding logos but his right to use logos in conjunction with educational text such as statistics or a biography on the card. I am not a lawyer and I certainly didnt stay at a Holiday Inn last night so I have zero legal background on this but from a layman's point of view, his argument is an interesting one.

1. I don't want to use "logos".. I want to use the player pictured in his jersey..
The logo is merely incidental.. I am not asking to do like 83 fleer and put the loo in the card independent..

2. The information on back is merely one of several arguments why I am I'm a strong position ,,

BG

 

[hive17]

Why does sports illustrated or your local newspaper or even sbnation need the logos?

The trick has always been, and will always be, finding a judge that agrees that you want to be a journalism source foremost; and aren't simply playing by the letter of the law while violating the law's intent.

 

[tpeichel]

Why does sports illustrated or your local newspaper or even sbnation need the logos?

If I was arguing the other side, I'd say that the main purpose of those entities is to tell a story or provide an opinion on a player, team, or sporting event, while the products created by sports card companies do not. Their main purpose is to sell a collectible that depicts an image. The visual is the main product.

 

[RStadlerASU22]

If I was arguing the other side, I'd say that the main purpose of those entities is to tell a story or provide an opinion on a player, team, or sporting event, while the products created by sports card companies do not. Their main purpose is to sell a collectible that depicts an image. The visual is the main product.

Correct , one is a periodical mainly , one is a collectible mainly.

Ryan

 

[Super Mario]

The trick has always been, and will always be, finding a judge that agrees that you want to be a journalism source foremost; and aren't simply playing by the letter of the law while violating the law's intent.

Magazines, for the most part, IS journalism. That's why they can use logos of virtually everything without fear of consequence. Because they are a periodical news source.

People need to stop being ignorant in this thread. Baseball cards are NOT that, and they NEVER will be. Hence the way they are classified now.

BG is just looking for attention here, and he has the money to throw around to make some noise in the industry. Nothing more, nothing less. We can only hope this attempted conquest of his forces him into bankruptcy, and he goes away forever. He has shamed the Leaf name. It used to be a proud card company. Now it's just Razor version 2. People ask me why I get so pissed about this subject. It's because the guy has done everything the wrong way. He started a card company that made terrible cards, and had the resources to purchase the name of an actual reputable company, and rechristen his Razor brand as Leaf and try to pass it on as a legitimate brand. Man, screw that guy, and screw his crappy company. He's a ****** on here anytime anyone says anything negative about his company, and always is trying to call people, blah blah blah. He knows he is a scum bag. He just has money, and thinks he can do whatever he wants. And most people around here grovel at his feet because they go all fan girl because a supposed card manufacturer actually participates, as they did over the subpar uber-hyped Phil Hughes.

But screw me, I'm just a moron because I call him out on his bs.

 

[RStadlerASU22]

How do you really feel ? It isn't clear in your post

Ryan

 

[petMonster]

Leaf could probably hire some famous photographers to take all its pictures and credit the photographer somewhere on the card and argue that they are selling art reprints. It becomes more about the photographer and the photograph itself than it does about the logos that happen to be on the players' uniforms.

 

[BowmanChromeAddict]

Magazines, for the most part, IS journalism. That's why they can use logos of virtually everything without fear of consequence. Because they are a periodical news source.

People need to stop being ignorant in this thread. Baseball cards are NOT that, and they NEVER will be. Hence the way they are classified now.

BG is just looking for attention here, and he has the money to throw around to make some noise in the industry. Nothing more, nothing less. We can only hope this attempted conquest of his forces him into bankruptcy, and he goes away forever. He has shamed the Leaf name. It used to be a proud card company. Now it's just Razor version 2. People ask me why I get so pissed about this subject. It's because the guy has done everything the wrong way. He started a card company that made terrible cards, and had the resources to purchase the name of an actual reputable company, and rechristen his Razor brand as Leaf and try to pass it on as a legitimate brand. Man, screw that guy, and screw his crappy company. He's a ****** on here anytime anyone says anything negative about his company, and always is trying to call people, blah blah blah. He knows he is a scum bag. He just has money, and thinks he can do whatever he wants. And most people around here grovel at his feet because they go all fan girl because a supposed card manufacturer actually participates, as they did over the subpar uber-hyped Phil Hughes.

But screw me, I'm just a moron because I call him out on his bs.

The issue with your posts is your inability to separate your hatred for the man and the reality that are Leaf cards today. Sure the brand that Leaf was in the past and the brand that Leaf is today is markedly different, but that doesn't make the cards that are being produced today any less quality. No, they don't have logos, but Leaf is doing things right. They have great customer service, they handle redemptions well, 90% or more of their autos are on-card, the quality in the manufacturing is superb, they've done patch registry to prevent fakes, their website is an actual resource for product information, they take the time to actually reveal short prints within their products, the interactive redemption process is quite fun, and ultimately BG listens to suggestions and is available and that is a credit to the brand. While BG's forum persona is not my favorite, the rest of his doings when it comes to making cards has really developed into something special.

 

[Super Mario]

The issue with your posts is your inability to separate your hatred for the man and the reality that are Leaf cards today. Sure the brand that Leaf was in the past and the brand that Leaf is today is markedly different, but that doesn't make the cards that are being produced today any less quality. No, they don't have logos, but Leaf is doing things right. They have great customer service, they handle redemptions well, 90% or more of their autos are on-card, the quality in the manufacturing is superb, they've done patch registry to prevent fakes, their website is an actual resource for product information, they take the time to actually reveal short prints within their products, the interactive redemption process is quite fun, and ultimately BG listens to suggestions and is available and that is a credit to the brand. While BG's forum persona is not my favorite, the rest of his doings when it comes to making cards has really developed into something special.

It's not LEAF though.

Someone could buy the Chevrolet name and slap it on a Ford Tempo, but that doesn't make it a Chevy.

Had he not bought the Leaf name and rechristened his terrible Razor brand Leaf, I wouldn't be so offended by his business practices.

He comes across on the boards as a spoiled little rich kid who feels entitled, and always has legal verbiage to throw around to justify his actions.

 

[Keyser Soze]

It's not LEAF though.

Someone could buy the Chevrolet name and slap it on a Ford Tempo, but that doesn't make it a Chevy.

Had he not bought the Leaf name and rechristened his terrible Razor brand Leaf, I wouldn't be so offended by his business practices.

He comes across on the boards as a spoiled little rich kid who feels entitled, and always has legal verbiage to throw around to justify his actions.

Do you have the same vitriole and hatred for Topps? Because, although they might say all the right things, they utilize shady business practices and screw collectors on a much more frequent basis.

 

[tpeichel]

To be honest, I've never really followed the Leaf threads on here, so I am unfamiliar with the details on the various conflicts and I really don't care to learn about them. I am much more interested in finding out more about the strategy Leaf is going to try and use to break the monopoly.

 

[bcubs]

I hope Leaf or someone is able to find a valid argument that allows them to produce cards with logos. I like options with logos and hope they are able to use them without paying high license fees that result in higher product costs and also take away company resources from things like customer service, production quality, and distribution control.