UD PR's response to current licencing news.

[nborton]

Did both Upper Deck and Topps have to pay for MLB licensing before this new deal? If so, now UD saves money by not paying the MLB and can either become more profitable by doing the same things, use the savings to add value to the products, or a little of both.

That's a good thought. I wonder if they are going to go the same route in basketball too.

 

[ChasHawk]

Did both Upper Deck and Topps have to pay for MLB licensing before this new deal? If so, now UD saves money by not paying the MLB and can either become more profitable by doing the same things, use the savings to add value to the products, or a little of both.

That's a good thought. I wonder if they are going to go the same route in basketball too.

If they follow through on this, they are easily going to continue to be the superior high-end producer.

Here's just one example. Since 2005, Topps has not produced a non-All-Star "event used" Logoman card.

Collectors want these cards, and they get them from UD.

 

[subject to change]

I'd be very interested to know what has brought about the change in MLBP's strategy in regards to licensing. Up until 2005, I can't recall there ever being any question of whether or not a company would be granted a license...look at the number of companies that has MLBP licensing over the past 15-20 years...Classic, Action Packed, Pacific, SportsClix, Sportsflix, Pacific, Pinnacle, etc.

Presumably the cost of licensing has gone up significantly for those that are being granted licenses to account for reduction in quantity.

 

[ChasHawk]

I'd be very interested to know what has brought about the change in MLBP's strategy in regards to licensing. Up until 2005, I can't recall there ever being any question of whether or not a company would be granted a license...look at the number of companies that has MLBP licensing over the past 15-20 years...Classic, Action Packed, Pacific, SportsClix, Sportsflix, Pacific, Pinnacle, etc.

Presumably the cost of licensing has gone up significantly for those that are being granted licenses to account for reduction in quantity.

Ding, ding, ding. And that is all MLBP cares about.
This is exactly why I am offended by all of this "make it better for the kids" BS.

 

[subject to change]

Did both Upper Deck and Topps have to pay for MLB licensing before this new deal? If so, now UD saves money by not paying the MLB and can either become more profitable by doing the same things, use the savings to add value to the products, or a little of both.

That's a good thought. I wonder if they are going to go the same route in basketball too.

If they follow through on this, they are easily going to continue to be the superior high-end producer.

Here's just one example. Since 2005, Topps has not produced a non-All-Star "event used" Logoman card.

Collectors want these cards, and they get them from UD.

Up until 2-3 years ago, the only 'patches' Topps put out were all single color swatches that could barely be identified as patch cards. Where all the premium patch swatches went is a mystery to me. Topps has been getting by from a dedicated group of master set builders and set collectors off of base Topps and various recycled designs for years. Look at their most popular non-Bowman products. Heritage and A&G both recycle or modify previous designs and follow a predictable formula. Before that, sets like ATFF, Bowman Heritage, Topps 205 and 206, and Cracker Jack all did the same. Topps has been largely getting by on Chrome technology and reputation alone for years.

 

[nborton]

I'd be very interested to know what has brought about the change in MLBP's strategy in regards to licensing. Up until 2005, I can't recall there ever being any question of whether or not a company would be granted a license...look at the number of companies that has MLBP licensing over the past 15-20 years...Classic, Action Packed, Pacific, SportsClix, Sportsflix, Pacific, Pinnacle, etc.

Presumably the cost of licensing has gone up significantly for those that are being granted licenses to account for reduction in quantity.

Ding, ding, ding. And that is all MLBP cares about.
This is exactly why I am offended by all of this "make it better for the kids" BS.

I think it would have to be a combination of cards not being as hot as they once were, and companies folding. Plus the increase in licensing cost. If all the past companies were still clamoring to get licenses I can't imagine MLB would more money from one company than 7 or 8 combined. I can see Topps paying more than the combined amount of the current two company situation to get an exclusive though.

 

[allstars]

[I think 2010 is going to be a very interesting year, and I think we are going
to see some incredible high-end/retired player products from UD.

Topps has most of the high-profile retired players under contract.

 

[mchenrycards]

I apologize if this has been coveraed in this thread or the other one from yesterday.

I was wondering about patch cards. Since UD lost its MLB license and can only produce cards with player images and no logos....well can they produce patch cards that only show a piece of the team logo or will they have to resort to plain old solid color or pinstripe swatches or patches from a uniform number? Or can they continue to produce patch cards with the small swatches from the logos because they are not depicting a full logo? I assume they would not be able to make patch cards with even a small piece of a logoed patch.

I hope I didnt confuse anyone and again, I hope this isnt something that was already discussed. I would like to hear thoughts on this and if the lwayers on the board have a opinion...well that would be good to.

 

[subject to change]

I apologize if this has been coveraed in this thread or the other one from yesterday.

I was wondering about patch cards. Since UD lost its MLB license and can only produce cards with player images and no logos....well can they produce patch cards that only show a piece of the team logo or will they have to resort to plain old solid color or pinstripe swatches or patches from a uniform number? Or can they continue to produce patch cards with the small swatches from the logos because they are not depicting a full logo? I assume they would not be able to make patch cards with even a small piece of a logoed patch.

I hope I didnt confuse anyone and again, I hope this isnt something that was already discussed. I would like to hear thoughts on this and if the lwayers on the board have a opinion...well that would be good to.

I see no reason they wouldn't be able to produce patch cards. If you look at other non MLBP licensed products, such as the Donruss products from last year or Sportkings, all contained patch cards, including logo patches.

