making replicas [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

11-14-2005, 03:11 PM

Posted By: jimi am a graphic designer and work in a print shop. i was approached to make replicas from original cards including ty cobb, joe jackson and some others. i know nothing of cards. the customer is eager to pay a great deal to get this job done. i asked if he was going to sell these cause i thought it might be illegal and he said he wouldn't. i'm just curious if it is in fact against the law and if there is a market for these. i was also thinking of inserting a replica watermark in the margin or image. i have already scanned these images to an extremely high quality res. and printed out one and it looks almost flawless. i am researching papers now and don't want to go further until i can learn more about the law. any info would be helpful, thanks

Archive

11-14-2005, 04:03 PM

Posted By: Shane KillianIt is against the law to make reprints of cards. Kinko's wont even let you scan a card in a PSA holder for that reason (scanner was broken at the time, needed a clear picture)

Archive

11-14-2005, 04:06 PM

Posted By: Jim FNo offence, but how can you think anything good can come of this?? Jim

Archive

11-14-2005, 04:09 PM

Posted By: Max WederI'm wondering exactly what law is being broken. It is clearly fraud to represent a card as original when the seller knows it is a reprint, but I would expect making a copy relates more to the law of copyright. Given the age of the cards, I'm not sure whether copyright would still exist, or perhaps the images are in the public domain. Perhaps a US copyright lawyer can offer some general comments. Perhaps Kinkos views slabbed cards differently, and that the entombing company has perhaps some copyrights in the slab. Edited to add: I agree however with Jim F that some clear explanation would be required from the customer to not assume the worst. Max

Archive

11-14-2005, 04:11 PM

Posted By: Cobby33IF (a) doing this was not against the law; and (2) the client wanted this done for some legitimate purpose, then it's all good. I think it's commendable he's doing his due diligence. As far as potential legal violations, I would imagine the successors-in-interest/heirs of the tobbaco companies, card manufactureres and players themselves may be entitled to compensation/royalties. There are also intellectual property issues which fall outside of the copyright realm.

Archive

11-14-2005, 04:34 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldIn terms of copyright violations, it would seem to me that any card worth reproducing has long been in the public domain. Although I am only a law student and have not studied copyright law, I believe that the original act of 1909 states that in order to be protected by copyright, a work actually has to contain the circled c along with a publishing date, etc. Furthermore, I believe copyright protection was only 28 years plus a 2nd term of 28 years if renewed. It wasn't until the 1976 act, effective Jan 1, 1978 that copyright protection was extended to author's life + 70. Likewise, I would view any reproduction of a card that adds even a different color hue, print scheme, watermark, etc as being a derivitive work, hence not infringement. I could be wrong here but it's my opinion...

Archive

11-14-2005, 05:28 PM

Posted By: identify7Jim: How many graphic designers who work in a print shop in your State could make replicas from original cards including ty cobb, joe jackson and some others which would look almost flawless, if they processed them as you did? Lots, I would guess. I wonder how flawless they would look to the educated eyes available on this forum. Why not provide a scan or two and let us see the present in routinely available counterfeit technology? Please do not construe any of the above as a reflection on yourself; it is simply intended as a request for information regarding what collectors are facing. Gil

Archive

11-14-2005, 06:31 PM

Posted By: leonI've made numerous, great scans/copies at Kinko's. They have never asked a question or said anything. I even asked them how to use one or their machines one time and they showed me...with my cards AND in holders. It might be against the law but they or I didn't know it. Those darn copies look way TOO good though. Ask Mark M., I made him some copies of some Zeenuts from the trucker boy find so he could see any variations. The came out perfect...except for the card stock <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> (which is white copy paper)....regards

Archive

11-14-2005, 06:42 PM

Posted By: David VarghaThe funny thing is that the entire Kinkos empire was built upon the original Isla Vista store making illegal copies of out of print books for students to use at UC Santa Barbara. It was only after it was a multi-multi-million dollar empire that they paid a measly settlement for their copyright infringements. DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Archive

11-14-2005, 09:59 PM

Posted By: Tim JamesBottom line,as Jon said,these images are public domain,as long as they are not portrayed as "original".That is where the crime is .If you can prove ownership of the images that is another matter.

