Seriously????

Not sure if same guy but there was a Gretzky 1/1 starting at like $250at the beginning of the week.. seems he is at least on FB cause after most comments were posted there were edits done to the listings.

it's a shame they have to do this and take someone for a ride
 
gomaz said:
Definition of "counterfeit": made in exact imitation of something valuable or important with the intention to deceive or defraud.

This particular card doesn't get caught by any part of this definition, i.e., it is not an exact imitation of any card that ever existed (this card did not have a 1/1 parallel), and there is no intention to deceive or defraud (the first word in the listing is "custom").

I'll stick with my applause for a very nice creation as I am not applauding a counterfeiter. Rather I am applauding an artist who took inspiration from an original UD design.

I'm also not concerned about this piece having any effect on UD or the NHL's business or revenues or reputation.

I'll add that there is a new fad in the hobby of artists taking original cards and painting on them and selling them as 1/1 artistic creations. Something else I have zero issue with and applaud the artists for their innovation and skills. But I'm sure some people on here will be offended by them. That's just the world we live in now, everything offends somebody.
Click to expand...

I'll be eating crow on the show tomorrow for the bolded comments above. I'll leave it at that for tonight but tomorrow's show is going to be very informative regarding the current legal action landscape of the hobby. And we will learn the legal implications of the card that inspired this thread and the cause of my meal of crow. :devil:
 
Looking at the sellers others items for sale and he has 2 "Printing Plate Booklet" auctions but nowhere do they say who the player is?
 
gomaz said:
I'll be eating crow on the show tomorrow for the bolded comments above. I'll leave it at that for tonight but tomorrow's show is going to be very informative regarding the current legal action landscape of the hobby. And we will learn the legal implications of the card that inspired this thread and the cause of my meal of crow. :devil:
Click to expand...

:clap:

:D
 
I don't see this as a counterfeit as it's not trying to deceive someone that it's something it's not -- however, there is definitely intellectual property infringement here. The design is almost identical to that of UD; and throw in some trademark infringement on the Capitals and NHL logo and I think it's a no go.

Some say small potatoes, but if you are asking between $1,500 - $5,000 as this auction is that will raise some eyebrows. As the legal team for UD, the NHL, or the Caps who's to say the seller doesn't have more of these ready to sell; or plans to sell more if this one were to sell.

FYI, I work with businesses and IP is something that comes up often in our discussions.

Otherwise I think customs are cool -- I have a few in my own collection that I had commissioned (used real autographs and patches) but they are strictly for my own enjoyment (mainly created patch/autos of players that never had patch autos officially produced).
 
Good responses people....thanks!

I think most of my SERIOUSLY??? post was the price they were charging for their custom card. No sane person would pay that much.

Maybe it's just their way of showing off their custom card for all to see with no intentions of ever selling it. That way they don't need to use Photobucket or FLICKR either...all their card scans are stored on eBay as cards for sale listed as auctions "until they sell". And if someone bites on their outrageous prices...BONUS!!! Sort of like thehedgehopper on eBay with his Lemieux collection. :devil:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/14-15-ITG-...594035?hash=item36612d51f3:g:BeIAAOSwZd1VY3RF

--Curt
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
gomaz said:
I'll be eating crow on the show tomorrow for the bolded comments above. I'll leave it at that for tonight but tomorrow's show is going to be very informative regarding the current legal action landscape of the hobby. And we will learn the legal implications of the card that inspired this thread and the cause of my meal of crow. :devil:
Click to expand...

This is an interesting thread and topic, thanks Curt for bringing it up.

Looking at the auction in question, the listing states that it is a custom card clearly (I do not believe there is intention to deceive a potential buyer by passing it off as real). The seller can ask for whatever he wants (though I agree it is probably a tad overpriced for what the item is, but who am I to judge).

The second thing brought up about this card is the infringement of copyright/intellectual property issue, which is a fair point.

To be very by the book, infringement of copyright potentially occurs all the time in our hobby. Examples include the auction in question, selling a photo downloaded off google (without paying a fee to the original photographer), a kid drawing the Oilers logo in a school project, a guy dressing up as a Connor McDavid YG card for Halloween, so on so forth.

I don't work in law, but I crudely understand that in Canada, these types of scenarios fall under the category "non-commercial user-generated content." It is NOT infringement of copyright for someone to use an existing work for which copyright subsists (Upper Deck Spx in this case), in the creation of a new work (the Ovechkin custom card), AND disseminate it (sell it), provided (paraphrased):

1. this is done for non-commercial purposes --> any legal experts out there? I think in this case, because there is only a 1of1 copy of this custom, it wouldn't be considered "commercial"

2. the source is mentioned if reasonable --> probably the seller should actually indicate that his custom is inspired by 05-06 Spx

3. the person making the custom card has reasonable grounds to believe what he is doing is not infringement (see points 1 and 2)

4. dissemination of the new work (custom card) does not have substantial adverse effect (financial or otherwise), on an existing market for (that is, the market potential for Upper Deck) the existing work or subject matter --> as Jeremy mentioned earlier, this 1of1 even selling at $5000 would be peanuts relative to the grander market for Upper Deck Spx

It would be different I think if he had 10000 copies of this, and each of them was going for $5000. Then item #4 would become an issue.
Also, importantly, the card here is custom (not a carbon copy reproduction of the original Ovechkin Spx RC) -- because otherwise, that would fall under "reproduction for private purposes."

