Gambo and T_Wil1 Photopack

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by ortforshort

...
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.

I don't see anyone acting as judge or jury. Merkle has offered a very well-informed opinion with which many users on the site agree. That being the case we (I am in the aforementioned group) have curtailed sharing of certain photos in a manner which would draw unwanted attention to the forum. In the long run it is much better for us all to post slightly fewer images and post in a way that is more acceptable to the rights holders. Working in at least informal cooperation with the rights holders gives us all a better opportunity to share and enjoy baseball photos.

As for "do[ing his] homework," having spoken to Topps' legal department I can tell you that he has. In the past few years Topps has been more aggressive about protecting their brand. They have stopped granting publication/re-publication rights to their images, even those rights I used to be able to count on. In fact, I just finished supplying photos for the second edition of a book that had to replace all of the Topps images which were used in the first edition. I'll also echo what was stated above that, regardless of anyone's opinion about copyright law, Topps is well within their rights to assert and exercise copyright protection.

Non-Topps postings are not immune. I had a conversation with RMY Auctions (which, incidentally, has a new auction starting today) in which Rhys asked for attribution whenever his images are shared. This is something I've mentioned before but is worth stating again: If you know the source of an image, mention it.

In the end, Merkle has been able to secure much more tolerance from the Topps legal team than I or anyone else here could. I don't see why any of us should challenge that unless we want to have a strictly pre-1923 forum.

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by ortforshort

...
Apparently his posts are OK, the rest of ours are subject to the bogeyman possibly getting us

Of course Merkle's posts are ok. He follows the guidelines he was given from Topps and the site guidelines. He has shared the Topps guidelines earlier in this thread (most recently here) and we all should be familiar with the photo sharing guidelines in this forum, so long as we all play by the same set of rules nobody is subject to the "bogeyman."

[rico43]

As someone else who has learned the error of his ways in posting things without regard, one clarification would be appreciated, by Merkle or someone else who is confident about his response:

According to Merkle, the occasional posting of Topps Vault image with the watermark is now considered a promotion of the site by Topps. But the same image, framed by a mock-up baseball card design, is considered a serious violation of their copyright?

Please provide a clear distinction.

[Terry D]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

I've attended exactly one spring training camp in my life, the Angels camp in 1980, when they still trained in Palm Springs and my grandparents were wintering there. Also in attendance was outfielder Gil Kubski, later a successful scout. He had a few minor league cards made, but there's nothing of him in Angels garb currently on the Google Images, so…

Thanks a lot, I have been looking for Gil for ages. That's one more 1980's club (1980 Angels) complete.

[BklynJace]

From the AP, 9-13-72. As Merkle said a while back.

[Merkle923]

Obscure movie reference, sorry.

Wonderful clip, Jace! I think the confusion over Cotton's recall can now be easily explained. In those days of mechanically fitting filler stories to the leftover space on a newspaper page, that last line about Cotton not reporting until Spring Training 1973 could have easily gotten cut off.

And, Rico, about the mocked-up Topps cards. They object to the design - another copyrighted creation - when combined with their photos that are NOT watermarked. With the watermarks, no matter the format, they'll pretty much ignore it.

[simarc]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

Obscure movie reference, sorry.

And, Rico, about the mocked-up Topps cards. They object to the design - another copyrighted creation - when combined with their photos that are NOT watermarked. With the watermarks, no matter the format, they'll pretty much ignore it.

Why would anyone remove the watermark ? I think many of us look at the watermark as something cool and a great way to give credit where credit is due. In 95% of the TV photos the watermark is not on or near the face. For me this is just a hobby and a way to stroll down memory lane. Unfortunately there are some clowns on ebay trying to make money off of this, which IMO is going to ruin it for everyone. Some people can't behave in the sandbox.

