Reprints vs. Counterfeits - Is there a difference?

[BosseFieldBoy]

I apologize if I missed a prior thread on this issue, but I'm wondering, is there a difference between a reprint and a counterfeit?

I recently purchased a 1980-81 Topps Larry Bird/ Magic Johnson / Dr. J card. The listing revealed in the fine print that it was a "reprint" and I missed it. I, however, have always distinguished between a reprint and a counterfeit. In my mind, a reprint is an authorized reprinting or reproduction of an original card. In other words, Topps issues a card and either Topps or an authorized company later decides to reissue the card. I would think a reprint would have some kind of mark identifying itself as a reprint or, at the very least, a printing date that is different from that on the original card. Something distinguishing it from the original issue.

In my example, I would expect a reprint of the Topps card to somewhere say "reprint" or have a date somewhere on the card that is later than 1980. That is not the case with this card which leads me to believe it's a counterfeit, not a reprint.

What are your thoughts? Is it a distinction without a difference?

[Peter_Spaeth]

In theory a clear difference, as one is intended to deceive and one is not.

[GasHouseGang]

Is there a difference between a reprint and a counterfeit?

Clearly. Because ebay doesn't allow the sale of counterfeits. Or do they?

[clydepepper]

I recently picked up a few reprints that turned out to be so good...when comparing them to the original card that I also had, I decided to write 'RP' on each card back...just in case I forget when I get even older.

Of course the question is, why, if you already have the original cards, would you purchase reprints?


Because I'm addicted...what? You didn't really think I had a good reason, did you?

[Jenx34]

IMO your assessment is dead on. It gets confused because people seem to use the terms interchangeably. But if it is not obviously marked a reprint, then it is simply that, a counterfeit.

I'm not sure that will help you with Ebay however, but if need be, that is the argument I would make.

[Jewish-collector]

I actually collect legit, authorized reprints, because I can't afford the authentic cards. Sometimes you just gotta say WTF

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

I actually collect legit, authorized reprints, because I can't afford the authentic cards. Sometimes you just gotta say WTF

+1 I have several complete reprint sets.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bnorth

+1 I have several complete reprint sets.

Same here. This is a happy medium between collecting the 'complete set' as discussed in another thread and collecting specific players/cards. The reprint sets give me a cheap representation of the set, yet I can still enjoy just picking up certain original cards from that issue. Thus avoiding the 'obligation' some of us crazy complete set obsessives feel towards actually completing the set.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I recently picked up a few reprints that turned out to be so good...when comparing them to the original card that I also had, I decided to write 'RP' on each card back...just in case I forget when I get even older.

Of course the question is, why, if you already have the original cards, would you purchase reprints?


Because I'm addicted...what? You didn't really think I had a good reason, did you?

Sounds like you bought counterfeits, not reprints.

[ruth_rookie]

I had no idea there was such demand for reprints. I see them offered all the time on eBay and have always wondered who bought them. Now I know, which seems to me would indicate strength in the overall vintage market in the sense that if originals decline to a certain point, people who have otherwise been buying reprints will step in buy, thus creating a bottom in the market (sorry for the run-on sentence). ��

Thoughts?

[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.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by drcy

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 hate to victim blame on this, but much of the counterfeiting falls on the current trademark holders (Topps, Panini, NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc) for their lack of prosecution or civil damage claims against those doing this. EBay goes after those fakes basically only for those that hold them liable as well as providing those companies with contact info to the sellers for legal and civil consequence.

As long as they continue to ignore this, eBay will as well. There are zero consequences other than "possible" removal of a listing.

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by ruth_rookie

I had no idea there was such demand for reprints. I see them offered all the time on eBay and have always wondered who bought them. Now I know, which seems to me would indicate strength in the overall vintage market in the sense that if originals decline to a certain point, people who have otherwise been buying reprints will step in buy, thus creating a bottom in the market (sorry for the run-on sentence). ��


Thoughts?

That, or the strength in the overall economy increases demand, affording the reprint owners the chance at the real mccoy.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I've purchased cheap fake cards (that I guess would be considered counterfeits) on purpose knowing they were fake so I could educate myself on what they look and feel like. These weren't prewar, but were vintage cards. If I showed a few scans of these fakes with some real cards they would be difficult to tell apart. But when I got them in hand I could tell right away they were fake. And now I know what to look for when looking at cards in person. I consider it an inexpensive education to be honest. I wasn't getting scammed by anyone and now I know what to look for.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In theory a clear difference, as one is intended to deceive and one is not.

Yes, in theory.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I hate to victim blame on this, but much of the counterfeiting falls on the current trademark holders (Topps, Panini, NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc) for their lack of prosecution or civil damage claims against those doing this. EBay goes after those fakes basically only for those that hold them liable as well as providing those companies with contact info to the sellers for legal and civil consequence.

As long as they continue to ignore this, eBay will as well. There are zero consequences other than "possible" removal of a listing.

Unless the country makes some drastic changes, it will always be this way. For a rights holder, it's a balance of a number of factors. Chasing everyone that made a fake card would be expensive.

For sake of argument, lets say someone makes 15 reprints of popular Topps cards and sell them as reprints. Have I violated copyright? Yes. If I sold them for a total of even $300, how much have they damaged Topps, who don't sell their older cards, and claims right on the current packaging that they don't guarantee the cards will have any future value? Maybe the 300? Maybe more, maybe some unknown amount because it hurts their reputation. If the person doing that doesn't have much money, Topps is stuck with the cost of suing them, and having to do other stuff to eventually get the money. Probably way more than $300.


What could they lose? What did Disney lose back when they went after even people who made their own mouse T shirts and dared wear them to the park. A bit of public respect, which eventually costs them sales.


