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

[Leaf]

But, wasn't this what Upper Deck did with 2010 baseball? That did not end well for them.

Actually, upper deck would have won !

But,
- 1. In their prior license agreement, they agreed not to challenge the use of player uniforms after the term of their license.

-2. The other licensees threatened and pressured Upper Deck to drop the case "or else"..

As usual, the public never hit the whole story.. Bg

 

[Leaf]

Also, while artwork is indeed a loophole, I am confident that several different laws will protect our eventual use of logos without licensing (so long as limited to the uniform).. Bg

 

[Super Mario]

Whatever it is, I am sure it will be disappointing.

 

[BBCgalaxee]

BG, do you think it's possible to produce a "larger" set (say 200 cards) showing uniform logos (or parts of) WITHOUT an mlbpa license?

Sent from my HTCONE using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[Sean_C]

The idea that you would use the first amendment as a loophole to be able to use uniforms on a product you are making money off of is one of the most obscene things that I can think of. Have you no shame at all, Brian?

I can't wait for someone at Deadspin or some other news organization to get a hold of this story and eviscerate you and your company for it.

My belief that no license is required to show the player in uniform is well documented..

That loophole is called the first amendment..

One licensor holds the future of the industry in its hands (hint: not baseball)..

BG

 

[allstars]

I don't see his ending well for Leaf at all. The legal battle itself will cost millions, and you'd be going up against forces with billions of $ behind them. I think you're blowing smoke again BG ;-)

 

[IUjapander]

The idea that you would use the first amendment as a loophole to be able to use uniforms on a product you are making money off of is one of the most obscene things that I can think of. Have you no shame at all, Brian?

I can't wait for someone at Deadspin or some other news organization to get a hold of this story and eviscerate you and your company for it.

Just to throw some other industries out there, but doesn't Sports Illustrated, and newspapers show pictures with full logos and stats and make money off of it without paying for a license? What about TV highlights or Yahoo fantasy football, don't they make money off players and NFL without a license.

I really don't know if they do have to pay the leagues, but if they don't why would trading cards?

 

[cgilmo]

If it means for more options, I'm all for it.

I want choice, not just what one company wants to throw out there.

 

[jbhofmann]

If [MENTION=1948]Leaf[/MENTION] hired photographers, wouldn't those photographers own the rights to those images? Then couldn't Leaf print them in a "media" form?

 

[mchenrycards]

I don't see his ending well for Leaf at all. The legal battle itself will cost millions, and you'd be going up against forces with billions of $ behind them. I think you're blowing smoke again BG ;-)

I dont see BG sticking his neck out for something unless he knows he is right and can actually win his case if challenged. He would be a fool to take on the establishment who has millions in it's war chest. This is going to be interesting to watch if anything actually does come from it.

 

[cgilmo]

The idea that you would use the first amendment as a loophole to be able to use uniforms on a product you are making money off of is one of the most obscene things that I can think of. Have you no shame at all, Brian?

I can't wait for someone at Deadspin or some other news organization to get a hold of this story and eviscerate you and your company for it.

deadspin would read it and yawn

 

[predatorkj]

Yeah, I really don't get Sean c's problem with this. Don't we all want more product and options? I'd like to see Panini have a license too because they put out some cool looking stuff.

 

[Dilferules]

I seem to recall BG mentioning have lawyers looking into using non-airbrushed images but just not the team names in the text portion. Leaf does some really nice stuff and if he can find a legal loophole to the licensing then power to him.

The loophole will be that every photo is airbrushed, then Tempy Moore hand-sketches a logo on to each and every card.

 

[Sean_C]

Regarding the Fantasy Sports side of it, please refer to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_sport#Legal_issues

Specifically the following section:

CBC won the lawsuit as U.S. District Court Judge Mary Ann Medler ruled that statistics are part of the public domain and can be used at no cost by fantasy companies.
"The names and playing records of major-league baseball players as used in CBC's fantasy games are not copyrightable," Medler wrote. "Therefore, federal copyright law does not pre-empt the players' claimed right of publicity."[SUP][35][/SUP]
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in October 2007. "It would be strange law that a person would not have a First Amendment right to use information that is available to everyone," a three-judge panel said in its ruling.[SUP][37][/SUP]

In this situation, they are saying that it was public information that David Ortiz hit a home run in last nights game, therefore the STATISTICS were fair game. I presume this is why stats on the back of a card (licensed or not) are fine, since its public information.

============

I don't have the specifics of how the licensing agreement works with newspapers, etc., but from what I understand it's a question of content, editorial commentary, and things of that nature, and also a matter of the leagues allowing it to happen (free advertising). There may be legal agreements that are in place that allow periodicals and shows to use the images free of charge as long as it's not intending to profit directly from them (IE: It's fine to put David Ortiz crossing home plate with his Red Sox jersey in full display on the front page of a sports section of a newspaper about last nights game or clips of it on the evening news, but if you want to put a glossy insert of that same photo as a premium in your Sunday newspaper you'll have to get special approval / licensing / etc. (and likely have to pay something).

Just to throw some other industries out there, but doesn't Sports Illustrated, and newspapers show pictures with full logos and stats and make money off of it without paying for a license? What about TV highlights or Yahoo fantasy football, don't they make money off players and NFL without a license.

I really don't know if they do have to pay the leagues, but if they don't why would trading cards?

