NY law, ATC contracts, Harry Porter and the time the ATC got sued over sports cards

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Pat R

I was going to look into this more after I found this article a few years ago but I still haven't done any further research on it. I believe in New York at least a persons image could have been used without their permission for advertising or trade purposes if it was from a picture that was in the possession of the lithographer or advertising company prior to the 1905 law.

October 30 1908
Attachment 558454

What were the S+H premiums mentioned? Something of their own? Or someone elses product they got a bunch of.

[topcat61]

That was really interesting! I read the Porter suit while researching my article on the T206, and it appears that he lost the case because he took the money ($10) and was later banned from further Olympic participation because it violated the rules of his amature status.

[jimonym]

Those consents are so vaguely worded, no doubt deliberately so. It doesn't appear that Hyland could have known which photo of him was being referred to. Images of Neal Ball appeared in multiple card issues. I wonder if this consent letter was relied upon for all of those usages? I'd guess probably yes. It's a wonder there weren't more lawsuits on this issue.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jimonym

Those consents are so vaguely worded, no doubt deliberately so. It doesn't appear that Hyland could have known which photo of him was being referred to. Images of Neal Ball appeared in multiple card issues. I wonder if this consent letter was relied upon for all of those usages? I'd guess probably yes. It's a wonder there weren't more lawsuits on this issue.

It seems that the consent letters were used for all of a subjects card appearances related to the producer of the cards. So any of Ball's cards produced by American Lithographic or its shadow subsidiaries and business partners would have piggybacked off the same contract that would have accompanied the surviving letter. There doesn't seem to have been a time constraint in the law at this time that would require them to get a new approval for every new card or anytime they used a different picture.

The incredible vagueness of the Hyland contract helps make the Porter case seem more plausible and possibly explains the Wagner situation testified to in primary sources and other odd pulled cards - If a subject saw a cigarette card of themselves, they might not have any way to realize that that card was connected to a release they signed with a lithography firm identified nowhere on the card and could very reasonably have protested, if there contracts looked like Hyland's. I hope we eventually find more than just the Hyland contract, they might not all have looked like this, but it's the only one that has survived.

Hyland's contract was probably sued for T225-1, T218, C52 and T226 (possible the T224/9 as well). The T225-1 being the first and earliest of them [indeed, the evidence suggests from testimony Fullgraff gave years later in a court proceeding that the card actually began printing 1 month before the release was sent, in a batch of 5,000,000 cards - perhaps a clue to how cards were produced and then pulled but some still issued].