Interesting points.
I do think it's a cynical ploy by Leaf, as are most advertising efforts.
(Including PBS, they only seem to show the hendrix at woodstock during the fundraising. I love the regular shows too, but The most interesting ones are interrupted with constant appeals. )
Why didn't Topps sue Treat when they did the same thing? Maybe because treat buys and repackages their leftovers?
It's a tough call to me, Topps absolutely has the right to profit from their product and the image of the card. And I'm sure the Mantle estate has rights as well. To me that's a bit more vague, he was a public figure, and I've found the whole "right of publicity" thing confusing since they started pushing it, especially for deceased celebrities.
But I'm torn over how if a case like this stands anyone could offer a really good prize in a for profit contest and properly promote it in any way. There's the path to a world of silliness that makes PC stuff seem sane.
A local radio station was giving away tickets to ----Lest I get in trouble--- A major sporting event involving pro football. Some would say it was THE major pro football event each year.
And that's how they had to describe it in ads after a day or two when they got the cease and desist letter. Win tickets to the big game!
Silly right?
Silly but true.
So if I was going to offer a lifetime supply of Coca cola as a prize from say my tiny brand of pricy rootbeer. Just how could I advertise that without naming the prize?
I did find one bit on the Government site about fair use.
Apparently the owner of an original work can display it at the point of sale and that's a fair use-Like a card store or art gallery. And that may be what trips up Leaf. Obviously the 52 Mantle isn't in every place the boxes portray it.
The whole thing does make me wonder about the other cards Topps has used images of. T206 and T205 are obviously expired. And they bought Bowman so those are ok.
But the others?
1932 american caramels
34 Goudeys
Delongs
35 diamond stars
41 double play
39 playball
Exhibit supply (borderline- they use the company name but picture a supposed 1921 card)
All potentially still under copyright. I'm sure some lapsed, and probably a couple are owned by Topps. But I'm fairly sure the vestiges of ESCO remain in some form and Aren't owned by Topps.
Steve B
|