The Crosby YG exact reproductions brought up in another thread, is more likely a case of copyright infringement, because it is an exact copy, it was likely NOT produced legally (e.g. buying the rights to those Crosby printing plates from UD), and clearly, that seller was disseminating many copies of it (reproduction was NOT solely for private purposes).

For reproductions, it would be ok to make a copy of a Crosby YG and put it in your 05-06 series 1 binder as a proxy for example, so long as it stays there and is not given away freely.

Anyhow, this post was NOT meant to provide legal advice; really, maybe it will help stimulate some discussion on tonight's episode of Sports Cards Live given we have a legal expert as a guest!

And, do correct any misconceptions I have stated above if you see them!

Cheers
 
Sorry Jeremy, I only caught a few minutes last night. What was the outcome on the Ovy? When I re-read the thread I remembered that I said “like a counterfeit” not that it was a counterfeit (so no need for the definition but thank you :beer:).

Should we be avoiding these, be it to deny the enabling or to avoid contact with cards that may not be in compliance with legal standards? I don’t think any of us are losing sleep over it, but I am truly intrigued.

Glenn
 
sbangayan86 said:
This is an interesting thread and topic, thanks Curt for bringing it up.

Looking at the auction in question, the listing states that it is a custom card clearly (I do not believe there is intention to deceive a potential buyer by passing it off as real). The seller can ask for whatever he wants (though I agree it is probably a tad overpriced for what the item is, but who am I to judge).

The second thing brought up about this card is the infringement of copyright/intellectual property issue, which is a fair point.

To be very by the book, infringement of copyright potentially occurs all the time in our hobby. Examples include the auction in question, selling a photo downloaded off google (without paying a fee to the original photographer), a kid drawing the Oilers logo in a school project, a guy dressing up as a Connor McDavid YG card for Halloween, so on so forth.

I don't work in law, but I crudely understand that in Canada, these types of scenarios fall under the category "non-commercial user-generated content." It is NOT infringement of copyright for someone to use an existing work for which copyright subsists (Upper Deck Spx in this case), in the creation of a new work (the Ovechkin custom card), AND disseminate it (sell it), provided (paraphrased):

1. this is done for non-commercial purposes --> any legal experts out there? I think in this case, because there is only a 1of1 copy of this custom, it wouldn't be considered "commercial"

2. the source is mentioned if reasonable --> probably the seller should actually indicate that his custom is inspired by 05-06 Spx

3. the person making the custom card has reasonable grounds to believe what he is doing is not infringement (see points 1 and 2)

4. dissemination of the new work (custom card) does not have substantial adverse effect (financial or otherwise), on an existing market for (that is, the market potential for Upper Deck) the existing work or subject matter --> as Jeremy mentioned earlier, this 1of1 even selling at $5000 would be peanuts relative to the grander market for Upper Deck Spx

It would be different I think if he had 10000 copies of this, and each of them was going for $5000. Then item #4 would become an issue.
Also, importantly, the card here is custom (not a carbon copy reproduction of the original Ovechkin Spx RC) -- because otherwise, that would fall under "reproduction for private purposes."

The Crosby YG exact reproductions brought up in another thread, is more likely a case of copyright infringement, because it is an exact copy, it was likely NOT produced legally (e.g. buying the rights to those Crosby printing plates from UD), and clearly, that seller was disseminating many copies of it (reproduction was NOT solely for private purposes).

For reproductions, it would be ok to make a copy of a Crosby YG and put it in your 05-06 series 1 binder as a proxy for example, so long as it stays there and is not given away freely.

Anyhow, this post was NOT meant to provide legal advice; really, maybe it will help stimulate some discussion on tonight's episode of Sports Cards Live given we have a legal expert as a guest!

And, do correct any misconceptions I have stated above if you see them!

Cheers
Click to expand...

I can tell you as a lawyer, there are a lot of legal issues with this card and the seller trying to sell it on Ebay. Many of the issues were discussed yesterday on Jeremy's show but even that didn't touch on all of the potential legal liability the seller may face by making and trying to sell this card. If Upper Deck, Alexander Ovechkin or the NHL wanted to they would have a strong case against this seller for damages.
 
Last edited:
g-force said:
I can tell you as a lawyer, there are a lot of legal issues with this card and the seller trying to sell it on Ebay. Many of the issues were discussed yesterday on Jeremy's show but even that didn't touch on all of the potential legal liability the seller may face by making and trying to sell this card. If Upper Deck, Alexander Ovechkin or the NHL wanted to they would have a strong casee against this seller for damages.
Click to expand...

