Lately I have been seeing the fusion of two cheaper cards to make a more (hopefully)expensive one. Personally I don't think the word custom applies.


https://www.ebay.com/itm/CHRIS...AOSwiX1eHSvW&LH_BO=1

Here is another, actually left the cel visible on the back.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/CHRIS...047675.c100005.m1851

Ahhh sticker autographs, what a complete waste of time and money.

You can stick them anywhere you know.

Yikes they made a real mess of those, I hope no one rushes to buy without taking a good look at them.

So those are both from the same seller and to his/her credit the description clearly indicates that somebody slapped these autograph cards together from parts.

What does that mean? It means its now considered unlicensed and damaged, even though the parts are licensed and genuine. The autograph sticker is real, the card is real, but the combo is not. That's the bottom line of it and if someone wants to buy the cards as novelty items, it's up to them. If the license holders want to get upset, it's up to them. At least there is no deception in these two. Other offers down the line may be less clear.

This is hardly the first time people have created cards at home. It used to be very common with swatches. Multi-color swatches were made to replace single color swatches. Cards that didn't have swatches suddenly did. Cards that never existed came out with swatches and were called "test" or "promo" cards for the gullible.

Now with the acceptance of "cut" signatures and sticker signatures that can be peeled off, there are a lot of possibilities for people inclined to do "upgrades". They usually don't look that great of course. Some are very sloppy, but I've seen nice ones too.

I wouldn't call them a hybrid and even custom implies too much. They are COUNTERFEITS because even though the parts may be genuine, the whole should not exist. But the real key is, is deception involved? That's when its bad, but if the buyer knows what it is and wants to buy it anyway, than that's their decision. The cards will never appear in a price guide, that's for sure.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

Eh, I think that without the deception and without making the card look exactly like a manufactured autograph card the term counterfeit is a stretch.

Possibly the only area where counterfeit could apply is that the item still shows licensing info. But then the card number also shows a non autograph card.

The individual components are even marked from their original source to combine into a single different item. I'm stick'n with Hybrid.

My question is how long can someone do this before manufacturer issues a cease and desist.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mykdude,

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Eh, I think that without the deception and without making the card look exactly like a manufactured autograph card the term counterfeit is a stretch.

The individual components are even marked from their original source to combine into a single different item. I'm stick'n with Hybrid.

My question is how long can someone do this before manufacturer issues a cease and desist.

I get you point, but there are broad and narrow meanings to counterfeit. Some people think only an actual unauthorized reproduction can be a counterfeit. In the broad sense, any unlicensed item is a counterfeit. I really wouldn't call any card a hybrid. Either it's a licensed manufactured card or someone's art project.

As to your question, I think it depends on the manufacturer and/or license holder. Some of them have no interest in protecting their copyrights. Others will jump on anyone who crosses them. Disney will jump. It also depends on whether it's a couple of items, or a mass produced operation selling in volume.

I think it's up to the license holder to decide what is a problem and what's not. Card collectors just need to be aware of what they are buying. Unlicensed cards have limited appeal and are not good substitutes for the real thing.

Those look terrible, hopefully they don't sell. We certainly don't need to see this behavior encouraged.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
Those look terrible, hopefully they don't sell. We certainly don't need to see this behavior encouraged.

Yup, I agree with that.

Destroying a perfectly fine card for manufactured "cuts" already makes my eye twitch. These are painful.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
Those look terrible, hopefully they don't sell. We certainly don't need to see this behavior encouraged.

Yup, I agree with that.

Destroying a perfectly fine card for manufactured "cuts" already makes my eye twitch. These are painful.

I hate to see manufacturers do it. . . let alone randos.

I would call it counterfeit.

My logic is that this is an Upper Deck card and not an Upper Deck sticker.

That means the card manufacturer is not certifying the autograph was ever legit, it was someone else who did that.

Hopefully UD takes notice, but considering it's said that they laid off somewhere around 40% of their staff lately, they might not have anyone around to notice.

Ed

quote:

Originally posted by Scifi Cards:
I would call it counterfeit.

My logic is that this is an Upper Deck card and not an Upper Deck sticker.

That means the card manufacturer is not certifying the autograph was ever legit, it was someone else who did that.

Hopefully UD takes notice, but considering it's said that they laid off somewhere around 40% of their staff lately, they might not have anyone around to notice.

Ed

Very true Ed. By cutting off and mixing up trademarked products from different companies you are essentially voiding the guarantees provided by those companies. So that Panini autograph sticker is no longer considered authenticated. The UD card has been damaged and is now worthless. The "customization" has destroyed both licensed cards and produced an unlicensed counterfeit with no authentication of anything.

If you want to do that for your own pleasure and personal collection, that's one thing. Selling it is another.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scifi Cards:
I would call it counterfeit.

My logic is that this is an Upper Deck card and not an Upper Deck sticker.

That means the card manufacturer is not certifying the autograph was ever legit, it was someone else who did that.

Hopefully UD takes notice, but considering it's said that they laid off somewhere around 40% of their staff lately, they might not have anyone around to notice.

