Future of signed photos in the hobby?

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by homerunhitter

Hello,
Been reading on other collecting sites that there is currently a crackdown in our hobby in regards to sports photos bin terms of copyright and infringement. Basically a lot of signed photos being sold on eBay where the photo is not an “official” photo. One, how do you tell if a photo is official or not? Second, what are your thoughts on this affecting the future of collecting signed photos in 20 years when someone goes to sell a photo that they bought on eBay is there going to be a problem selling it due to copyright infringement issues? Don’t want to collect signed photos now they will have a problem selling later when it’s time to sell. Your thoughts? Thanks

I think the only time you'd have a problem is if you mass produce a copyrighted photo to have signed (for future resale). "Official" is a hard term to prove. MLB produced photos are "official" but anyone can take a photo of a player and then have it signed without it being "official".

[Bigdaddy]

I think you need to look at the relative value between the autograph and the photo. There are many 'officially licensed' photos that are completely legit, however they are only worth a small percentage of what the autograph would be worth. An example might be a Mantle or Dimaggio autographed Photofile photo. In this case, I don't see a big impact on the value or ability to sell the item. People will be more concerned with the legitimacy of the auto than the photo.

If the photo itself holds the majority of the value (think an Type II Conlon photo), then there may be a hit on the value of the item.

So ask yourself, where is the value in the item? Is it the photo or the auto?

[homerunhitter]

Any updates or other thoughts on this? I noticed sales of signed 8x10s seem to be down and it seems like no one collects them anymore since I saw a posting about this on another collecting site.Thank you who have responded.

[Huck]

I have been collecting autographs for over 20 years. To me, a licensed photo has the mlb copyright logo visible usually in one of the corners. That said, few if any players on the autograph circuit check to see if a photo is licensed by MLB. I could be wrong but Rod Carew comes to mind as one of the few players who states "will not sign unlicensed material". I have never had an item rejected. Currently, I am having hof's sign a large picture of the hall of fame in Cooperstown which a friend of mine took, had the picture blown up and airbrushed people out of the photo. Unique limited piece only signed by hofs.

The player is getting paid by the promoter what does he care what is put down in front of him to sign? I find the stock mlb photos offered at shows and online kind of boring (not that I don't own some) so I try to find something semi-unique (ex. I had Gaylord Perry sign a jar of Vaseline. He laughed the first time). I asked Duke Snider to sign his real name Edwin. He said "I don't sign Edwin that often". Duke was always a class act and signed Edwin "Duke" Snider. I also like b&w photographs. So, I would stress trying to find something unique or having the player add an interesting inscription. Back in the 90's players willingly added inscriptions, now most players charge a fee for adding inscriptions. There is also a limited use clause - you take a picture and have it signed etc. Not reproducing the picture in mass quantities. The photo-op is a standard offering at shows. Pay for a picture with the player. Picture is printed onsite (not licensed), which you then can have signed for an additional fee. As long as the money is flowing, I don't think most players care about licensing.

I agree with bigdaddy that the collector is either buying the photo, the autograph or perhaps both. In the future, the issue with a signed photo will always be, is the autograph legit? Period. Early on I decided to get all autographs in person. Over the decades, I relaxed a bit and was okay with family and collecting friends obtain autographs for me. Also, I opened up to mail order because I can't be everywhere. I also dabble in TTM. For peace of mind, the big names are always obtained in person. If someone out there is forging Leon Durham signatures, I can live with it.

In pockets of the hobby, I see depressed prices. Some collectors might need some fast cash to pay bills. When there is plenty of supply and little demand, prices fall. With so much time on their hands, collectors are reassessing their collections. Personally, I am finally looking to sell some material, but more from a quality over quantity issue.

As for selling in the future? It will depend on the item and the venue. You will not get rich selling stock signed photos. If some online sites are cracking down on unlicensed material, so be it, sell on BST on this site. Sell offline. Ebay has a bigger issue with forgeries, but the company does not want to address that issue. Another issue is wholesale prices. At a show once I was listening to a collector trying to sell a collection of stock signed photos to a dealer. The customer wanted a higher price than what the dealer was offering. Finally the dealer said "This is a nice collection, but I can get signed Bob Feller photographs for $10 wholesale".

Collect what brings you joy. Down the road if you make a little coin on the collection that is cool as well.

[doug.goodman]

Slightly off topic, but to your general point :

I would have to think that as the average signature has gotten more and more illegible, the amount of people who enjoy collecting them has gone, and will and will continue to go, down.

It's a trend that I see very little chance of changing in the near future.

Doug

[Huck]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Slightly off topic, but to your general point :

I would have to think that as the average signature has gotten more and more illegible, the amount of people who enjoy collecting them has gone, and will and will continue to go, down.

It's a trend that I see very little chance of changing in the near future.

Doug

There are always lines at shows but the big money is behind the curtain (mail order). Mariano Rivera has a beautiful signature and price to boot. Granted some players signatures are gawd awful but at a paid appearance, most signatures are decent. Years ago, collectors complained about forking over $100+ for scribbles from Lawrence Taylor and Ray Lewis. At the risk of not being booked, I believe both modified their signatures.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by biohazard

There are always lines at shows but the big money is behind the curtain (mail order). Mariano Rivera has a beautiful signature and price to boot. Granted some players signatures are gawd awful but at a paid appearance, most signatures are decent. Years ago, collectors complained about forking over $100+ for scribbles from Lawrence Taylor and Ray Lewis. At the risk of not being booked, I believe both modified their signatures.

Mariano is an outlier in the new era of signatures, everybody knows that.

And, yes, I'm sure most players will improve their legibility when financial concerns outweigh laziness.

Also, I would posit that people who stand in line at shows are what we might call "the converted". I'm talking about people who haven't been converted, who haven't yet learned to love our hobby.

But, put a kid at the side of a field and let him (or her) collect autographs from all the players who are signing that day, and the average signature will be virtually unreadable. Sure, that kid knows that they are all players, and sure that kid, because he wasn't around when the average player signed like Mariano, will probably have a great time. But six months later, when showing his trophies to a friend, who asks the simple question "who's that?" his response will probably be "I don't remember, but I know __________ is on here somewhere, I remember him signing it".

That can't bode well in regards to my initial point.

[JRS123490]

I am very picky with getting licensed photos signed. As many of you know, Photofile is having major issues. They have told a few people that they are still in business, but after speaking to a few former employees, I just don't see how that's possible. Unless there is another company printing licensed photos (besides awful Fanatics,) that I don't know about, it will be cards for me from now on. Unfortunately, people will still continue to rip off images, but besides being against the law, it is extremely risky as Getty will sue without a question.

[JRS123490]

On a side note, I do think that a large percentage of signed photos are very tough sells as it is. Or if they do sell, they are for very nominal amounts. On the other hand, I have noticed a HUGE boom with cards. They are bigger than ever before.