I am a bit uncertain about these custom made cards. So is it illegal to make them, or is it illegal to sell them.Or both. I do not do either. But I have seen some of the work that some people do and they have a very nice looking product.And I certainly would not mind having some of them.Not for resale but to have custom made cards to add to my player collection.Should I from a legal point of view avoid them. Just curious is all.
 
winniescards said:
I am a bit uncertain about these custom made cards. So is it illegal to make them, or is it illegal to sell them.Or both. I do not do either. But I have seen some of the work that some people do and they have a very nice looking product.And I certainly would not mind having some of them.Not for resale but to have custom made cards to add to my player collection.Should I from a legal point of view avoid them. Just curious is all.
Click to expand...

Technically both are illegal from my perspective. The difference is that the person who makes it and keeps it themselves has not profited so it's extremely difficult for Upper Deck or anyone else to establish the amount of damage caused. As soon as it is transferred to someone else for some type of value, there are damages that can be claimed. It's the same reason Dr. Price and Brian Gray do not use logos or likeness of players they do not have contracts with. They know they can be sued. Quite simply, if this was legal, Brian Grey and Dr. Price would be making cards using team logos and players they have not contracted. They don't because they know it's illegal. Just because its someone in their basement does not change the legality of it. However, as I said, the person who keeps it for themselves there is no way Upper Deck can claim they have been damaged because it has not affected them.
 
winniescards said:
I am a bit uncertain about these custom made cards. So is it illegal to make them, or is it illegal to sell them.Or both. I do not do either. But I have seen some of the work that some people do and they have a very nice looking product.And I certainly would not mind having some of them.Not for resale but to have custom made cards to add to my player collection.Should I from a legal point of view avoid them. Just curious is all.
Click to expand...

Thanks g-force for weighing in. The episode with Paul Lesko was very informative and I recommend having a listen when you have time!

From what I took away from last night's episode with Lesko, and from g-force's post, the big issue comes from the selling of this custom card: as mentioned, multiple parties could take issue with this item including Ovechkin himself, the NHL, the NHLPA, Upper Deck. These parties have a duty to protect their trademarks, logos, etc., and someone like UD could potentially be harmed by not 'policing' these infringing items (e.g. losing their license with the NHL).

Making a custom card and displaying it on say social media, without selling it is a bit different it seems; it is akin to building your own cosplay costume based on a copyrighted character like Superman...there is technically some copyright issues there, but without the selling part, this is usually not problematic. Without the selling, it is more considered as fan-art per Lesko.

Buying or owning these shouldn't have any legal implications (as the buyer). It might just 'enable' more sellers to move similar 'custom' cards moving forward, which we should be wary of.

G-force, reasonable takeaways?
 
sbangayan86 said:
Thanks g-force for weighing in. The episode with Paul Lesko was very informative and I recommend having a listen when you have time!

From what I took away from last night's episode with Lesko, and from g-force's post, the big issue comes from the selling of this custom card: as mentioned, multiple parties could take issue with this item including Ovechkin himself, the NHL, the NHLPA, Upper Deck. These parties have a duty to protect their trademarks, logos, etc., and someone like UD could potentially be harmed by not 'policing' these infringing items (e.g. losing their license with the NHL).

Making a custom card and displaying it on say social media, without selling it is a bit different it seems; it is akin to building your own cosplay costume based on a copyrighted character like Superman...there is technically some copyright issues there, but without the selling part, this is usually not problematic. Without the selling, it is more considered as fan-art per Lesko.

Buying or owning these shouldn't have any legal implications (as the buyer). It might just 'enable' more sellers to move similar 'custom' cards moving forward, which we should be wary of.

G-force, reasonable takeaways?
Click to expand...

Yes, that largely sums up what Mr. Lesko said yesterday. I would largely defer to his opinions as he is more actively involved in this area of law than I am and has done a lot of legwork on this specific issue. I doubt as an owner that you would ever have anyone come and take the card away. Whether you want to support the practice by being a buyer is up to you.
 
g-force said:
Technically both are illegal from my perspective. The difference is that the person who makes it and keeps it themselves has not profited so it's extremely difficult for Upper Deck or anyone else to establish the amount of damage caused. As soon as it is transferred to someone else for some type of value, there are damages that can be claimed. It's the same reason Dr. Price and Brian Gray do not use logos or likeness of players they do not have contracts with. They know they can be sued. Quite simply, if this was legal, Brian Grey and Dr. Price would be making cards using team logos and players they have not contracted. They don't because they know it's illegal. Just because its someone in their basement does not change the legality of it. However, as I said, the person who keeps it for themselves there is no way Upper Deck can claim they have been damaged because it has not affected them.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for clearing some points that were unclear to me.So I guess if a person is having one built then stay clear of any team logos, and NHL crest. But the easiest way to make sure a person is 100% safe is to not engage in the purchase at all.Thanks again.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
389,473
Messages
2,232,883
Members
4,146
Latest member
E_Thom_Tech
Back
Top