NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-18-2021, 09:48 AM
chriskim chriskim is offline
Chris Kim
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: NY
Posts: 533
Default Who own the copyright of t205 images?

I am thinking to put together a website of T205s and I certainly don't want to get in trouble of getting sue showing any copyrighted images. I wonder who own the copyright of those images of T205s?

Also, if someone own a T205 miscut piedmont back, does that collector own the copyright of the image of that miscut image?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-18-2021, 10:05 AM
Aquarian Sports Cards Aquarian Sports Cards is offline
Scott Russell
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,297
Default

over 100 years old. pretty sure they are public domain
__________________
Check out https://www.thecollectorconnection.com Always looking for consignments 717.327.8915 We sell your less expensive pre-war cards individually instead of in bulk lots to make YOU the most money possible!

and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thecollectorconnectionauctions
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-18-2021, 10:27 AM
chriskim chriskim is offline
Chris Kim
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: NY
Posts: 533
Default

My main question is for those people who own those PSA10 t205 or t205 errors, do they actually own the image copyright of his cards?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-18-2021, 10:44 AM
Jason19th Jason19th is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 854
Default

I don’t think that copyright is the correct legal principal. I think the issue is can you publish an image of someone’s personal property without their permission. Rather then thinking of the image I think you need to think of the singular object. I would tend to think that you could not publish it without permission.

Last edited by Jason19th; 04-18-2021 at 10:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-18-2021, 11:12 AM
swarmee's Avatar
swarmee swarmee is offline
J0hn Raff3rty
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Niceville FL
Posts: 6,902
Default

You should figure out who can create NFTs of high grade vintage cards! Ca-ching!
__________________
--
PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head
PSA: Regularly Get Cheated
BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern
SGC: Closed auto authentication business
JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC
Oh, what a difference a year makes.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-18-2021, 11:26 AM
dbrown dbrown is offline
D Brown
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 126
Default

There is case law on this -- Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel (1999) "ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge..._v._Corel_Corp.)

Miscuts, variations, etc., were still published, and are thus in the public domain. Unpublished material can be a whole other ball of wax, if IP ownership has been carefully managed, as with a few long-term literary estates.

(I am not a lawyer so don't depend on my info for your legal cases, please.)

If you're making an image of a slabbed card -- photo or scan, doesn't matter -- you'd have a better argument that it is a unique, copyright-able work, since the presence of the card's unique ID # etc. make it more than an exact copy of a public domain image.

All that said, it would still be wise and polite to get permission.

Last edited by dbrown; 04-18-2021 at 12:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-18-2021, 12:33 PM
chriskim chriskim is offline
Chris Kim
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: NY
Posts: 533
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbrown View Post
There is case law on this -- Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel (1999) "ruled that exact photographic copies of*public domain*images could not be protected by*copyright*in the United States because the copies lack*originality."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge..._v._Corel_Corp.)

Miscuts, variations, etc., were still published, and are thus in the public domain. Unpublished material can be a whole other ball of wax, if IP ownership has been carefully managed, as with a few long-term literary estates.

(I am not a lawyer so don't depend on my info for your legal cases, please.)

If you're making an image of a slabbed card -- photo or scan, doesn't matter -- you'd have a better argument that it is a unique, copyright-able work, since the presence of the card's unique ID # etc. make it more than an exact copy of a public domain image.

All that said, it would still be wise and polite to get permission.

thx for the info. it would be tough for me to seek for permission from the owners of those cards. I am just trying to share all those t205 oddities images that I have collected from the internet for the past 25+ yrs. I just hope no one would mind me sharing their precious t205 collection with others, that's all.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-18-2021, 12:35 PM
packs packs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,317
Default

Newspapers publish social media posts they pull from people all the time. I think you just need to credit the source.

Last edited by packs; 04-18-2021 at 12:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-18-2021, 04:16 PM
RCMcKenzie's Avatar
RCMcKenzie RCMcKenzie is offline
Rob
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: TX
Posts: 3,023
Default

When I want to post an example of a card that I no longer own, or simply found on the internet, like this yellow Leever, I say in my post (not my card).
Attached Images
File Type: jpg t205leeverpink.jpg (63.5 KB, 533 views)
File Type: jpg t205leeveryellow2.jpg (75.2 KB, 531 views)
__________________
Want to buy or trade for T213-1 (Bob Rhoades)
Other Louisiana issues T216 T215 T214 T213 Etc
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-18-2021, 04:28 PM
doug.goodman doug.goodman is offline
Doug Goodman
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the road again...
Posts: 4,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chriskim View Post
I am thinking to put together a website of T205s and I certainly don't want to get in trouble of getting sue showing any copyrighted images. I wonder who own the copyright of those images of T205s?

