TOPPS GETS EXCLUSIVE MLB LICENSE STARTING IN 2010

[Mighty Bombjack]

He actually sat down with the players while they signed their cards (not his main job).

I was lucky enough to do this a few times, too. Not my main job, either.

At least Upper Deck was smart enough to use clear stickers. Are the people at Topps just ignorant to the wants of it's customers???

I wonder how many junkies sit around and say, "Don't our dealer know we want our stuff purer?"

They're gonna buy it anyway.

 

[nborton]

It's fairly easy to lobby for both sides of the "cheaper" debate on on-card autographs versus sticker autographs, but there is no debate on which is easier on the deadline side and it's stickers.

Personally, as long as the design accounts for a sticker and the sticker appears to fit in with the layout I am fine with them.

Yeah, that's the main point. It's more deadline based than anything. It's not like the cards themselves can't be shipped just like stickers. The difference between the cost of shipping has to be less than the cost of an extra step in production. Ship the finished cards, and then there's nothing more to do other than pack them out.

Come to think of it. The time Hughes was on BMB he had all the cards from UD shipped for him to sign and showed them off.

 

[plainwhitejerseys]

[email protected][/email]

The best way to let these guys know what you think is to write them direct. If enough people voice their displeasure, change can happen.

I'm pissed and I'm letting Tim know what I think of this monopoly!

*sigh*

It's NOT A MONOPOLY.

then what is it?

It's a contract that excludes other companies from producing cards with MLB logos.[/quote]


Exactly, its a contract that allows only ONE company to produce cards using the team names and logos, no one else can do this, that to me is a monopoly.[/quote2e0xu85]

If you think it's a monopoly, then you have no idea what the term "monopoly" means.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

It's fairly easy to lobby for both sides of the "cheaper" debate on on-card autographs versus sticker autographs, but there is no debate on which is easier on the deadline side and it's stickers.

Personally, as long as the design accounts for a sticker and the sticker appears to fit in with the layout I am fine with them.

Yeah, that's the main point. It's more deadline based than anything. It's not like the cards themselves can't be shipped just like stickers. The difference between the cost of shipping has to be less than the cost of an extra step in production. Ship the finished cards, and then there's nothing more to do other than pack them out.

Come to think of it. The time Hughes was on BMB he had all the cards from UD shipped for him to sign and showed them off.

If all of the cards for one calendar year were finished printing at the same time, it would be cheaper to do on-card autos. But the cards are printed throughout the year, and autograph checklists change quite a bit. Stickers allow a player to do one signing of sheets of stickers, thereby allowing their signature to be placed on cards that haven't been produced yet. Having players constantly making appointments to sign whenever production of cards was done, especially when third-party reps get involved to ensure accuracy, got very pricey very quickly for Topps.

 

[plainwhitejerseys]

[quote="George_Calfas":zyixau3a]

You have seen Razor sold at Target?

Yep. Razor has had several products on the shelves at Target.

Would you care to elaborate?[/quote:zyixau3a]

Elaborate on what? I thought what I said was pretty clear. Razor (the trading card company) has had several products (trading card products) on the shelves (a flat surface on which a store's goods are placed for sale) at Target (a large US-based retailer).

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

If you think it's a monopoly, then you have no idea what the term "monopoly" means.

Agreed. I already posted this analogy:

"Snickers, the official candy bar of the Olympics" means that anyone can still produce candy bars, but only Snickers can have the Olympic logo on it (that ain't worth much)

"Topps, the official trading card of MLB" means that anyone can still produce trading cards (if they have rights to images), but only Topps can have the MLB logos on it (which is worth something to some collectors)

If you want to see a true monopoly, see MLB itself

 

[hofautos]

If you think it's a monopoly, then you have no idea what the term "monopoly" means.

Agreed. I already posted this analogy:

"Snickers, the official candy bar of the Olympics" means that anyone can still produce candy bars, but only Snickers can have the Olympic logo on it (that ain't worth much)

"Topps, the official trading card of MLB" means that anyone can still produce trading cards (if they have rights to images), but only Topps can have the MLB logos on it (which is worth something to some collectors)

If you want to see a true monopoly, see MLB itself

Do you know if they can use images that show the MLB logo on the uniform or not?
I am guessing NOT, even if they have rights to images?

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

If you think it's a monopoly, then you have no idea what the term "monopoly" means.

Agreed. I already posted this analogy:

"Snickers, the official candy bar of the Olympics" means that anyone can still produce candy bars, but only Snickers can have the Olympic logo on it (that ain't worth much)

"Topps, the official trading card of MLB" means that anyone can still produce trading cards (if they have rights to images), but only Topps can have the MLB logos on it (which is worth something to some collectors)

If you want to see a true monopoly, see MLB itself

Do you know if they can use images that show the MLB logo on the uniform or not?
I am guessing NOT, even if they have rights to images?

They cannot. A blanket contract with MLBPA (a la UD) or individual contracts with players (a la Topps) allows for images, but the MLB is required to use logos.