 

[petMonster]

I don't see why Leaf, Panini, and any other non-Topps companies don't file a joint suit against MLB/Topps for monopolizing the industry. Perhaps pooling their resources and money could help them pursue this issue to a more satisfactory end. I get that all these companies are allowed to make cards (without logos) and nobody is preventing them from doing that, but I'm sure they can show that a lack of MLB logos creates a serious lack of competition and even results in some of these companies folding. I don't know all the legalities of monopolies and I don't know that any specific company's lack/loss of a license has directly caused the company to have to fold or not before, but I would think there's enough out there for the court to intervene. It amazes me that Topps has had an exclusive deal (aka monopoly) for as long as they have. This needs to change!!!!!

 

[Sean_C]

1). I'm all for more product and options. I love the old days when you had choices between Topps, Playoff, Fleer, Upper Deck, etc. In fact, I hate exclusive licenses (I stopped collecting new hockey cards when UD won the rights to the NHL).
2). My problem is the idea of using the first amendment to try to circumvent a contract for the express reason of allowing the complaining party to make money. You want to argue anti-competitive reasons or anything else, be my guest, but the first amendment and sports cards should never be uttered in the same sentence.

Yeah, I really don't get Sean c's problem with this. Don't we all want more product and options? I'd like to see Panini have a license too because they put out some cool looking stuff.

 

[RiceLynnEvans75]

I'm sure this has been mentioned at some point in one of these types of threads and the answer is probably a very common sense one that I'm not figuring out.

Now, I don't know all of the home/away uniforms off the top of my head and I'm sure this wouldn't apply to all teams either, but why can't a card company, such as Leaf, use photos of the players in away uniforms that depict the name of the city on them? Unless it has something to do with style of script or something I don't see why that would be an issue.

 

[TwinGnats]

What I see happening is Leaf going ahead and stealing the logo on the uniform that another company has built up in order to personally profit from it. He'll attempt to delay judgment in the lawsuits for as long as he can, all the while pulling out "income" from the company from revenue generated from this theft. Once he is ultimately ruled against, the judgment will be against the corporation, not the owner and Leaf will be bankrupt but the principals will be able to leave with their money intact utilizing the corporate shield.

It also would surprise me if when the Leaf brand is sold in bankruptcy court in order to pay off Leaf's creditors, that the purchaser of the brand would be associated with the current company in some way. Good way to buy a brand back for pennies on the dollar.

 

[petMonster]

Regarding the Fantasy Sports side of it, please refer to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_sport#Legal_issues

Specifically the following section:

CBC won the lawsuit as U.S. District Court Judge Mary Ann Medler ruled that statistics are part of the public domain and can be used at no cost by fantasy companies.
"The names and playing records of major-league baseball players as used in CBC's fantasy games are not copyrightable," Medler wrote. "Therefore, federal copyright law does not pre-empt the players' claimed right of publicity."[SUP][35][/SUP]
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision in October 2007. "It would be strange law that a person would not have a First Amendment right to use information that is available to everyone," a three-judge panel said in its ruling.[SUP][37][/SUP]

In this situation, they are saying that it was public information that David Ortiz hit a home run in last nights game, therefore the STATISTICS were fair game. I presume this is why stats on the back of a card (licensed or not) are fine, since its public information.

============

I don't have the specifics of how the licensing agreement works with newspapers, etc., but from what I understand it's a question of content, editorial commentary, and things of that nature, and also a matter of the leagues allowing it to happen (free advertising). There may be legal agreements that are in place that allow periodicals and shows to use the images free of charge as long as it's not intending to profit directly from them (IE: It's fine to put David Ortiz crossing home plate with his Red Sox jersey in full display on the front page of a sports section of a newspaper about last nights game or clips of it on the evening news, but if you want to put a glossy insert of that same photo as a premium in your Sunday newspaper you'll have to get special approval / licensing / etc. (and likely have to pay something).

I know you said you don't have the specifics on how it works with newspapers and stuff, but as for the fantasy side of it, both my ESPN and Yahoo fantasy leagues have player pics that say "Washington Capitals" or "Boston Celtics" or Chicago White Sox" right nest to the player's picture...NOT "The Chicago Professional Baseball Club" next to their pic as we see on some unlicensed cards. And in the pictures you can often see the MLB/NHL/NBA logo on the player's uniform. I get that you can't own stats, but these teams and leagues DO own the logos and team names. And since ESPN and Yahoo do make money (indirectly if not directly) from their fantasy sports, why then does MLB not go after these guys, too? I'm thinking it's a buddy-buddy thing. Topps probably has a few important people who are super buddy-buddy with some important MLB people and they use those friendships to take care of each other. That means keeping it in the "family." Even if Leaf or Panini were to make significant and even better offers than Topps to obtain rights, I doubt it would happen without court intervention.

 

[petMonster]

I'm sure this has been mentioned at some point in one of these types of threads and the answer is probably a very common sense one that I'm not figuring out.

Now, I don't know all of the home/away uniforms off the top of my head and I'm sure this wouldn't apply to all teams either, but why can't a card company, such as Leaf, use photos of the players in away uniforms that depict the name of the city on them? Unless it has something to do with style of script or something I don't see why that would be an issue.

I'm sure this has everything to do with it. Because that script/color scheme/etc was designed by the team and it's part of their "corporate identity". I'm not sure if they trademark those "designs" or not, but I'd be willing to bet they do.