Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkle923
Throughout.
Topps not only sells their old images as collectibles, but they sell everything from retro card sets to wall art to prints online. It's not exactly a profit maker that rivals each year's primary card series - but they're making money off of prints of old Carlton Fisk negatives.
Closer to home, I've seen images I've posted here, with and without watermarks, later reposted here as autographed photos within weeks.
More encouragingly I've seen these watermarked photos reposted here within weeks as really nicely done "cards that never were" - and the watermarks provide a kind of counterintuitive authenticity to the effort.
As to copyrights, argue whatever you want about how it should be. The way it is, creators of content have copyrights and often have lawyers and if you want to use the stuff that comes with the former in a way that annoys the latter, you should be prepared to see whole pages of this thread erased.
Or you can just skip the posts you're not interested in, and not assume that your opinion is a universal.
|
I'm not talking about the legality of the postings on this site. I would venture to say pretty much everything anybody posts here is counter to the copyright laws, Draconian as they are.
I'm talking about the damages. If they're not making anything worth while on these pictures, why would they bother suing? Particularly since this web site pays homage to the company, not slander it or try to make money off of it that would hurt Topps earnings in any way.
Since you have put yourself in the position of being judge and jury over what gets posted here and have now put a damper over multiple postings, I'd like to see you do your homework a bit better. What will Topps sue over and what won't it? And, for that matter, all of the non-Topps postings, which are also just as afoul of the copyright laws, it seems like anything is allowed for those. This is all looking very arbitrary, but not by an actual arbiter.