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

Topps didn't pay millions just for the "Official card of MLB" title. They paid whatever they paid for the exclusive rights to the logos and team names, and to be the only ones who have that right for the length of the contract. It's a BS thing for MLB to do, but it's what happened and we have to suffer with it.

To your point, I'd point out how non-scripted TV shows have to blur out logos, brand names, and a whole host of other things (what's playing on the TV in the background, etc) if they don't have an agreement with those companies. It's a fuzzy area (sometimes it's because the company won't pay for product placement/advertising, sometimes it's because the company is protecting their copyrighted logos and haven't given the show permission to use it).

Here are a few good links to discussions about the issue:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23263015-Why-Do-TV-Networks-Blur-Out-Signs-And-Logos

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=567803

Bottom line, the 2 issues are advertising vs protection, and in either case the copyright holder has the right to choose who can and can't display their protected materials. Brian / whoever is along for the ride doesn't appear to want to fight on those grounds, and instead is going with an "educational / informational" first amendment argument instead. I think it's not going to win, but all you need to do is find the right judge...

fordman said:

Let's take the infamous '89 Fleer Randy Johnson RC for example: if you go by some logic you would say the Marlboro billboard in the original printing would have to be airbrushed due to Fleer not paying the owners of Marlboro for the logo use. The removal was because of the cigarette advertisement on a kids hobby/toy. Or, if a Pepsi logo was clearly seen in the background, would then the card mfg have to pay because the logo was there?

I see where BG is coming from as the photograph is of the player, the logo just happens to be there. The MLBPA license covers that. If Topps want to pay millions for the title of 'Official Baseball Card of MLB" and print/sell/distribute them that way, then so be it.

Just my $0.02
Fordman

Sent from my DROID4 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Click to expand...

fordman said:

Let's take the infamous '89 Fleer Randy Johnson RC for example: if you go by some logic you would say the Marlboro billboard in the original printing would have to be airbrushed due to Fleer not paying the owners of Marlboro for the logo use. The removal was because of the cigarette advertisement on a kids hobby/toy. Or, if a Pepsi logo was clearly seen in the background, would then the card mfg have to pay because the logo was there?

I see where BG is coming from as the photograph is of the player, the logo just happens to be there. The MLBPA license covers that. If Topps want to pay millions for the title of 'Official Baseball Card of MLB" and print/sell/distribute them that way, then so be it.

Just my $0.02
Fordman

Sent from my DROID4 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Click to expand...

The problem with this theory IMO is that another brand outside of baseball (Marlboro , Pepsi , whoever) would take free advertising as long as it wasn't done in a negative light.

Ryan

Sean_C said:

To your point, I'd point out how non-scripted TV shows have to blur out logos, brand names, and a whole host of other things (what's playing on the TV in the background, etc) if they don't have an agreement with those companies. It's a fuzzy area (sometimes it's because the company won't pay for product placement/advertising, sometimes it's because the company is protecting their copyrighted logos and haven't given the show permission to use it).

Here are a few good links to discussions about the issue:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23263015-Why-Do-TV-Networks-Blur-Out-Signs-And-Logos

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=567803

Click to expand...

As I read the boards in your links to see the point you are making, but usually most tv shows black/blur or relabel because lets say you see a Chevrolet in the background, yet Ford is a major sponsor. Also, say you get a show like COPS and if the usual stereo-typed criminal seems to always where brand X t shirts, the maker of the t-shirts may send a letter to the show producers and ask that their logo not be shown as it would be a negative and may harm sales. Producers go ahead and blur to not face a loss of sales lawsuit.

Lets look at the green screen behind the catcher/umpire. It's there for TV only. Thats a paid advertisement and doesnt show up on pictures/cards/prints/posters. But fixed advertisements that show up in backgrounds do but the focus isnt on the advertisement. Does that give the advertiser the right to sue for use of image?

I know companies pick and choose their battles with stuff like this but its hard to say if the logo in in the background, does the owner of the logo have the right to be 100% compensated by all that have "technically' used the logo?

NASCAR races on TV are nothing but the case above. Logo's everywhere. Does STP have the right to sue FOX Sports because they plastered it on a car, billboards, signes, scoreboards, ETC? Im sure FOX Sports didnt pay STP for the use of their logo as it goes around the track 250 times.

Again, just my thoughts!
Fordman

Actually the problem with Marlboro was not that it was advertising, but WHAT it was advertising. That is, if I remember the issue correctly.

fordman said:

I know companies pick and choose their battles with stuff like this but its hard to say if the logo in in the background, does the owner of the logo have the right to be 100% compensated by all that have "technically' used the logo?


Again, just my thoughts!
Fordman

Click to expand...

As I've always understood, if you plan to sell a product featuring other product's logos or names, yes they are to be compensated. I would suppose there is some sort of package agreement where they can use the logo for certain events or products and it's one lump sum. But if I wanted to make a comic book and just draw my main character drinking a dr. Pepper, I'd think that dr. Pepper would in fact ask me to compensate them for it. I'd imagine baseball is the same way.

