[drcy]

Two definitions of reprints/counterfeits. One is if there is deception (counterfeit). The other is is the maker has legal authority/right to reprint the card. Whether or not there is deception at sale, any unauthorized reproductions of Levi's jeans or Coach bags are called counterfeits. The same could be reasonably said about unauthorized reprints of Topps, Fleer, etc cards. If the seller has no right to reprint them, then they have no right to sell them. I think it's fair to call the counterfeits.

100% yes, ethical reprints have to be significantly physically different than the original. And I say merely putting 'reprint' in small print on the card is not enough.

Now, old cards, such as T206 and Old Judges, are well beyond the copyright window. However, there's the catch of the celebrity, team and brand trademark issues.

I've often said that if one wanted to fix the eBay counterfeit issue, one should pursue the trademark/copyright angle. Whether or not the auction description was deceptive or not would be immaterial. Remove all unauthorized reprints would nip it in the bud, just as Coach etc has all unauthorized reproductions of their products removed.

I would say that, even though it says reprint in the description, if you say you deserve your money back because the person is selling unauthorized reprints (which some might label as counterfeits), I would say that's a fair argument.