Ed

Still not seeing it. The point of counterfeit is to pass it off as the real deal. Your logic actually states the opposite. This is one of the very reasons we know instantly for a fact it is not counterfeit. None of the following definitions apply.

coun·ter·feit
adjective: counterfeit

made in exact imitation of something valuable or important with the intention to deceive or defraud.


noun:
a fraudulent imitation of something else; a forgery.

verb
imitate fraudulently.

Will Upper Deck stop this? Will they even care? Depends on how prevalent the activity gets. Kind of like shoplifting in big chain stores. There is actually a level of shoplifting allowance that is factored in simply because it is less cost effective to go after every shoplifter.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mykdude,

I guess you would call that item an extreme example of an altered card or a melding of altered cards. It is more of an art project now. Quoth the Raven, it's a trading card nevermore.

quote:

noun:
a fraudulent imitation of something else; a forgery.

It's a fraudulent imitation of a licensed and authenticated card.

It contains no authentication verbage to provide provenance of the autograph.

It says Upper Deck on the card and Panini on the sticker. Obviously a fraud to me.

I'll give a little credit to the seller that he discloses everything in the auction. But, and this is a BIG But (I cannot lie), this does nothing for the next time it changes hands.

If I were to buy this because it's cool, and I died next year. My wife would have no idea it wasn't an Upper Deck autograph until someone were to point it out.

As a dealer, if someone came to me with this an wanted to sell it. I'd refuse it. It's fraudulent and worthless. I couldn't sell it along side my certified autos and somehow claim it's worth anything.

I feel the same way about custom cards for signing that use card designs they don't own the rights to. I've even seen ones that put the Topps or UD logo on a card so it will "match" the others in the collection. That's Fraud.

I get asked all the time "how do you know it's their signature?" Anything that lessens the trust of the product is a bad thing for the hobby and for my business. I have a stake in everything being above board and clear.

Ed

I have a hard time with this one. . . is it a forgery. . . well not really, the signature is legitimate.

Is it a counterfeit . . . well not really as it isn't imitating an actual upper deck card.

Is it fraud. Possibly, depending on how it is depicted.

If this was a card that someone had signed at a convention no one would call it a counterfeit or forgery. . .

So the only thing throwing people off is the fact that it is on a sticker.

I think it's a modified card. . . Actually 2 modified cards. I don't see any value here, and I agree with Ed -- it's bad for the hobby and it does create confusion.

Looking at this another way. . . What if instead of a sticker autograph it was just a Panini sticker from one of their albums. Not a counterfeit or forgery, just a defaced card.

So let's start with forgery. It's probably NOT a forgery because we are assuming the legitimacy of the Panini sticker. However the sticker has been detached from the guaranteed item so its actual authenticity is void. You would need to provide third-party authentication again.

Let's go to fraud. This seller is saying exactly what it is, so NO fraud. Not this time. But the next owner who wants to sell it may not be so truthful or may be unaware of its history and take it for a manufactured licensed autograph card. It's very easy to taint the market down the line and to usher in actual fraud.

Is it a counterfeit? YES, that one is actually an easy call because it is displaying trademarks from UD and Panini that it can no longer claim. Neither UD or Panini made these cards. Neither one will stand behind them or any representations they make. They didn't remove the copyrights or logos when they "modified" the cards and the "new creator" had no legal right to use the copyrights.

That's counterfeiting.

And I also might add that it is being done solely to create a card deemed to be of higher demand and value than the original two cards because it pairs the signature with a more iconic photo of the actor than it had before. Which also brings in a third license holder in Disney, because they own Marvel and who gets to legally use the image of Captain America.

So that's the reason for the counterfeiting. I don't know how to explain it any better.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

Why don't we call it what it is, an art project.
It is about an unoriginal as when people cut up magazines and post them together in a different way and say, "This is my creation! This is Art! I want way too much money for it!" Even though it is the same thing kindergarten kids are making.

Agree. . .

If not then I am lucky I didn't get busted for counterfeitting repeatedly as a kid when I would swap parts between toys.

Otherwise sister's Barbie's head on He-Man sounds like it could have landed me in jail.

Yeah, we'd need an attorney to say what it is technically but I don't think it's counterfeiting nor forgery either. A copy of the original cards were not made outside the manufacturer. I think it could be copyright infringement depending on the wording of the licensing agreement and rights of the owner of the intellectual property. Is cutting up two cards to make a combined item within the sphere of "fair use?" Maybe. Can you offer it for sale? Maybe not.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scifi Cards:
I would call it counterfeit.

My logic is that this is an Upper Deck card and not an Upper Deck sticker.

That means the card manufacturer is not certifying the autograph was ever legit, it was someone else who did that.

Hopefully UD takes notice, but considering it's said that they laid off somewhere around 40% of their staff lately, they might not have anyone around to notice.

Ed

Still not seeing it. The point of counterfeit is to pass it off as the real deal. Your logic actually states the opposite. This is one of the very reasons we know instantly for a fact it is not counterfeit. None of the following definitions apply.

coun·ter·feit
adjective: counterfeit

made in exact imitation of something valuable or important with the intention to deceive or defraud.


noun:
a fraudulent imitation of something else; a forgery.

verb
imitate fraudulently.

Will Upper Deck stop this? Will they even care? Depends on how prevalent the activity gets. Kind of like shoplifting in big chain stores. There is actually a level of shoplifting allowance that is factored in simply because it is less cost effective to go after every shoplifter.