I think what's stupid is "exclusivity". There is no reason for it and I honestly believe MLB would make more money by not offering anything to be exclusive. Imagine if there were all those card companies again. Or if they allowed Ford and Toyota in their advertising as opposed to just Chevy? The only point I could see them making is then the companies wouldn't want to advertise with MLB because they can't be exclusive. But I doubt that's true just like if I open a car magazine, I expect advertisements from all makes and models from all manufacturers.

What if you took players and make them different colors? Like a a black George Brett that would work!! Then on the jerseys you could put "city in Kansas" then make him right handed!

If logos carry no weight with the collector why do ALL college based cards drop as professional licensed stuff hits?

I think everyone needs to keep in mind that MLB has an anti-trust exemption from congress. That means it in itself is a legalized monopoly (the only one, I think?). This means that they don't need advertising the way that Pepsi or Marlboro do. Those brands that pay for advertising LOVE it when the ads are shown incidentally on cards, and it is a part of the advertising deal at ballparks that your logo might be shown in pictures taken therein. MLB, on the other hand, does not have a need to advertise its brand. In fact, it fights very hard to protect the brand and the right to use it by prosecuting people who print tshirts and hats with these logos without paying for the privilege, as that damages their ability to amply charge those who pay for a license.

What if we throw some stats on a Tshirt with a picture of Jeter in uniform? Can I sell those outside Yankee Stadium for 20 bucks a pop because of the first amendment? MLB sure as hell doesn't think so.

Mighty Bombjack said:

I think everyone needs to keep in mind that MLB has an anti-trust exemption from congress. That means it in itself is a legalized monopoly (the only one, I think?). This means that they don't need advertising the way that Pepsi or Marlboro do. Those brands that pay for advertising LOVE it when the ads are shown incidentally on cards, and it is a part of the advertising deal at ballparks that your logo might be shown in pictures taken therein. MLB, on the other hand, does not have a need to advertise its brand. In fact, it fights very hard to protect the brand and the right to use it by prosecuting people who print tshirts and hats with these logos without paying for the privilege, as that damages their ability to amply charge those who pay for a license.

What if we throw some stats on a Tshirt with a picture of Jeter in uniform? Can I sell those outside Yankee Stadium for 20 bucks a pop because of the first amendment? MLB sure as hell doesn't think so.

Click to expand...

The antitrust exemption would
NOT protect them from many of the issues a challenging manufacturer might bring to the table..

On the shirt, if they can establish that it is a news and educational source they might be ok (much harder than cards to establish).. As over history, Topps themselves have (1) promoted the educational value of cards and (2) successfully claimed 1st amendment protection in the buzz aldrin case..

Heck, Topps makes my case for me!
Thanks Topps!

Bg

Add a geography quiz on the back of each card.

I made it through page 4, and I can't take it anymore.

Are we really comparing baseball cards to magazines like Sports Illustrates and Time? Really?

Jesus Christ.


Sean C is spot on, and BG continues to show what a scumbag he really is.


According to BG logic, this post should be protected from any suspension or punishment due to the first amendment. Why? Because I said so. Seems legit.

Brian,

I don't know nor care to know the legalities behind what you're doing, but I completely agree that the path the hobby is on is not a good one at all, so I support whatever you're doing to change it. Don't let the vocal minority make you feel unwelcome or disliked. I'm not crazy about many of your products, but I support anyone who's trying to end Topps deathgrip on the baseball card hobby. Topps is a horrible company who, as far as I'm concerned, paid a ton of money to be the sole licensee strictly so they can stop giving a XXXX. They prove to be completely incompetent, uncaring, lazy, stupid, untrustworthy, and dishonest on a consistent basis, and it's completely absurd for members to harp on your few past questionable actions while ignorning Topps consistent screwing of collectors.

Good luck to you, and know that most collectors that I associate with are behind you.



Erik

I'm embarrassed to say that I read/skimmed through this whole XXXXX-fest. Some valid points, lots of name calling. I do truly hate the use of troll as a toss-about thing. That should be much more deserved than just having a dissenting opinion.

I like Leaf products. I don't hide that. I also like Topps products but they are completely different.

I don't go in to a Leaf product and expect an Austin Meadows auto to sell for what a Bowman Austin Meadows sells for. Why does that make Leaf suck?

My only thought, Go get 'em. Hopefully when you get your logos you don't forget the guys who've been buying and promoting your products from the beginning.

And one final point, if you aren't making money on Leaf, you're doing it wrong (or buying the repacks and gambling). I've only ever lost money on one original Leaf product and that was Leaf Metal Basketball and BG and I have discussed that at length.

doing it wrong = buying a box at a time

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

I am now stupider (see!) for having read this entire thing.
I've never been a fan of Leaf, but I would be willing to open Leaf products with logos, just as I would open Panini baseball products with logos.
I am curious to know if Leaf is the one that is spearheading this or if it is Panini or UD. I'm not sure it has been revealed that it is BG doing this has it?
If it is BG that is spearheading this, and he wins based on whatever he plans to do, will this give Panini and UD the same rights? Will we have universal licensed MLB cards, or will it only be Leaf and Topps that has the right? I can't imagine BG would put in all this work just to let UD and Panini in the door as well. And this entire thread has focused on MLB, but will this also affect the NBA and Panini exclusive? On a side note, I know certain people on here think BG is getting attacked, but if a Topps employee were to get on here, it would be much worse for them.

jbhofmann said:

Add a geography quiz on the back of each card.

