[ALR-bishop]

Not sure Patrick but based on some research I did on Topps and Fleer "exclusive" contracts I do not think appearances like the Musial 57 team card would have been precluded. The Topps exclusive contracts precluded players who signed them from signing other contracts permitting the distribution of their individual image with gum, candy or confections ( hence the Fleer cookies and Leaf marbles). It would not have prevented another distributor of cards from using a team picture they presumably licensed from the club involved and or MLB that happened to include the player.

I don't know about Rawlings but the Bowman contracts were similar to the Topps contracts in the years before Topps bought them out, which is why individual players often only appeared in one set or the other. ( although not all players would agree to the exclusive contracts from either, even though the money involved in such contracts, at least prior to the arrival of Marvin Miller, was inconsequential)

By the way, in looking at the contract issue I could not find any indication that the 1963 Fleer set was halted due to litigation by Topps . Fleer could have signed most players to contracts allowing distribution of their cards with cookies. It is my understanding the 1963 Fleer set was not extended because sales of the first "series" were disappointing. Kids were already hooked on the idea they gum was needed to be in a pack of baseball cards.