Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy
I know absolutely nothing about copyright laws, but I think you are wrong.
|
Airtight argument. Have you offered your services to Leaf?
Now, regarding Steve B's quote, I should correct myself, as I vaguely worded it. What I should have written was that copyright has
expired. Copyrighted works made before 1923 are now public domain as the set period of copyright has now expired. The 1952 Topps cards, falling after that period, but prior to 1978 are copyrighted until 2047.
And while you all make a valid point, asking what is the harm of offering it as a prize, you miss the the real issue here, which is that the Topps card, and not any card, but arguably their most ICONIC card, is being used by a competitor, on it's product's packaging, as promotion and inducement to buy the product. It is using a competitor's copyrighted image to profit against that competitor, without paying royalties or licensing fees. You all see an innocent, "Let's offer a prize," but since when are companies innocent or naive? To me this is a blatant, calculated attempt to move product.
Think of it in this way. Supposed a third rate soft drink maker started offering the chance to win free Coca Cola for a year...you need only buy their drink! And to promote this contest you use Coca-Cola's trademarked logo to promote the contest. Would you really think that isn't a cynical ploy, and a blatant abuse of a protected, copyrighted logo? Why is the use of Topp's most iconic work of arts, one of the most iconic images in Americana, any different?
If the card were being raffled for charity, that is something different. Not for profit purposes are subject to different standards and practices. But were talking for profit here, and the profit of a direct competitor.
I've worked on many history films, which are ostensibly made for a good purpose: to educated, inform, entertain. And because they air on PBS, they are essentially free to the public. Yet, we still have to pay to use certain images, because there are rights and privileges that come with ownership of those images. And depending on how we use that image, we have to pay more. If we want to use the image in trailers for the film, or on the DVD packaging, we have to pay a lot more, because the image is being used as part of promotion of the product.
Same for Topps and Leaf. Leaf is profiting from sales of a product whose buyers are induced by the hope of winning a Topps Mickey Mantle, which is prominently displayed. Forget, for a moment, that Topps is the big boy on the block. Don't they have the right, because they produced the image to begin with, and own it, to share in the profits being generated by the use of that image to promote the item?
That is the whole point of copyright. Disagree all you want, continue to believe Leaf is just being awe shucks nice by offering this nifty card, but as someone with years of experience dealing with copyright issues, I stand by my argument that Leaf has violated Topps's ownership rights, and I'll say again, I hope they win their suit.