Archive

11-14-2005, 11:04 PM

Posted By: tbobMaybe as a criminal lawyer I have a "doubting Thomas mentality" but these words send a shudder through me and make me suspect there's chicanery afoot: " the customer is eager to pay a great deal to get this job done."

Archive

11-15-2005, 04:01 AM

Posted By: Julie VognarI'd put that watermark in...

Archive

11-15-2005, 05:02 AM

Posted By: warshawlawand odds are you will be bitten. There are already quality reprint sets out there if your customer really wants them. It is obvious that he/she is planning a fraud. When the crap hits the fan on the fraud the angry buyers will be looking for anyone involved for restitution. It is called "conspiracy to defraud". If you do this and your fears are proven correct (and the consensus here is that they will be), you will end up in civil court facing a financial disaster alone because your scam-artist customer will be asset-free (con men usually are). The fact that you came in here asking about this situation will be well-known to any expert the plaintiffs retain, not to mention the fact that your customer will turn on you the moment he is served with papers. Never mind copyright; if you have any sense of self-prservation you will run away from this project.

Archive

11-15-2005, 06:06 AM

Posted By: David VarghaWhat Adam said. DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Archive

11-15-2005, 08:09 AM

Posted By: barrysloateI agree with Bob that the customer sounds a little too eager to have them done. But in the days before scanning I would regularly make color photocopies of cards for customers who requested them. Never gave it a second thought.

Archive

11-16-2005, 07:44 PM

Posted By: Bob SIt's a sad commentary on our culture that it seems everyone believes that material wealth is the highest achievement possible. As someone who lost his 2 wives (sweethearts) at age 39 and 44 to early deaths, the only real joy I've ever known is the love of a kind, caring person. Remember, with respect to material wealth, we can't take it with us. I feel a banning from this forum lurking over my shoulder. If so, so be it. Bob S

Archive

11-16-2005, 08:07 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackIf a printer is smart, he will have the customer establish that he has the rights (or there are no rights exist to the material) before acceping the job. If there's a copyright infringment problem, the printer may be partially liable. You can't use a Yankees name or symbol, or those from other teams, without the team's and/or MLB's permission (And they ain't going to give it to you). You can't use Mickey Mantle's or Willie May's or Sandy Koufax's images on a cards without permision. If the guy's printing cards to keep in a box in his closet from now to eternity, copyright probably isn't an issue. But if he's going to sell them or use them as some sort of premium, it will be. It's been established that if someone is writing a book or article about baseball cards, he or she is allowed to include pictures of relevant baseball cards. In fact, companies like Topps or Donruss will likely be happy to see their product appear in the pages of Beckett monthley or the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards or an online web article. But an article is different than making to sell for $$ unauthorized Sandy Koufax baseball cards or T-shirts. This is strictly attempting to make money off of Koufax's name.

Archive

11-16-2005, 08:17 PM

Posted By: jay wolt"i was approached to make replicas from original cards including ty cobb, joe jackson and some others." The question I have is... If your customer had authentic cards to give you to reproduce, what does he need the copies for? A bad original is better then a great copy...jay

Archive

11-16-2005, 08:41 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI should add that, from the practical side, it is less likely that someone will get into copyright trouble for reprinting old stuff,like T206s. There are two sides to copyrights: 1) Whether or not there is a copyright to be broken and 2) Whether or not there is a rights holder who will complain (Sorry, 3rd parties, like collectors, have say in the matter). Even if there are copyrights technically broken in making reprints of T206s, it seems unlikely (I didn't say impossible) that a rights holder will object. If there is objection from rights holders, it would likely come from a MLB or a MLB team, the estate of a famous player or, possibly, a product maker (The tobacco companies who made Sweet Caporal & Piedmont still exist).