quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
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

Yes this is all true. Except for the attorney part. Nothing in the ebay listing is fraudulent. All of the obvious flaws are the direct opposite of a forgery or counterfeit. Also have to throw in that if at any time it is represented as authentic they will most likely get turned into Ebay.

If I make a $5 dollar bill with one side U.S. and the other Canadian it will be a tough time calling it any of these definitions, in spite of all the legal words printed on it.

I see no issue in that UD could have a legal leg to stand on if they choose to do so especially as far as representation of product quality. Still, at this level I would have a difficult time believing that they really care.

You bring up a good point in fair use. Are we not allowed to alter most things we own as long as we don't misrepresent them if we choose to sell? Craft shows across the country are full of licensed products turned into something else. I have a wicked Furby I picked up in Germany at home that you wouldn't even recognize. It has horns and fangs sticking out of it.

Seriously though, do any of us honestly believe that this practice is going to take off and become a problem in the hobby? I don't, just thought it was an interesting idea for terminology.

I still stand that Hybrid is a better word. Maybe not perfect but better.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I still stand that Hybrid is a better word. Maybe not perfect but better.

How about two words, Novelty Item.

As much as I'm enjoying the imaginative comparisons between newspaper cut ups, kindergarten kids, craft tables, headless Barbie and fanged Furby, we all know that the cornerstone rule in card collecting is that the card be licensed. We know that card manufacturers spend a great deal of money to acquire those licenses. We know that when someone is selling novelty items for profit, they can't use lifted licensed manufacturer logos and copyrights and authenticity guarantees, even if they readily admit to it. We know an item doesn't have to be a replica to be called a counterfeit. We know that a card is either licensed or unlicensed and there is no in-between.

If a property no longer has a license and is in the public domain, cards can be made. They are not regarded as unlicensed because no license was required. I'm just adding that for the sake of accuracy.

To Ed, who is in the card business for real and whose comments are on the first page, how do feel about ever getting a universally accepted card-related definition list now?

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

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I still stand that Hybrid is a better word. Maybe not perfect but better.

How about two words, Novelty Item.

As much as I'm enjoying the imaginative comparisons between newspaper cut ups, kindergarten kids, craft tables, headless Barbie and fanged Furby, we all know that the cornerstone rule in card collecting is that the card be licensed. We know that card manufacturers spend a great deal of money to acquire those licenses. We know that when someone is selling novelty items for profit, they can't use lifted licensed manufacturer logos and copyrights and authenticity guarantees, even if they readily admit to it. We know an item doesn't have to be a replica to be called a counterfeit. We know that a card is either licensed or unlicensed and there is no in-between.

If a property no longer has a license and is in the public domain, cards can be made. They are not regarded as unlicensed because no license was required. I'm just adding that for the sake of accuracy.

To Ed, who is in the card business for real and whose comments are on the first page, how do feel about ever getting a universally accepted card-related definition list now?

And still no fraud or deception (which is a primary component in every definition) is accomplished in the two original examples. The only time an item not being an exact replica can be considered counterfeit is if deception is involved to convince someone it is real. All the focus on a license that was never altered to accommodate the new design is a moot point. The license and wording on the card no longer supports the card. You can poke fun of arts and crafts all you want but that is basically what this is. Did Upper Deck and Donruss already receive their money for the two cards that they paid the license for? Yup! You can't get either of these cards out of the box without paying the manufacture first. Is this activity taking away any business from the card companies on a basis of fraud? Nope.

Actually found this in the wiki article on counterfeit.

"An item which makes no attempt to deceive, such as a copy of a DVD with missing or different cover art or a book without a cover, is often called a "bootleg" or a "pirated copy" instead."

I can actually agree with bootleg as a better term but unlike a book or DVD it's not actually harming the content manufacturer in sales.

Heck! As a collector I say destroy all the cards you want. Make my collection more rare.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Barbie and fanged Furby, we all know that the cornerstone rule in card collecting is that the card be licensed.

Barbie, He-Man and Furby are all licensed or otherwise copyrighted products. I believe the license or copyright information is even stamped in to each product. I feel that makes those examples a very similar analog to the cards shown in the auctions.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Barbie and fanged Furby, we all know that the cornerstone rule in card collecting is that the card be licensed.

Barbie, He-Man and Furby are all licensed or otherwise copyrighted products. I believe the license or copyright information is even stamped in to each product. I feel that makes those examples a very similar analog to the cards shown in the auctions.