[SDL]

Originally Posted by pegasus27

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I play a different game than the host site sells (so I won't mention it) and I create(d) photo packs for that game and while searching the internet I found the EBay site almost ten years ago. I actually don't use the whole photo. I usually crop the photo to a 180x270 head shot. I have posted these photo packs for free for users of that game. In the process I met many of the fine gentlemen on this site and we started trading lists and posting pics for historical value and as part of our general interest in baseball history.I have never sold any photos nor will I ever and I have always kept the sharing to those that have a use for the pics for their gaming or historical value. And by the time I send a photo is has been cropped to a 180 x 270 which doesn't have any value to anyone.

I appreciate Topps position and will respect their wishes but it seems to me that their position is people can use the photos as long as they keep it low key and aren't using it for profit. Correct me if I am wrong.

An example of what a pic that I have gotten a hold of and cropped is the Jackie Brown that I have loaded off of a recent post in this thread and that I have attached.

The real question I would like answered is that apparently there is a website where this images are posted? Is there a link to this site where I could discretely view the photos and quietly use them?

Rick

Can you re-post the original uncropped image of Mr. Brown? Thanks!

[oldtimers]

good morning to everyone. I was looking for 3 players images today Dooley Womack. Walt Williams. Hawk Taylor. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[cheech411]

he was 72

[cheech411]

found on net / e bay

[DeweyintheHall]

I'm fairly new to this wonderful community. I've read with interest the back-and-forth regarding posting protocols, TV watermarks, Topps' rights, etc.

On other forums, and in my own projects, I will occasionally use TV images that have been miraculously de-Watermarked.

However, I completely understand the position, best put forth by Merkle regarding the tenuous nature of our relationship with Topps. The contributions made by Merkle to this passion of ours are invaluable, and his knowledge of Topps' preferences is deep, so I consider it my obligation to abide by his interpretations (and those of our moderator!) regarding the use and posting of TV images here.

I completely understand the issues here and the arguments on all sides. But, when in Rome...

Having said all that, I'd be a bit more sympathetic to Topps' concerns in all this if their approach to essentially being the photographic curator of MLB history in the latter half of the 20th century was a bit less haphazard. It seems to me they can take a at least a couple employees away from figuring out how to cram the most images of Derek Jeter and Yasiel Puig into their current sets, coming up with another color border for another parallel set, and manufacturing faux relics, and assign them to archiving and cataloging, in a responsible and meaningful way, this vast historical trove, rather than simply shoveling out random assortments when they get the time. I don't mean to sound harsh, but that's what it feels like.

Anyway - I remain appreciative of the work that all of you do.

One question regarding Topps' rights - Let's say I buy a 1976 TV image of Duane Kuiper from their e-Bay store. That same image, watermarked, will remain in the TV mass releases in perpetuity. In that case, since I purchased the image, wouldn't I have the right to alter it and use it in any manner - regardless of the fact it remains on their release page with the WM? Similarly, if someone else bought it - the only possible issue would be with the purchaser, not with Topps, right? Just curious.

[rico43]

Some New York-centric images. Williams originally SSPC, Taylor from snipview.com

[Merkle923]

From the original SSPC photo

[Merkle923]

About Topps and curating its millions of images. That ship sailed a decade ago. Ownership perceived - correctly - that selling them would be profitable, especially in lieu of spending money on archiving them. So they packed everything up and sent it to the employees (there are two of them) who run the entire Topps Vault operation.

Trust me, I offered to buy the entire collection from them.

Anyway. One gem in yesterday's Vault upload and a bonus I just noticed. This is Ken Kravec, probably from spring training 1976, wearing the pre-76 White Sox red-based uniforms. He would have worn these in his two game stint with them in 1975.

But look over Kravec's left shoulder, in the detail next to the full image. That's Marvin Miller and his adjutant at the Players' Association Dick Moss talking to reporters:

[Merkle923]

First off, as Kuip would say - why would you wanna? With that mustache?
;-)

Secondly, this is the area in which Topps is the most draconian. If you read the fine print in the eBay pages it says Topps retains all rights to reproduction and you get none. I'm not saying it's fair and I'm not saying you couldn't beat it with a few lawyers and tens of thousands of dollars, but I do know that they've enforced this with as influential an outfit as the Baseball Hall of Fame Library.