Also, if someone own a T205 miscut piedmont back, does that collector own the copyright of the image of that miscut image?
Well, if anything you are worrying about is valid than I'm not the only person on this site with big issues involving my posts and my flickr site.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-18-2021, 09:16 PM
FrankWakefield FrankWakefield is offline
Frank Wakefield
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Franklin KY
Posts: 2,718
Default

Use a picture showing the card, NOT the slab, not the slip.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-18-2021, 09:58 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,466
Default

Public domain
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-19-2021, 07:28 AM
topcat61 topcat61 is offline
Ryan
Ryan McCla.nahan
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 247
Default

I can only speak for myself here as a publisher, but there is an exemption for copywritten material and images if the material used is for educational purposes. In the case of subjects of the T205 set, they all granted access to use their image and are now in the public domain. With that said, I cant say the same for the T207 set, or all sets.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-23-2021, 06:20 PM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is offline
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 34,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by topcat61 View Post
I can only speak for myself here as a publisher, but there is an exemption for copywritten material and images if the material used is for educational purposes. In the case of subjects of the T205 set, they all granted access to use their image and are now in the public domain. With that said, I cant say the same for the T207 set, or all sets.
That's kind of interesting.
I would have thought most pre war sets images would be public domain by now.

And any chance to show Cobby...

__________________
Leon Luckey
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-23-2021, 09:37 PM
dbrown dbrown is offline
D Brown
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 126
Default

Works published or registered before January 1, 1978, had a maximum of 95 years of copyright protection -- so anything published before 4/23/26 (as of today) should be public domain. The copyright owner had to renew their copyright to get that maximum benefit, though, so with research one could find plenty of things published after 1926 that crossed into the public domain.

The initial copyright term was 28 years, so anything that wasn't renewed became p.d. long ago.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Copyright law changed significantly around 1978.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-24-2021, 08:45 AM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 13,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie View Post
When I want to post an example of a card that I no longer own, or simply found on the internet, like this yellow Leever, I say in my post (not my card).
The yellow one looks better than the pink one.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true.

https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/

Or not...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-24-2021, 04:41 PM
RCMcKenzie's Avatar
RCMcKenzie RCMcKenzie is offline
Rob
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: TX
Posts: 3,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post
The yellow one looks better than the pink one.
Although I think it's kind of neat, your view was shared by most of the people that commented on it when I first posted it. The seller and others viewed it as a sun-bleached, nothing-burger. (cards posted for educational purposes only)
__________________
Want to buy or trade for T213-1 (Bob Rhoades)
Other Louisiana issues T216 T215 T214 T213 Etc
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-24-2021, 05:06 PM
Mark17's Avatar
Mark17 Mark17 is offline
M@rk S@tterstr0m
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbrown View Post
Works published or registered before January 1, 1978, had a maximum of 95 years of copyright protection -- so anything published before 4/23/26 (as of today) should be public domain. The copyright owner had to renew their copyright to get that maximum benefit, though, so with research one could find plenty of things published after 1926 that crossed into the public domain.

The initial copyright term was 28 years, so anything that wasn't renewed became p.d. long ago.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Copyright law changed significantly around 1978.
Were early Topps and Bowman sets renewed, or did some of them fall into public domain?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-24-2021, 06:24 PM
darkhorse9 darkhorse9 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 829
Default

Allow me to clarify this for everyone.

The issue isn't the item being photographed, but the photograph itself.

Copyright for any photo are owned by the person who took the photo. If I took a picture of an 1888 card, I would own the copyright. It doesn't matter who owns the original card or any original image when the card was produced.

It's perfectly legal to take a picture of a 2021 Topps card and publish it. As long as your not claiming original source material the copyright for the picture belongs to you.

The only time such matters might come into question is if you were to use the image for marketing use. There's some grey area there.

