Insider upper deck/mlb update?

[brouthercard]

I've heard from a little bird that Upper Deck may be able to get out of this MLB infringement by bringing up sports illustrated as an example of a company that makes money off photos of players depicted in their MLB uniforms with full logos showing. SI to my knowledge does NOT pay royalties to MLB properties for their photos. Anyone hear anything close to this?

If this holds true and the case was indeed dropped, good for Upper Deck. I will be very impressed with their cajones of steel.

 

[cgilmo]

I've heard from a little bird that Upper Deck may be able to get out of this MLB infringement by bringing up sports illustrated as an example of a company that makes money off photos of players depicted in their MLB uniforms with full logos showing. SI to my knowledge does NOT pay royalties to MLB properties for their photos. Anyone hear anything close to this?

If this holds true and the case was indeed dropped, good for Upper Deck. I will be very impressed with their cajones of steel.

That would be called fair use, and yes, that is the case they are making.

 

[Mr.Whipple]

MLB dropped a similar claim against Pacific a few years back.. UD and the MLBPA can also counterclaim that MLBP is tortiously interfering with the MLBPA-Upper Deck contractual relationship as well as the contractual relationship between Upper Deck and its distributors. Or the MLB could use The Curt Flood Act of 1998 might be strong support that MLB Properties can use to bolster its argument that all of the business practices of Major League Baseball except labor relations with major league players only (minor league players have no rights here)are protected by baseball's antitrust exemption.

 

[kdailey4315]

Doesn't SI have permission from MLB to use their logos and trademarks and don't they credit MLB with that in some fine print of ever issue?

 

[pigskincardboard]

I've heard from a little bird that Upper Deck may be able to get out of this MLB infringement by bringing up sports illustrated as an example of a company that makes money off photos of players depicted in their MLB uniforms with full logos showing. SI to my knowledge does NOT pay royalties to MLB properties for their photos. Anyone hear anything close to this?

If this holds true and the case was indeed dropped, good for Upper Deck. I will be very impressed with their cajones of steel.

That would be called fair use, and yes, that is the case they are making.

Well, I'm glad they classify themselves as a news publication.

 

[pigskincardboard]

However, I suppose that the resale of their covers online is a very gray area. I don't know if that falls under the umbrella, to be honest.

It seems as though Sports Illustrated might have a bats chance in hell, but anyone who forgoes the step of commentary (i think old-timey baseball cards might actually be able to pull this off) and using the initial copyright legally, is in the deep end.

This seems like a last ditch effort to me.

 

[011873]

Back in the mid 90's, MLB threatened Hobby magazines with a lawsuit if they continued to issue "cards" inside the magazines. If you remember, these "cards" were pretty popular but the mags caved in and stopped using them eventhough they claimed they were editorial content.

I dont believe anyone was taken to court, but Im glad UD has the balls to tackle the MLB and use this defense as well as others. Gooooooooooo UD.

 

[smapdi]

I'd be amazed if the 'fair use' excuse held up. If you are a newspaper publisher, you don't have to get permission from the owner of every trademark that might appear in a photo in your paper. But if you are specifically printing those pictures to sell, and the sole reason someone might buy them is because of the trademarked image shown, then that's something else. While baseball cards might claim to be a form of journalism, it's very thin ice. But if there's something

 

[brouthercard]

I'd be amazed if the 'fair use' excuse held up. If you are a newspaper publisher, you don't have to get permission from the owner of every trademark that might appear in a photo in your paper. But if you are specifically printing those pictures to sell, and the sole reason someone might buy them is because of the trademarked image shown, then that's something else. While baseball cards might claim to be a form of journalism, it's very thin ice. But if there's something

I think SI is making commemorative covers all the time for the sole purpose of sales, so it is a fine line- they do have a pretty good point, though.

 

[doniceage]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

 

[cgilmo]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

 

[doniceage]

I expect them to hold up.

To me is not the question if they hold up but what will this mean to the exclusives with each sport organization like the mlb, nba, nhl, nfl, etc. Any company could just deal with the player association. With that said could not the organizations make the player association put this into their contract negotiations in the future? Will other companies follow the lead of UD and ignore the agreements much like UD has done in MLB? Thiis breach opens a lot more questions to me for the hobby. Could UD be shooting itself in the foot if this is true ifother companies can follow their lead in the future?

Don

 

[Tomlinson21RB]

Could UD be shooting itself in the foot if this is true ifother companies can follow their lead in the future?

Don

Do the other companies have agreements with the players association like UD does? Doesn't UD have the rights to the players, but not the logos. Other companies like Panini don't have the rights to either.

 

[theplasticman]

Interesting news for sure.

 

[pigskincardboard]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

Woowzers, that's a joke!

http://i.ebayimg.com/23/!BlP+mUw!2k~$%2 ... g~~_12.JPG If you can look at that image and not think that it's sponsored by the MLB -- You're in a different world than I.

Upper Deck is going to get *******.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

If MLBP loses here, to what extent, if any, would Topps be able to do the same thing to NFL cards?

 

[jarcar]

If MLBP loses here, to what extent, if any, would Topps be able to do the same thing to NFL cards?

And Hockey cards?

 

[predatorkj]

I have two questions:

Have any of you been able to find any of the new UD cards and if so, are these going to be worth money because of all of this?

 

[doniceage]

My question would be if UD does this what about Topps, Panini, Press Pass, ITG, or any other company doing just negotiations with the players association and not the league itself. UD might shoot themselves in the foot possibly in my opinion. Only time will tell.

Don

 

[brouthercard]

My question would be if UD does this what about Topps, Panini, Press Pass, ITG, or any other company doing just negotiations with the players association and not the league itself. UD might shoot themselves in the foot possibly in my opinion. Only time will tell.

Don

I don't think UD has to worry about any of them. In my opinion, UD does the best high end cards out of all the companies.