Mmmm maybe "Re-purposed" is a good term. As nothing is really being created here.

Interesting to read his feedback as he does get the occasional "dude ripped me off with a fake card" report. I looked at his auction it is pretty clear what he was selling. As many of us know some people just refuse to read a listing before hitting buy.

He has a James Earl Jones Star Wars Medallion turned autograph card that looks dreadful.

Someone claimed an RDJ RA card he sold was fake. I have to admit the autograph looks funny to me but I can't be sure. If it was a fake then it would most definitely be counterfeit.

Hahaha! Was sent an offer by the seller for one of the Chris Evans at $140.

It was a tough call but had to decline.

This dude has destroyed a lot of Chris Evans autographs. . . sad.

From a legitimacy standpoint this stuff bothers me more than the cards originally posted.


https://www.ebay.com/itm/1982-...tograph/183709165285

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Xmen-...e:g:V9IAAOSwx6Za90aX

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

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
This dude has destroyed a lot of Chris Evans autographs. . . sad.

From a legitimacy standpoint this stuff bothers me more than the cards originally posted.

Yeah I count at least 5 he has destroyed. Still not sure if he is going to make any money on it.

Generally reprint comics are marked as such in the pages.

The Ric Flair card is a bit disturbing. Not familiar with the original, is this an exact copy? Is that release valuable?

Ok saw the note about a size difference.

I am not an expert on the Flair card. The card is valuable, and besides the size difference I think it might be the same.

I'm not sure who is printing these cards or comic covers or if they have the rights to do that. . .

Even worse

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:

From a legitimacy standpoint this stuff bothers me more than the cards originally posted.


https://www.ebay.com/itm/1982-...tograph/183709165285

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Xmen-...e:g:V9IAAOSwx6Za90aX

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
I am not an expert on the Flair card. The card is valuable, and besides the size difference I think it might be the same.

I'm not sure who is printing these cards or comic covers or if they have the rights to do that. . .

My first impression is that this is all the seller. I will admit his site is a bit excessive with this. Seems like most items go for best offer and I would think some decent overhead in printer products and ink are involved.

My hard line view of what the law should be would say this is illegal but I have heard weirder things. Maybe the seller has figured out that line and is flying just under it?

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
I am not an expert on the Flair card. The card is valuable, and besides the size difference I think it might be the same.

I'm not sure who is printing these cards or comic covers or if they have the rights to do that. . .

My first impression is that this is all the seller. I will admit his site is a bit excessive with this. Seems like most items go for best offer and I would think some decent overhead in printer products and ink are involved.

My hard line view of what the law should be would say this is illegal but I have heard weirder things. Maybe the seller has figured out that line and is flying just under it?

Surely you're not suggesting that there might be something a little problematic going on here, with or without deception?

You guys are going to wind up agreeing with me yet.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
I am not an expert on the Flair card. The card is valuable, and besides the size difference I think it might be the same.

I'm not sure who is printing these cards or comic covers or if they have the rights to do that. . .

My first impression is that this is all the seller. I will admit his site is a bit excessive with this. Seems like most items go for best offer and I would think some decent overhead in printer products and ink are involved.

My hard line view of what the law should be would say this is illegal but I have heard weirder things. Maybe the seller has figured out that line and is flying just under it?

If someone is making unauthorized reproductions and printing their own copies of well know goods that definitely seems problematic.

You would think that Disney and DC would be interested in that. . .

The trouble with the Flair card is that I don't think the manufacturer exists to enforce any copyright. I'm not sure who could enforce it -- Ric Flair himself?

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

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Surely you're not suggesting that there might be something a little problematic going on here, with or without deception?

You guys are going to wind up agreeing with me yet.

Haha! Never said it wasn't a problem. Also I would view creating new product a little different than modifying existing product. It's a bit difficult to believe this seller has not been reported. I have a feeling he or she is operating on just this side of legal. Not that I agree with it.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:

The trouble with the Flair card is that I don't think the manufacturer exists to enforce any copyright. I'm not sure who could enforce it -- Ric Flair himself?

No, Ric would have nothing to do with this. In fact I have seen some for sale that he signed. If the company is out of business then no one will really bother with it.

In spite of what is or what isn't legal, the main defense is collectors who are smart enough about their hobby to know the differences.