Click to expand...

This is a good idea. There are card issues out there created for educational purposes that do not have any licensing. The 1991 Media Materials Reading Cards come to mind.

To take jbhofmann's idea a step further, you could create a set and use different backs as the variations (and different colors if you like). One back could be stats for math, another could have the geography, another could have text for reading comprehension, another for trivia. The key would be having an online curriculum with a web address on the back of each card where the kids would go out and follow the online directions to solve the math problem or answer the geography/reading comprehension question on the card that they have. (You'd probably want 3 or 4 different levels of questions for each card so different age groups can use the same cards.) Answering questions correctly online could earn them points which could be used to earn online only card images. Benchwarmers would be the cheapest while superstars would cost the most points. You'd log onto the site and have your little online gallery of images like eTopps. Perhaps the kids could print them out themselves. You could also have a fantasy game with these images where kids set a lineup and accumulate fantasy points for a week. Earn more points and you can get better players.

Another possibility is having chase cards that you use to play a hands on fantasy type baseball game with the cards they buy. Once again you would have a link to online directions for playing the game along with any game pieces, etc they need to print out to play the game. There is certainly alot you could from an educational/informational standpoint.

I'm skeptical that you can just point to existing cards and say that the main purpose is informational. A judge may agree that you do provide information, but I think they will see the main historical purpose of your company has been to sell the player and team images to collectors who are fans of those players/teams.

In the late 80s and early 90s there were a lot of unlicensed cards that were made but the legal system ruled that they were violating copyright. Won't those cases be used as precedent against what you are trying to argue?

tpeichel said:

This is a good idea. There are card issues out there created for educational purposes that do not have any licensing. The 1991 Media Materials Reading Cards come to mind.

To take jbhofmann's idea a step further, you could create a set and use different backs as the variations (and different colors if you like). One back could be stats for math, another could have the geography, another could have text for reading comprehension, another for trivia. The key would be having an online curriculum with a web address on the back of each card where the kids would go out and follow the online directions to solve the math problem or answer the geography/reading comprehension question on the card that they have. (You'd probably want 3 or 4 different levels of questions for each card so different age groups can use the same cards.) Answering questions correctly online could earn them points which could be used to earn online only card images. Benchwarmers would be the cheapest while superstars would cost the most points. You'd log onto the site and have your little online gallery of images like eTopps. Perhaps the kids could print them out themselves. You could also have a fantasy game with these images where kids set a lineup and accumulate fantasy points for a week. Earn more points and you can get better players.

Another possibility is having chase cards that you use to play a hands on fantasy type baseball game with the cards they buy. Once again you would have a link to online directions for playing the game along with any game pieces, etc they need to print out to play the game. There is certainly alot you could from an educational/informational standpoint.

I'm skeptical that you can just point to existing cards and say that the main purpose is informational. A judge may agree that you do provide information, but I think they will see the main historical purpose of your company has been to sell the player and team images to collectors who are fans of those players/teams.

In the late 80s and early 90s there were a lot of unlicensed cards that were made but the legal system ruled that they were violating copyright. Won't those cases be used as precedent against what you are trying to argue?

Click to expand...

Just my 2 cents here but I believe those Broders cards didnt have stats on the back. Some may have but for the most part the one's I remember seeing were without stats. I think the Broder's cards are a moot point here because they were made before the legal decision that BG is baseing his arguement on.

mchenrycards said:

Just my 2 cents here but I believe those Broders cards didnt have stats on the back. Some may have but for the most part the one's I remember seeing were without stats. I think the Broder's cards are a moot point here because they were made before the legal decision that BG is basing his arguement on.

Click to expand...

Some of the Broders did and some of them didn't, but many of the magazine inserts of the the same time period did have information on the back. I guess I missed the legal opinion that Leaf is basing their arguement on?

tpeichel said:

Some of the Broders did and some of them didn't, but many of the magazine inserts of the the same time period did have information on the back. I guess I missed the legal opinion that Leaf is basing their arguement on?

Click to expand...

It is buried somewhere in this thread. I dont believe he comes out and sites case law but there was a lower court ruling that statisics are educational and not subject to licensing rules (my very loose paraphrase....I may have missed the point in general LOL).

mchenrycards said:

It is buried somewhere in this thread. I dont believe he comes out and sites case law but there was a lower court ruling that statisics are educational and not subject to licensing rules (my very loose paraphrase....I may have missed the point in general LOL).

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that was the strategy that he was going to attempt, not that their had already been a favorable ruling, but Like I said, I could have missed it.

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.

tpeichel said:

Some of the Broders did and some of them didn't, but many of the magazine inserts of the the same time period did have information on the back. I guess I missed the legal opinion that Leaf is basing their arguement on?

Click to expand...