I'd be surprised if Topps was paying anything to Burdicks estate or anyone else for using the T206 designation, which should still be under copyright. The Scott stamp catalog publishers have gone after small time catalog publishers for using their numbering system. (Their licensing fee is very small)
Personally I've never really understood the licensing of images of public figures. Ruth can't benefit anymore from his right of publicity, and if I find an unpublished photo of him I should be able to reproduce and sell it.
And prints of an original artwork should be allowed as well - even if they're card sized. But it's out there and probably cheaper for Topps to license than fight.
It does look like he's changing them to make them less likely to be mistaken for vintage cards. The ones that look like crackerjacks have a date on the back, and the more recent Goudeyish ones have a multi color back with what looks like a date in the copyright circle. Small, but bigger than the copyright date on any new product.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/R319-Helmar-...item1c1fc0661a
I really don't know what to say about someone spending 2-300 on something they don't know anything about, other than that it's not something I'd do. Especially these days when it's really easy to find information about something.
Steve B
PS- Has anyone seen the new disclaimer on the Topps wrappers?