So, they claim they're selling you a collectible. That's why they put it in a plastic slab - to make the legal claim that it's no longer an image or a negative.

[simarc]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

First off, as Kuip would say - why would you wanna? With that mustache?
;-)

Secondly, this is the area in which Topps is the most draconian. If you read the fine print in the eBay pages it says Topps retains all rights to reproduction and you get none. I'm not saying it's fair and I'm not saying you couldn't beat it with a few lawyers and tens of thousands of dollars, but I do know that they've enforced this with as influential an outfit as the Baseball Hall of Fame Library.

So, they claim they're selling you a collectible. That's why they put it in a plastic slab - to make the legal claim that it's no longer an image or a negative.

There's no doubt that they would lose that case, but what individual purchaser would spend thousands on legal fees just to win it. Now in the case of the HOF Library, who I assume has their own legal staff, why didn't they take Topps to court ? My assumption is that they bought those negatives/slides for the sole purpose of using the pictures on their website or their monthly newsletter and not to frame it and put it on a wall. This is quite an interesting scenario. I bought all the negatives for my wedding pictures from the photographer who went out of biz, so I now own them and can make as many reproductions as I choose. I see this as one in the same.

[Terry D]

Why are people here complaining so much? Yes, I would like it too if Topps just released their old images without watermarks and let people use them however they wanted to, no strings or legalities attached. They haven't done that and aren't going to. I am just very grateful that we do have the images, and that we can use them in a wide variety of ways so long as we abide by Topps' requests. They created the images, after all, and they are entirely within their rights in how they chose to present them to the public. Do people want to fight or cheat Topps? All that will do is get this page shut down and possibly leave some persons facing legal action, to the loss of all the other hobbyists and historians who use this forum. I can't see any advantage in that. I say let's enjoy what we have and make the most of it. Abiding by the rules isn't that hard.

[FatJack]

Originally Posted by simarc

There's no doubt that they would lose that case.

Really? I see plenty of doubt they'd lose that case. When you purchased the artifact, did it say "all rights included"? No? You just lost.

Think of it like buying a DVD. You can watch it all you want, in the privacy of your own home. Take it on the road with you when you're traveling. Lend it to a friend, maybe. Draw pretty pictures on it, turn it into an ashtray. Whatever. You "own" it. But you don't have the right to make copies for distribution (or even for friends), nor the right to hook up your set to some system that allows the whole neighborhood to watch (whether you charge them or not). We went through all this with "home taping" of records. Legally, you are permitted one homemade copy of any record/CD you own. One (because the law recognizes that smart people may prefer not to wear out the original copy if they don't have to). That's it.

Now, are there people out there doing more than the law technically allows (and getting away with it)? Absolutely. But just because "everybody speeds" when driving doesn't change the underlying illegality of the act. Try "everybody does it" as a defense in court, if you think I'm wrong.

If you want to avoid any question of what you can or can not do, only make purchases that specify "all rights included" or similar.

[Merkle923]

Actually their lawyers agreed with Topps' contention. They reached a licensing agreement.

Topps still uses some of these images. The fantastic Sandy Koufax hands-above-head negative from Ebbets Field in 1957? It sold on eBay for $300 or $400 and months later showed up on the packs of some Topps issue or another.

The images they could scan and preserve, they did. They can contend they scanned them all and are contemplating using them in a - who knows what - an "All Duane Kuiper Heritage" set - for future release.

Now if Topps goes out of business like the wedding photographer, maybe possession of the negatives would be interpreted as ownership of the copyright. Otherwise that case bears no resemblance to Topps auctioning off collectibles that happen to be negatives.