O/T: Topps sues Leaf over Mantle Card

[steve B]

I was thinking pretty much the same, all are probably PD because nobody cared to file. For some reason I'm thinking the goudey rights were bought by another company? and they in turn may have bought some of the others back in the 30's. Maybe Topps or Bowman? Both were starting to get big around the time Goudey was winding down.

It would be amusing if any of them were still under copyright and Topps hadn't checked.

One thing I find interesting is that Treat used a 52 Mantle as a prize, and used the image on the boxes of junk that the prize might have been in.
And there are/were a few dealers using a 52 mantle pretty much as a logo -It was in the ads, but not advertised. Both those uses slid past unpunished, although treat may have licensed it.

I've found the new copyright extension frustrating, there's a lot of great stuff out there that got extended but has little to no commercial value so it's not released and likely won't be in my lifetime. There's also stuff I personally own that I don't technically have any rights to, but I own the only copy. Unfortunately nothing good enough that it's worth paying to figure out how to obtain rights. Like footage of the 72 olympic gymnastics taken by one of the competitors.

I've felt for some time that if a comercial entity won't market a copyrighted work like a movie or tv show or music it should be made public domain after a reasonable time -like maybe 20 years of no publicaton or broadcast instead of 95 years from publication. - Of course the flip side of that argument is groups like the Hendrix estate who do a fantastic job of releasing stuff that was only previously available as bootleg records, and truly making it a better product with proper attributions etc.

Steve B

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by steve B

One thing I find interesting is that Treat used a 52 Mantle as a prize, and used the image on the boxes of junk that the prize might have been in.

Similar prizes/give-a-ways have been done over the years - like these chase boxes:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-W...item1c1c5212b3

or

http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-1952-Topps...item5ae21c38ff

Look whose picture is right there on top of the box. No way Topps wins their lawsuit.

[Brianruns10]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Similar prizes/give-a-ways have been done over the years - like these chase boxes:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-W...item1c1c5212b3

or

http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-1952-Topps...item5ae21c38ff

Look whose picture is right there on top of the box. No way Topps wins their lawsuit.

On first appraisal your analogy makes sense, but in reality it's a false one, because it assumes all these examples originated under identical circumstances. Again, the issue isn't the use of the image. The issue is obtaining PERMISSION to use the image. I'd guarantee Chase had to obtain permission, and pay a fee or royalty to use Topps' property on the cover art of their item.

Leaf is being sued because they did NOT obtain permission first to use this copyrighted image. In fact, they did something similar before, to which Topps sent them a cease-and-desist letter. They were warned once, and did it again.

What it comes to is this: Topps owns the copyright. Leaf used it without permission, and they've repeatedly violated copyright, despite a prior warning.

Topps has a VERY STRONG case. I'll be willing to bet that, in the end, Leaf will settle. This is a very common tactic, as crummy as it is. A company gets away with using copyrighted work, makes their profit, and pays a quick settlement, which they are able to absorb because they made more than enough to cover the loss. It's why corporations steal other people's intellectual property all the time...because they can afford to profit NOW and pay a settlement later out of those profits, rather than pay more in the long run through licensing and royalties to the originator.