Quote:
Originally Posted by jacksoncoupage
This is very helpful info and much appreciated. It seems a very likely explanation for the card from a production error perspective and it may be all that there is to it. Have you completely ruled out there being a non-production-error reason to add, cover and/or remove the copyright line? Do you think there is any chance that the removal of the copyright was the final version?
I am not certain I can rule out other possibilities for the changes yet. I find it very unusual that Oliva, the only "fabricated card" of the TBC subjset that required a new card to be mocked-up had these issues while the other TBC cards on the same sheet (in close proximity to the Oliva), did not. This may be nothing but hard to ignore that there could be some connection to it.
After reading George Vrechek's interview with Mike Jasperson, I sent Mike an email in hopes that he had any info on the card. I'm doubtful that he would recall the card in any way but a lead on the production proof of the card could be very helpful and worth following. I dp recall several years back when Topps Vault was very active on ebay, regularly looking for proofs of the Oliva and coming up empty. |
There are lots of things that might happen outside of a production error.
Like the copyright line could be wrong somehow, and need to be removed quickly. That could be done on the press by scratching/scraping a box where the copyright was on the plate. But that would be a short term measure, like if the stripping dept was only in on days and the problem was found and a correction demanded during second or third shift.
I figure both of those are very unlikely, since the demand for an immediate repair would probably have to come from Topps, and they would be closed as well. There would probably also be a few cards with the incorrect line. (How many times has any card co actually stopped all the copies of a card from getting out? )
As far as I know, the copyright back then was only about the card it was on. Not like today where a retired player sometimes has the permissions printed on the card back.
If the no copyright was last, why? The notice with the circled C is about a registered copyright. Even if they found out that particular one didn't go through all they would have had to do was stone off the circled C and keep printing. The created image was subject to copyright when it was created, even if it wasn't registered.
Of course, the whole copyright notice could be stoned off, it's pretty small so removing it would maybe take a couple minutes.
The only scenarios I can think of
1 )Topps didn't have permission to use the picture. Which is very unlike Topps. At least in the late 70's early 80's they contracted with photographers to take pictures and got whatever the photographer produced, or at least the bulk of it. I think the guy I met kept a few pics from each session he did, but he also collected cards.
They would have used a photo in their files that they already had the rights to.
2) Hmm... Maybe... Tony Oliva never signed a contract, so in a way the card wasn't actually licensed and maybe couldn't have a copyright? They removed the copyright notice instead of pulling the card. That would be pretty strange and I'd think it would have made the hobby press back then.
3) Topps messed up and never filed for a copyright.
All those would be really strange, considering how many layers of proofing and approvals Topps had. Bu then... stuff like the 79 Bump Wills still got through so maybe?
It might be worth trying to search the copyright database, if it never got a registered copyright you might find all the other cards except that one.
I'm thinking the production error is the most likely.