MLBPA and MLB are separate entities.

 

[ChasHawk]

[quote="George_Calfas":3vusrcrh]

You have seen Razor sold at Target?

Yep. Razor has had several products on the shelves at Target.

Would you care to elaborate?

Elaborate on what? I thought what I said was pretty clear. Razor (the trading card company) has had several products (trading card products) on the shelves (a flat surface on which a store's goods are placed for sale) at Target (a large US-based retailer).[/quote:3vusrcrh]
What product, bearing a Razor logo, has been available at Target?

 

[sportscardtheory]

[email protected][/email]

The best way to let these guys know what you think is to write them direct. If enough people voice their displeasure, change can happen.

I'm pissed and I'm letting Tim know what I think of this monopoly!

*sigh*

It's NOT A MONOPOLY.

then what is it?

It's a contract that excludes other companies from producing cards with MLB logos.

Exactly, its a contract that allows only ONE company to produce cards using the team names and logos, no one else can do this, that to me is a monopoly.[/quote]

If you think it's a monopoly, then you have no idea what the term "monopoly" means.[/quote:264drykf]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards (a particular market) NOT a monopoly???

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="George_Calfas":2gh2eglw]

You have seen Razor sold at Target?

Yep. Razor has had several products on the shelves at Target.

Would you care to elaborate?

Elaborate on what? I thought what I said was pretty clear. Razor (the trading card company) has had several products (trading card products) on the shelves (a flat surface on which a store's goods are placed for sale) at Target (a large US-based retailer).[/quote:2gh2eglw]


Would you care to name these products?

 

[sportscardtheory]

double post

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards NOT a monopoly???

Tiger Woods only endorses Nike (and they pay him handsomely to do so). You cannot buy a golf shirt from another company with his likness, signature, whatever.

Does Nike have a monopoly on Tiger Woods golf shirts? By your definition, yes, but that is a VERY wide definition of a monopoly.

Anyone can continue to produce trading cards, they just don't have MLB's permission to use MLB logos. That is not a monopoly,it is an exclusive endorsement.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards NOT a monopoly???

Tiger Woods only endorses Nike (and they pay him handsomely to do so). You cannot buy a golf shirt from another company with his likness, signature, whatever.

Does Nike have a monopoly on Tiger Woods golf shirts? By your definition, yes, but that is a VERY wide definition of a monopoly.

Anyone can continue to produce trading cards, they just don't have MLB's permission to use MLB logos. That is not a monopoly,it is an exclusive endorsement.

lol, so by your definition, there is no such thing as a monopoly.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards NOT a monopoly???

Tiger Woods only endorses Nike (and they pay him handsomely to do so). You cannot buy a golf shirt from another company with his likness, signature, whatever.

Does Nike have a monopoly on Tiger Woods golf shirts? By your definition, yes, but that is a VERY wide definition of a monopoly.

Anyone can continue to produce trading cards, they just don't have MLB's permission to use MLB logos. That is not a monopoly,it is an exclusive endorsement.

lol, so by your definition, there is no such thing as a monopoly.

Sure there is. MLB itself is the best example. Microsoft was found guilty of taking steps to establish one.

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":14dc08g4]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards NOT a monopoly???

Tiger Woods only endorses Nike (and they pay him handsomely to do so). You cannot buy a golf shirt from another company with his likness, signature, whatever.

Does Nike have a monopoly on Tiger Woods golf shirts? By your definition, yes, but that is a VERY wide definition of a monopoly.

Anyone can continue to produce trading cards, they just don't have MLB's permission to use MLB logos. That is not a monopoly,it is an exclusive endorsement.

lol, so by your definition, there is no such thing as a monopoly.

Sure there is. MLB itself is the best example. Microsoft was found guilty of taking steps to establish one.[/quote:14dc08g4]

According to you, MLB most certainly does not have a monopoly. Anyone can play the game of baseball. Under the definition of monopoly, Topps in fact has a monopoly on ML baseball cards starting in 2010... that's a fact.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":1vk0584v]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards NOT a monopoly???

Tiger Woods only endorses Nike (and they pay him handsomely to do so). You cannot buy a golf shirt from another company with his likness, signature, whatever.

Does Nike have a monopoly on Tiger Woods golf shirts? By your definition, yes, but that is a VERY wide definition of a monopoly.

Anyone can continue to produce trading cards, they just don't have MLB's permission to use MLB logos. That is not a monopoly,it is an exclusive endorsement.

lol, so by your definition, there is no such thing as a monopoly.

Sure there is. MLB itself is the best example. Microsoft was found guilty of taking steps to establish one.

According to you, MLB most certainly does NOT have a monopoly. Anyone can play the game of baseball. UNder the defintion of monopoly, Topps in fact has a monopoly on ML baseball cards starting in 2010... that's a fact.[/quote:1vk0584v]

MLB is the only entity to which congress has issued an anti-trust exemption. Do you understand that?