Here is another one E Bay #333533342385 described as 2 erased artist sketch cards $90 .
You can see the outline of the original I presume pencil drawn sketch .To me this a destroyed card and should not be allowed to be sold in this condition .Seems like the seller wants to make money from a couple of cheap cards
The tricks that are used to make extra cash are unending

Well, they are being sold simply as blank cards which can be turned into sketches that would seemingly appear to have been part of the 2007 Marvel Masterpieces. They also freely state the original sketches were erased, so I suppose that's truth in advertising.

At this point I don't know where some of this stuff stands legally speaking. Some of those pencil sketches that got seeded into various products were so light and such garbage, painting over them could only be a good thing. The problem is that if someone uses a licensed blank sketch card, or overlays a licensed sketch card that was erased, both the sketch and probably the artist was never licensed and approved. But how would you know that when you have what looks like a 13 year old sketch card, should someone use these "blanks"?

The average sketch card collector might not even think to try to research it when the cardstock is official. So when the lines get to be so blurred, it's very hard to tell what has been authorized and what is someone's creation.

Somehow I'm less bothered by a painted over sketch than those patched together autographs. The new sketch still has to be good for anyone to want to buy it and the original was probably junk anyway. With the autographs, they are destroying perfectly fine signed cards and insert cards to try to up the value with a combined better recognized picture. That seems more wasteful and potentially easier to sell for good money.

I dunno, I have some horrid Indiana Jones art cards I would love to get washed and re-utilized by a REAL artist. ;-)

I was having a conversation with someone else about this in that many of the art cards are never seen as they go straight into collections so we as collectors don't really know what is truly out there.

I guess to really cause a deception here you would either need one of the set listed artist to create something on the card (which wouldn't be so bad) or have another artist fake someone else's work. I think more and more art cards have unique backs now in order to prevent something like this. Topps has the artist signature on the back which is a great solution.

Wouldn't it be great if a card maker actually posted photos of all the sketch cards made for a product. Then you could not only confirm that your sketch was officially approved, but also know the artist's name that you can't read.

Even with the artist's name scribbled on the back, only the artist could really tell if he/she did the sketch on the front and they would have to see it to know. Like you said, they are 1/1s and often go into a collection and aren't ever seen again.

But the card makers will always just post a small preview of the finest sketches because a complete review would show how much inferior artwork is also included. Even RA, with its detailed checklists and photos, doesn't show all the sketches, just the artists involved. And they usually have very nice work as an average.

So there is a lot of opportunity for deception with sketch cards and less risk in being exposed. But art is so subjective and the money is concentrated more on certain well known artists. So I kind of doubt its a major problem, just because the market is too saturated with sketch cards now and I don't know that we have any master art forgers working on copying sketch cards. At least I've never heard of it yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Wouldn't it be great if a card maker actually posted photos of all the sketch cards made for a product. Then you could not only confirm that your sketch was officially approved, but also know the artist's name that you can't read.

Even with the artist's name scribbled on the back, only the artist could really tell if he/she did the sketch on the front and they would have to see it to know. Like you said, they are 1/1s and often go into a collection and aren't ever seen again.

But the card makers will always just post a small preview of the finest sketches because a complete review would show how much inferior artwork is also included. Even RA, with its detailed checklists and photos, doesn't show all the sketches, just the artists involved. And they usually have very nice work as an average.

So there is a lot of opportunity for deception with sketch cards and less risk in being exposed. But art is so subjective and the money is concentrated more on certain well known artists. So I kind of doubt its a major problem, just because the market is too saturated with sketch cards now and I don't know that we have any master art forgers working on copying sketch cards. At least I've never heard of it yet.

Better yet, what if a manufacturer printed a unique card for each artist with their name printed on them? Then nobody else could use the card.

Let's make it better! After approvals, what if we serial numbered all the cards the artist did so collectors would know how many each artist had approved (notice I didn't say how many they actually drew?)

Then, like you said, we could put them all on our website so you could see each sketch!

Wouldn't that be great?

Ask Uncle Allan. He did all that.

Ed

Inkworks was definitely the gold standard. . .

Clearly the Inkworks model is too much to expect out of other manufacturers, but I wish they could at least publish a scan of all released sketch cards by artist. That would help significantly, and I assume they are already scanning all the sketches for approvals so it would seem the level of effort to do that would be pretty low.

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