Future of signed photos in the hobby?
 

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

Anyone out there?

Copyright law has been around forever- nothing new -. Very gray area. There is no clear answer. Music, Video, Print and software grapple with copyright too. Even registering is not always required - though it can have some effect on rights to sue. In specific cases Judges look for "intent". Usually going after big fish (just imagine what YouTube has to deal with!). However, class action suits can sweep up a lot of people who have to pay, generally smaller amounts. I am not up to speed on case law in the area. Remember those scary FBI beginnings to video copying :-).

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".

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I buy vintage photos. I recently bought a 1939 signed photo that was a publicity photo for the 1939 WS. It was even a TYPE 2. I would think that even modern photos, if filling a niche, could sell. WS, AS, accomplishments (like no hitters) will always be marketable. Generic photos, not so much.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...6070808e97.jpg

I meant more generic photos. Like the common guys. Older guys that are uncommon on photos like Lombardi will most always do well.

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.

There are tons of generic signed photos out there. Bob Feller died a decade ago and the price for a signed Feller photo has not moved. Why? Because Feller was a prolific signer. He signed at every piggly wiggly, car dealership, museum opening in just about every state. Feller was a great guy, affable and a true ambassador for the game but his signature is not in short supply. Jim Palmer is the new Feller.

Value wise a single signed baseball is worth more than a signed photo. A signed bat even higher.

https://www.psacard.com/smrpriceguid...autographs/177

I would have thought that a signed photograph of prewar players would be worth more than a signed ball. Players of that era likely signed more baseballs than photographs. I have seen people bring photographs to a game but in that era? I guess equipment will always rank higher than photographs.

Signed cards - I am in the camp that a signature defaces the value the card. It is a small niche within the hobby. I marvel at the collector on this board who is trying to complete a signed 1987 Topps set. Again, scarcity. Fewer collectors get cards signed. If demand for signed cards is on the rise with limited supply, prices increase. I just can't drop $130 for Cal Ripken to sign a card.

I just can't bring myself to start getting baseballs signed again. I have a few bats but collecting bats is a storage problem, I don't want to manage. Plus with tiered pricing it is costly to get bats signed.

I wish more players signed at games. If I was an owner it would be written into every contract that players will spend 10-15 minutes signing autographs for fans. With tighter security, netting and physical distancing, getting autographs on game day is going to get tougher.

Given that cursive writing is no longer taught in some school systems, one could argue most players will only be able to print their name or perhaps players will create elaborate stamps.

A signature at the field or on the street is usually considered a rushed signature. I am not going to debate that the penmanship of say post 1980 players is on par with prior eras. Some signatures are decent, others not so much. As much as I want to add Greg Maddux to a hof piece, I struggle with having to drop that much iron for that scribble. Of late the prices for some players Piazza and Randy Johnson to name a few is at a level where I just take a pass. When someone says "you don't have so-and-so" I just remember what a fellow collector always says "I don't have Babe Ruth either". I can live with not having Piazza or RJ on my hof piece.

You can't get them all, just enjoy the ones you do get.

I think pictures of celebrated moments will always do well. Aaron Boone's playoff home run, joe Carter's excitement jumping around the bases, todd Frazier winning the home run derby in cincinnati. It is all about context. Find the right picture and moment, and you will have a more desirable item.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Wanted to chime in. I started collecting signed 8x10's very recently. As long as they're coming from a reliable place, I believe I will continue to do so. They're great ways to get a signature of someone you really want for a not too expensive price point. They can also make nice displays if done properly and not in direct sunlight (Though I'm still learning on this part, if anyone would like to offer the best way to go about displaying signed 8x10's please let me know)
I'm a card collector first, but if a nice 8x10 pops up of a guy I don't have yet, or have been wanting then I'll probably purchase it.

Very easy. take a ink jet photo copy of the 8 x 10 on photo paper and store the original in a top loader. The copy looks better every time and it won't fade off.;)

My one and only concern with Signed photos Is, in 20-30 years when my family goes to sell my signed photo collection will there be an issue with them selling a signed psa authenticated photo that I bought on eBay that might not be an official photo (bought that way not knowing if it was officially licensed or not) . Don’t want to put them in An awkward situation if they just want to sell my collection in the future.