Bottom line, if you want to grab a picture of a card off eBay or someone's website, better get approval from them.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-24-2021, 10:15 PM
todeen's Avatar
todeen todeen is offline
Tim Odeen
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,892
Default

Here is my thought... there is a website documenting all known T206 Honus Wagners. How is that site creator able to do it?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
__________________
Barry Larkin, Joey Votto, Tris Speaker, 1930-45 Cincinnati Reds, T206 Cincinnati
Successful deals with: Banksfan14, Brianp-beme, Bumpus Jones, Dacubfan (x5), Dstrawberryfan39, Ed_Hutchinson, Fballguy, fusorcruiser (x2), GoCalBears, Gorditadog, Luke, MikeKam, Moosedog, Nineunder71, Powdered H20, PSU, Ronniehatesjazz, Roarfrom34, Sebie43, Seven, and Wondo
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-25-2021, 07:41 PM
dbrown dbrown is offline
D Brown
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 126
Default

>> "Copyright for any photo are owned by the person who took the photo. If I took a picture of an 1888 card, I would own the copyright. It doesn't matter who owns the original card or any original image when the card was produced."

Bridgeman v. Corel says the opposite, that Bridgeman could not claim copyright to an exact copy of an existing public domain image.

Why? Because copyright law's intention is to promote and protect original creative work, and the court concluded that an exact copy of a public domain image is not an original creative work.

If a photo includes *anything* more than just the original image (like a PSA flip?) then this decision probably doesn't apply. It's pretty narrow.

>> It's perfectly legal to take a picture of a 2021 Topps card and publish it. As long as your not claiming original source material the copyright for the picture belongs to you.

This probably isn't true. First, Topps owns the copyright to that card, front and back, and that gives it protection** from someone taking a picture of their card and publishing it. Second, everything in MLB is draped in layers of trademark now — the appearance of the ® next to team names was a horrific development. The logos are trademarked, the team names are trademarked, the players' likenesses/publicity rights are protected.

** which doesn't mean Topps is going to come after you for damages, but they have that right

Topps or MLB can't prohibit you from taking a photo of a 2021 Topps card -- and you'll own the copyright on that image -- but that doesn't mean you can *publish* it without stepping on others' rights and opening yourself up to legal liability.

In the normal course of events — like putting up an image of a 2021 topps card on your instagram, or creating a website of your personal collection — none of this really matters, until or unless you create a commercial product.

---
The question of reproducing someone else's cards — like all the Wagners — is a good one and I doubt there's any good legal decision that gives us an answer. I looked at "The Photographic Baseball Cards of Goodwin & Company" for guidance here -- individuals who owned cards used in the book are acknowledged up front, though not card-by-card. Institutions who own cards used in the book are acknowledged in the back, with credits for specific images.

Which is interesting, because the Bridgeman decision basically said that you don't need to get permission from and/or pay the source for an exact copy of a public domain image, because the source can't claim they own the copyright. But it did not open up an era of free-for-all image reproduction -- people still ask for permission and pay reproduction fees.

(I am not a lawyer but used to work with image rights and find the whole subject very interesting.)


David
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-26-2021, 10:53 AM
darkhorse9 darkhorse9 is offline
Mark
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 829
Default

You are correct that the issue of copyright is, and always has been a grey one. I've been dealing with Intellectual Property laws for decades and things are always clear as mud there.

Digital media has confused things a lot, but it's about to get MUCH worse with the NIL rules in college sports.

Back to the subject at hand. There is no law preventing you from taking a picture of an item you own and publishing it where you want, unless you are using it for the same purpose as the original intent (i.e. taking a picture of a baseball card and selling it as a baseball card. From a copyright standpoint there's nothing that stops you from taking a picture of a painting in a gallery and publishing that. The only preventative is that usually, when you enter a gallery, there's an expressed contractual agreement of no photography allowed. It's not a copyright problem, it's a legal contract problem.

The game changer involved in pictures of baseball cards on a web site is that they can clearly be defended as fair use under the clause that allows educational study, parody or other ancillary use of the image.

Again, grey areas exist. You can take a picture at a baseball game and publish that with no problem, but you can't use a picture of the television broadcast of the game "without the express written consent of Major League Baseball".

Legally you can't show televised games in a bar without a license. You can't have music playing (even from your own playlist) over your store speakers without a license, you can't show a movie that you own the DVD of in a public place without a license. That's all because entertainment distribution was the original protected origin of the copyright. Broadcasting it in public violates the copyright because the copyright holder can show damages.

I seriously doubt anyone would ever go to jail or get sued over a picture of a baseball card on a web site. There just isn't any legal strength to stand on there. I doubt Topps could prove harm to their copyright protections because a guy posted a card on a website.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who holds the copyright for the ACC? judsonhamlin Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 12 12-07-2023 04:16 PM
T205 images not from Paul Thompson photos gonzo Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 4 07-17-2019 03:53 PM
PSA Copyright question smotan_02 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 15 03-01-2013 03:22 AM
Digital Millenium Copyright Act Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 29 08-30-2005 02:17 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:20 AM.


ebay GSB