I'm almost POSITIVE this card features Shoeless Joe...

[packs]

By 1911 only 16 players had ever hit 400. Jackson and Cobb both did it that year. I know it was Jackson's first full season, but these cards were obviously produced after the 1911 season and he had just become an elite 400 hitter. If he were on a center panel, he would have been named. Cobb appears on 2 center panels and he is named on both of them.

[botn]

Originally Posted by packs

By 1911 only 16 players had ever hit 400. Jackson and Cobb both did it that year. I know it was Jackson's first full season, but these cards were obviously produced after the 1911 season and he had just become an elite 400 hitter. If he were on a center panel, he would have been named. Cobb appears on 2 center panels and he is named on both of them.

For reasons unknown to most, except Ted Z, Jackson did not appear on many of the T card issues whereas Cobb did.

[packs]

Yes but if he were to be pictured on the front of one I don't understand how he wouldn't be identified. He was a star. He'd just finished second to Cobb for the batting title. I can't see any scenario in which if his image were to appear on a card he would simply be noted as "the runner." Like I said, if Wagner were to appear in a picture on a center panel I highly doubt he wouldn't be identified.

People are claiming this photo was taken the same day as the newspaper photo posted earlier. The newspaper made it a point to identify Jackson in what was I guess a crucial play of the game. If the photo on the T202 was taken that day and during that same play, why would Jackson not be identified?

[botn]

The player's permission is needed in order for a company to promote their product, nationally. That involves contracts and compensation. Neither of which are required when appearing in your team's local newspaper.

[nolemmings]

While your point is relevant, it's hardly dispositive. If Joe was such a rising star incapable of omission, why does he have no t202 side panel of his own?
Also, it is remarkably coincidental that the players on the side panels of the card in question were Lord and Tannehill, the two players involved in the play cited in the newspaper photo.

Your hypothetical is interesting, though, insofar as it mentions Wagner. I would suggest that no, they wouldn't necessarily identify Wagner if he was the one sliding. As we know, the ATC did not have Wagner's permission to use his likeness and/or such permission was withdrawn. It may very well be that they did not have Shoeless' permission either. The use of a generic action photo that does not claim to be him by name would likely not be considered an improper use, and the newspaper's identification of him by name is of course a permissible use.


I just noticed that Greg mentioned the same thing about use of a player's image. That may have alot to do with the caption making no mention of the runner's name.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

If Joe was such a rising star incapable of omission, why does he have no t202 side panel of his own?

Because he didn't have a T205. Since the side panels share images with that former set he could not be included on the side panel as was not in the T205 set.

[nolemmings]

that is not entirely true. Walter Blair and Joe Wood are found in t202 and not t205. It could be argued that If Shoeless was so important, he would and could have merited his own side panel.

[Abravefan11]

Todd I apologize as I missed the inclusion of those two. That makes the case for Joe much more fascinating in this issue. Other players are not included on the side panels however they are mentioned by name in the center panel descriptions. This set, Joe's images, and his lack of mention are an enigma.

[packs]

At least one of the photos in the T202 set was taken by Conlon. When his photos are re-printed the player's rights aren't bought to re-print the photo. The photographer's rights are. So if this were simply a photo of Jackson, and not a "card" of Jackson's, which would mean adding him to a side panel and making him a part of the set, then why would they have to buy the rights to use his name as an identifier for who appears in a photo?

I'm not saying Jackson wasn't a part of the T202 set because he wasn't a star, and I'm not disputing the fact that he most likely didn't sell the rights to his image for inclusion in a set. But I'm not so sure you would need his permission to list him as appearing in a photo. Unless of course, he doesn't appear in the photo.

For example, Harry Davis is pictured shaking hands with John McGraw in a center panel and is identified. However, he does not appear in the set. Are you saying they had to buy Davis' rights to identify him in a photo and then didn't print a card of his as well? Seems highly unlikely. The only logical conclusion in my mind is that the card does not depict Jackson.

[nolemmings]

Are you saying they had to buy Davis' rights to identify him in a photo and then didn't print a card of his as well?

No, they already would have had the rights to/ permission of Harry Davis--he was in t206, as were Birdie Cree and Billy Sullivan, two others identified in the back caption but missing from the end panels. Joe Jackson, by contrast, does not appear to have ever lent his permission to ATC.

I do not follow your Conlon analogy. Conlon also took virtually all of the portrait shots used in the E254 Colgan set. Are you suggesting that Colgan needed only to buy Conlon's permission to crop and use these photos, and not the players? I very much doubt that.

[packs]

I have a question. The Fatima T200 cards were produced in the same factory, Factory 25 District 2 VA as the T206 cards and Jackson appears and is identified in the team photo. Did the same company that owned the rights to the T206, T205 and T202 sets also have the rights for the T200 set?

[nolemmings]

There may also be a more simple explanation as to why Joe (if it is him) is not identified in the photo. The caption was focused on Lord, with the write-up on him and his history. Although the text might have been added in late 1911, the photo may have been selected for inclusion much earlier--we know that most of the photos for end panels were around in 1910 or earlier. If the center photo were picked at a time when Joe Jackson was still a relative unknown quantity--say the first month of his first full season in 1911, which incidentally, is when the game was played that is included in the newpaper, there would be even less reason to identify Jackson. It is possible that there was no notation of who the runner was, and that when the text was finalized later, no one bothered to identify him.