Protecting IP is important, but protecting it reasonably and cost effectively is also important.


In other fields it's getting more complex, early video games are avidly collected, and a lot of people make playable versions available online. It's sort of grassroots archiving, but it's also a copyright violation. One of the big sites just had most of the games taken down. The end result is that a lot of historic stuff is endangered, as it was issued on corruptible media. It doesn't have enough commercial value for a company to save it and periodically offer a version, but they want to protect it from piracy. Some also aren't at all willing to license the IP at all.

So there's areas where the laws need to get more restrictive, and areas where being less restrictive would be good.

Even then, simply reducing the copyright time on software wouldn't be fair, as that would put stuff like most of Microsoft Office in the same category with whatever's on an Atari 2600 cartridge from a company that folded in the mid 80's.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I understand what you're saying, but the easiest thing to do is to ensure that ebay polices your IP. Have you ever tried to buy fake Tiffany jewellery or Coach Handbags on ebay? You can't. Because those companies have made it clear to ebay that there will be consequences to being a marketplace of counterfeits.

[SetBuilder]

One interesting case I'd like to share (not sure how it applies to baseball cards in particular, but I found it interesting nonetheless), is the Esterbrook fountain pen company.

They ceased operations in 1971, but someone recently was able to revive the company by filing for the Esterbook trademark, which had been abandoned. Trademarks like Esterbook are called "graveyard trademarks".

Now, if one collects fountain pens, you would have to differentiate between the original, old Esterbook company, and the modern reincarnation, that has nothing to do with the original company. They are technically the "same" entity because they share the exact name, but in practice (and probably philosophically), they are not the same Esterbook.

It's interesting, because several trading card companies in recent memory have ceased operations and their trademarks are counting down to expiration.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

It's interesting, because several trading card companies in recent memory have ceased operations and their trademarks are counting down to expiration.

Those rights are stone solid.

Topps has bought the Bowman name and then used many vintage ideas which I would assume have been either bought or trademarked again such as t206 and turkey red. Panini has done the same with Donruss and Playoff who owned the Pacific brand. Upper Deck has owned Fleer for quite a while.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by steve B

For sake of argument, lets say someone makes 15 reprints of popular Topps cards and sell them as reprints. Have I violated copyright? Yes. If I sold them for a total of even $300, how much have they damaged Topps, who don't sell their older cards, and claims right on the current packaging that they don't guarantee the cards will have any future value? Maybe the 300? Maybe more, maybe some unknown amount because it hurts their reputation. If the person doing that doesn't have much money, Topps is stuck with the cost of suing them, and having to do other stuff to eventually get the money. Probably way more than 300..

A case can be made that the damages are exponentially higher than the sales figures for the counterfeits due to reputation damage. The basic premise the card companies want to be an underlying point is that the cards are an investment. Selling 20k wax boxes new from the factory requires them to maintain that it is a limited run and a status item.

Manufacturers such as Coach understand that losing the cache of their brand by having swap meet examples sold on the net undermines the buyer confidence and may have the items seized causing the counterfeiter frustration but also will pursue the selling platform (i.e.: eBay) for knowingly aiding sale of a forgery. That is where they find success and your lawyer money is well spent. Even if you lose, you win as eBay will avoid it in the future as it's just not worth more lawsuits.

This is being overlooked now simply because these counterfeits are detectable but we are likely only a few years away from that not being the case. With the dollars that are out there for high grade vintage it is not even a minor stretch of the imagination to see a well financed crime organization creating undetectable cards and cases and flooding the market with them. The moment that delicate trust from consumers is shattered we will be sitting on worthless collections. Don't doubt that someone is not already working hard on this when there is millions to be made.

[SetBuilder]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Those rights are stone solid.

Topps has bought the Bowman name and then used many vintage ideas which I would assume have been either bought or trademarked again such as t206 and turkey red. Panini has done the same with Donruss and Playoff who owned the Pacific brand. Upper Deck has owned Fleer for quite a while.

Almost all the big names are taken, but there are still some fringe names out there from the 1980's and 90's. I think Leaf was revived recently (was previously a graveyard trademark).

T206 refers to the set name that was used in the American Card Catalog. The original company never referred to the cards that way. I don't think the cards ever had an actual name, other than the tobacco brands on the backs.

I suppose if you wanted to be historically precise, you would revive The American Tobacco Company or The American Lithographic Company. Both trademarks are dead.

[Dewey]

I buy reprints to go with photos used for cards. I wouldn't buy a counterfeit, even if cheaper, because intent matters. Happily reprints are cheap.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

Almost all the big names are taken, but there are still some fringe names out there from the 1980's and 90's. I think Leaf was revived recently (was previously a graveyard trademark).

T206 refers to the set name that was used in the American Card Catalog. The original company never referred to the cards that way. I don't think the cards ever had an actual name, other than the tobacco brands on the backs.

I suppose if you wanted to be historically precise, you would revive The American Tobacco Company or The American Lithographic Company. Both trademarks are dead.

Brian Grey only acquired rights for the name Leaf, all images and design from the 80s-90s incarnation would be part of the acquisition of the donruss, pinnacle, and playoff properties by Panini. Gray's ability to use even passing reference to earlier properties has already been challenged in court. In 2013 he was sued for the Valiant inserts as they were too close to the prior Crusade inserts. The lawsuit was dropped after a settlement in which he dropped a claim to the rights for "Leaf Limited" as it was a little too close to the Panini Limited name for their liking.

As to t206, I understand the history quite clearly but as Topps issued several sets and inserts using the t206 name as the title during the last 10-12 years I am assuming they at least tried to lock it down to avoid competition.