You are overthinking this a little bit. Once the photo is signed it becomes more than just a non-official photo. It becomes a collectible with hopefully greater intrinsic value than the photo. I doubt there is anyone that would not buy a good photo with a good signature due to the fact that the photo is not officially licensed. With most photos there is the photographers copyright and the MLB licensing of the team logos and color schemes. It is not just one issue. It would be difficult for MLB to prevent someone from selling a single signed photo of a player that is not licensed and not worth the effort. They are more concerned with the entities selling multiple copies of photos of say Mike Trout unsigned without paying the license because Trout is wearing an Angels uniform. This would even apply to the photographer who took the photo. That is one reason why so many print ads and commercials show pro athletes wearing generic uniforms with similar color schemes to their teams uniform, but not exact and usually with an imaginary or no logo. Let's not even get started with Getty Images. They try to assert copyright on photos they have no rights to. The archivist at the US Olympic Committee told me that they sent a demand letter to stop them from using certain photos. The problem was the USOC owns the negatives. That shut up Getty pretty quickly. I would give them a hammer and directions to the beach so they can go pound sand...

Got it! My head was spinning with all those big words! To put it in lamens terms, your saying that in your opinion you think it soul be ok to still collect and sell signed photos that happen to be unlicensed? Thanks

The copyright to a photo belongs to whoever took the photo, who can then assign that right to somebody else through contract. I have no idea who the current holder of the copyright for most old photos is, it could still rest with the photographers themselves in some cases, or have been sold by them to big news services in other cases.

I have a lot of signed photos that I got in the 1990s of players who appeared at shows/shops, etc. Most of the time the photos were provided by dealers at the shows/shops, and they seemed like they had just been spit out of a printer. I doubt they bothered to track down the copyright owner to get permission. Probably a lot of signed photos are like that and their production constituted a copyright infringement.

In most cases its not worth the time/effort of the copyright holders to go around trying to crack down on all these unlicensed photos directly. But if you have one entity (like a photo news service or something) which has been assigned the copyright to a large number of old photos, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a lawyer who decided to use the system Ebay has to demand the removal of infringing material for sale.

I don't actually know that any such powerful copyright holder exists, or if they would make an issue of it (they wouldn't have much financial incentive to do so, but that doesn't mean they won't, lawyers representing copyright holders can be very aggressive sometimes even where it doesn't make much sense for them to be so). It is definitely a possibility I think. Proving that a specific photo is infringing might be difficult though, its not like identifying a bootleg CD where its really obvious.

The worst that would happen though would be that selling those photos on ebay might become a pain/impossible. They could still be sold elsewhere though.

Yes, I would not get let it keep you up at night. The entities that own the rights are not going to go after someone who has bunch of single signed photos of different people. Sean is also right in that photographers can license their photos to someone like Photofile or Fanatics. It is usually the photographers themselves who get very aggressive with enforcing their rights on images.

I am an advanced photographer who protects the rights on my photography, mostly my concert shots (40 years worth). I also collect photographs of American Olympians. Many of my photos are rights free, meaning they are in the public domain. As a rule copyrights on photos last for 85 years after the photo could have first appeared in a publication. This is a general rule with exceptions. I also own a lot of what are called 'orphan' negatives and slides. You can never prove who may have taken them so rights are debateable. All of that along with doing legal research for 35 years and being married to lawyers twice, including my current wife, I view it a bit differently than most.

Thank you very much for your thoughts on this! After giving it much thought, I decided not to collect signed photos. I took a lot into consideration such as storage space for photos, photos fading over time, copyright, Future sales potential, TPA authentication issues, etc And decided to go a different route With my collecting. I think I will focus more now on factory certified autographs. A big reason for that is at least I know they are authentic autographs. I no longer trust PSA, JSA or Beckett authenticated items. After all TPAs are only an “opinion” service! Thanks