 

[mchenrycards]

I apologize if this has been coveraed in this thread or the other one from yesterday.

I was wondering about patch cards. Since UD lost its MLB license and can only produce cards with player images and no logos....well can they produce patch cards that only show a piece of the team logo or will they have to resort to plain old solid color or pinstripe swatches or patches from a uniform number? Or can they continue to produce patch cards with the small swatches from the logos because they are not depicting a full logo? I assume they would not be able to make patch cards with even a small piece of a logoed patch.

I hope I didnt confuse anyone and again, I hope this isnt something that was already discussed. I would like to hear thoughts on this and if the lwayers on the board have a opinion...well that would be good to.

I see no reason they wouldn't be able to produce patch cards. If you look at other non MLBP licensed products, such as the Donruss products from last year or Sportkings, all contained patch cards, including logo patches.

Playing devils advocate here.....if they cannot produce a card that contains logos in the photo how can they produce a card that shows a part of a MLB logo in the patch?? Again, not trying to argue just wondering is all I am doing!

 

[G $MONEY$]

I apologize if this has been coveraed in this thread or the other one from yesterday.

I was wondering about patch cards. Since UD lost its MLB license and can only produce cards with player images and no logos....well can they produce patch cards that only show a piece of the team logo or will they have to resort to plain old solid color or pinstripe swatches or patches from a uniform number? Or can they continue to produce patch cards with the small swatches from the logos because they are not depicting a full logo? I assume they would not be able to make patch cards with even a small piece of a logoed patch.

I hope I didnt confuse anyone and again, I hope this isnt something that was already discussed. I would like to hear thoughts on this and if the lwayers on the board have a opinion...well that would be good to.

I see no reason they wouldn't be able to produce patch cards. If you look at other non MLBP licensed products, such as the Donruss products from last year or Sportkings, all contained patch cards, including logo patches.

Playing devils advocate here.....if they cannot produce a card that contains logos in the photo how can they produce a card that shows a part of a MLB logo in the patch?? Again, not trying to argue just wondering is all I am doing!

UD has a monopoly in Hockey. In The Game (ITG) produces unlicensed Hockey cards and they do make patch cards with part of the NHL logos in them, im sure the same will happen in Baseball.

 

[mchenrycards]

I didnt realize In The Game was still doing patch cards. I guess it probably has to do with the patches are the company's property and they can do with them what they wish. Cutting them up and putting them on cards is their business and the leagues cant stop them from cutting up something they own and placing it on a card.

 

[jeff550]

[quote="subject to change":2yo7mmrq]

I apologize if this has been coveraed in this thread or the other one from yesterday.

I was wondering about patch cards. Since UD lost its MLB license and can only produce cards with player images and no logos....well can they produce patch cards that only show a piece of the team logo or will they have to resort to plain old solid color or pinstripe swatches or patches from a uniform number? Or can they continue to produce patch cards with the small swatches from the logos because they are not depicting a full logo? I assume they would not be able to make patch cards with even a small piece of a logoed patch.

I hope I didnt confuse anyone and again, I hope this isnt something that was already discussed. I would like to hear thoughts on this and if the lwayers on the board have a opinion...well that would be good to.

I see no reason they wouldn't be able to produce patch cards. If you look at other non MLBP licensed products, such as the Donruss products from last year or Sportkings, all contained patch cards, including logo patches.

Playing devils advocate here.....if they cannot produce a card that contains logos in the photo how can they produce a card that shows a part of a MLB logo in the patch?? Again, not trying to argue just wondering is all I am doing!

UD has a monopoly in Hockey. In The Game (ITG) produces unlicensed Hockey cards and they do make patch cards with part of the NHL logos in them, im sure the same will happen in Baseball.[/quote:2yo7mmrq]
well that being said i think ud will have a way better product if they can find a way to get good pictures without logos. topps said theywill focus on the topps town crap and have less autos and gu cards. so upper ddck has a huge chance to turn take down topps even without the licens

 

[HPC]

Do what Bowman does, just avoid the MLBPA and produce the cards anyway.

This sucks, but at the same time, I believe it will give alot more definition to certain products, and make companies vie for more exclusive contracts

 

[subject to change]

By no stretch of the imagination am I a qualified legal opinion, but for the sake of argument...

I would think it would be very tough to argue that any portion of a logo patch provides (save possibly for jumbo patches) provide a large enough portion of a team's logo to make it discernable. Even though the majority of are able to ascertain what part of the uniform or patch a given card may come from, the card is still representative of a small portion of the patch as a whole.

I suppose it could also be argued that the patch card significantly obscures the logo to the point that it is unrecognizable as the trademarked image, similar to what Donruss did in partially airbrushing logos in Prime Cuts and Threads.

The one element that I do see being cut out from this is logo patches, since they do display the entirety of the trademarked MLB logo.

But like I said, this is all just a guess. It all depends on how far Upper Deck is willing to push the envelope, and what types of legal ramifications they might expect.

 

[ThoseBackPages]

Smart press release by UD.

Maybe some day down the road, they will once again be able to make MLB cards. Why burn the bridge like DLP did?

 

[ChasHawk]

[I think 2010 is going to be a very interesting year, and I think we are going
to see some incredible high-end/retired player products from UD.

Topps has most of the high-profile deceased players under contract.

Fixed it for you