If you and I had the money and desire, we could start a professional football league and attempt to compete with the NFL, lure their players away, etc. It has been attempted many times.

We cannot, by law attempt to start a professional baseball league. That's a monopoly.

If you and want to make baseball trading cards, we are free to do so. Ask Brian Gray. We have to negotiate to use player likenesses, as individuals own the rights to their images. We could probably do this.

We would also have to negotiate for the right to use MLB's logos, as businesses own the rights to their trademarks. This would obviously prove tougher right now.

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":1zla2xaw]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":1zla2xaw]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards NOT a monopoly???

Tiger Woods only endorses Nike (and they pay him handsomely to do so). You cannot buy a golf shirt from another company with his likness, signature, whatever.

Does Nike have a monopoly on Tiger Woods golf shirts? By your definition, yes, but that is a VERY wide definition of a monopoly.

Anyone can continue to produce trading cards, they just don't have MLB's permission to use MLB logos. That is not a monopoly,it is an exclusive endorsement.

lol, so by your definition, there is no such thing as a monopoly.

Sure there is. MLB itself is the best example. Microsoft was found guilty of taking steps to establish one.

According to you, MLB most certainly does NOT have a monopoly. Anyone can play the game of baseball. UNder the defintion of monopoly, Topps in fact has a monopoly on ML baseball cards starting in 2010... that's a fact.[/quote:1zla2xaw]

MLB is the only entity to which congress has issued an anti-trust exemption. Do you understand that?

If you and I had the money and desire, we could start a professional football league and attempt to compete with the NFL, lure their players away, etc. It has been attempted many times.

We cannot, by law attempt to start a professional baseball league. That's a monopoly.

If you and want to make baseball trading cards, we are free to do so. Ask Brian Gray. We have to negotiate to use player likenesses, as individuals own the rights to their images. We could probably do this.

We would also have to negotiate for the right to use MLB's logos, as businesses own the rights to their trademarks. This would obviously prove tougher right now.[/quote:1zla2xaw]

You are still completely ignoring the definition of monopoly. - "exclusive control (Topps) of a commodity or service (baseball cards) in a particular market (MLB), or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices (yes they can)."

And if the fact no one can create a league to rival ML baseball makes them a monopoly is correct, you just proved that Topps has a monopoly on the ML baseball card market in 2010... BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE CAN CREATE ML BASEBALL CARDS IN 2010.

 

[hofautos]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":1t1dp1wg]

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":1t1dp1wg]

Monopoly
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.

How is Topps having "exclusive control" over the creation of MLB cards NOT a monopoly???

Tiger Woods only endorses Nike (and they pay him handsomely to do so). You cannot buy a golf shirt from another company with his likness, signature, whatever.

Does Nike have a monopoly on Tiger Woods golf shirts? By your definition, yes, but that is a VERY wide definition of a monopoly.

Anyone can continue to produce trading cards, they just don't have MLB's permission to use MLB logos. That is not a monopoly,it is an exclusive endorsement.

lol, so by your definition, there is no such thing as a monopoly.

Sure there is. MLB itself is the best example. Microsoft was found guilty of taking steps to establish one.

According to you, MLB most certainly does NOT have a monopoly. Anyone can play the game of baseball. UNder the defintion of monopoly, Topps in fact has a monopoly on ML baseball cards starting in 2010... that's a fact.[/quote:1t1dp1wg]

MLB is the only entity to which congress has issued an anti-trust exemption. Do you understand that?

If you and I had the money and desire, we could start a professional football league and attempt to compete with the NFL, lure their players away, etc. It has been attempted many times.

We cannot, by law attempt to start a professional baseball league. That's a monopoly.

If you and want to make baseball trading cards, we are free to do so. Ask Brian Gray. We have to negotiate to use player likenesses, as individuals own the rights to their images. We could probably do this.

We would also have to negotiate for the right to use MLB's logos, as businesses own the rights to their trademarks. This would obviously prove tougher right now.[/quote:1t1dp1wg]


First off, I trust eveything you are saying.
Just curious, are you a lawyer, or how do you know so much about this?
I am curious as to what the actual laws are. I have a few questions.

If I use an image from public domain, can i print a custom card using them? Even if the image has a mlb logo on them?
And if not, why are they considered public domain, (e.g. free from licensing).
Also do you know anything about pictures before a certain year do not have copyrights?

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

And if the fact no one can create a league to rival ML baseball makes them a monopoly is correct, you just proved that Topps has a monopoly on the ML baseball card market in 2010... BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE CAN CREATE ML BASEBALL CARDS IN 2010.

Why don't you make shirts, shoes, etc. with the Nike logo on them? Because Nike owns that logo, and only they can make money off of it. Had you enough money, they might negotiate with you.

Why don't you make baseball cards with the MLB logos on them? Because MLB owns those logos, and only they can make money off of them.

Do you think that MLB logos are public domain or something?