Erasing a Sub-Par Sketch: What Say You?

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by Spider-Fan

well, the card in question is for sale... so...

there is a reason people pay more for a licensed sketch card than identical 'fan art' PSCs - what is being done is passing off 'fan art' PSCs as official licensed sketch cards

yah and that is deceiving people if they are not aware of it

[webjon]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

it becomes a crime when you try to sell the altered card

How is it a crime? Unless you are misrepresenting it. . .

[webjon]

Originally Posted by monkeymcgee

Chevy owns its own IP, Topps does not own the IP for Star Wars. Star Wars copyright holders license the IP for that specific product under certain conditions (hence, the approval process). You modifying the Nova doesn't interfere with a licensed property.

An autograph is not a licensed property, so there's no issue with that legally IMO.

The ladybugy is not a licensed property--same thing.

Now, if you were to draw Charlie Brown on the Star Wars card, that might be a problem.

So, that's why I was taking on that part of the scenario.

If we have any IP lawyers around here, maybe they can offer more detail. I've attended some training on the topic, but it was a very superficial review.

So, if I can paraphrase, what you are saying is that it isn't illegal as long as you aren't drawing a copyrighted image. . . right?

That's the same thing I am saying. . . altering a sketch card isn't illegal. . .

Now putting an image on the card you don't have rights to may be copyright infringement (different argument, but original works of art are generally not going to get you in trouble, it's when you get into making copies or prints that you get in trouble).

[monkeymcgee]

Originally Posted by webjon

So, if I can paraphrase, what you are saying is that it isn't illegal as long as you aren't drawing a copyrighted image. . . right?

That's the same thing I am saying. . . altering a sketch card isn't illegal. . .

Now putting an image on the card you don't have rights to may be copyright infringement (different argument, but original works of art are generally not going to get you in trouble, it's when you get into making copies or prints that you get in trouble).

Yes, that's part of what I'm saying. But I'm also saying the sketch card itself has become a licensed property because it had to be approved by the license holder (either directly or through specific guidelines enforced by the card company).

If you do something to alter the card that would take it out of compliance with the license agreement, then there may be a legal issue.

Honestly, I could be completely wrong about this, but that was what I was trying to say.

[Rian Fike]

I really like this opinion, from another forum:

Bottom line is artists who want to sell their art in the open market, should try to produce sketches that people would never want to erase. It becomes like the old "if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around..." - type scenario. In this case, "if a card is more valuable when it is blank vs. when you add your "art" to it... "maybe you shouldn't be attempting art as a paying gig" type deal.

Of course for $1.50 per card the companies can't expect to get much better, but still...

[monkeymcgee]

Like I mentioned early, duds like the one that started this discussion are *not* very common. If they were, collectors would not be surprised to get one like that.

The fact is the vast majority of cards demonstrate some effort and time was put into them. You are never going to have a mass-release product that has high quality sketches for every hit. Personally, I think Marvel Premier comes the closest to that of any product I've seen (I know many of you disagree)--take the worst of Premier and it's an average sketch in most other products.

I think it's realistic to expect poorly done cards like the one this thread is about to not be in products because frankly there aren't that many that are as poorly done as the Ackbar.

It can be solved relatively easily IMO--either by the artists or by the card companies--simply by having a standard that they follow which would not impact the vast majority of cards they already pack out.

[Rian Fike]

Well said. I agree 100%.

[Incarnadine]

While those sketches may not be as common now, for some sets they would make up half of a case, or more.

Look back at those Indiana Jones sets from TOPPS: Woodside, Waterhouse, Gould and others. They did literally thousands of these low quality sketches ( If I remember, for just 1 set Woodside and Waterhouse did 5000 sketches each, and Gould did 2000, that's 12000 of these sketches) and did the same images over and over again and they usually accounted for half the sketches in a case. I'm not sure I ever saw a case break without Waterhouse monkey sketch.

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by webjon

How is it a crime? Unless you are misrepresenting it. . .

its a crime to alter cards and then try to sell them..if you dont have the right to alter the card then there are major legal issues..it is common sense...and im sure this is what sellers will do or have done...i dont see how the artist would agree to alter it...

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by Incarnadine

While those sketches may not be as common now, for some sets they would make up half of a case, or more.

Look back at those Indiana Jones sets from TOPPS: Woodside, Waterhouse, Gould and others. They did literally thousands of these low quality sketches ( If I remember, for just 1 set Woodside and Waterhouse did 5000 sketches each, and Gould did 2000, that's 12000 of these sketches) and did the same images over and over again and they usually accounted for half the sketches in a case. I'm not sure I ever saw a case break without Waterhouse monkey sketch.

who cares, that is the price you pay.. how else do you expect for these companies to eat

[mikecthomas]

My first sketch ever was a pencil drawing by Davd Rabbitte. Simple, clean, and cool. I loved it, and I still do. I'm sure the compensation for sketch card artists has been debated to no end on these forums, but as a collector, art is art. Whether it's the pencil card I got, or the Charles Hall Elektra I pulled from the same set. Love em' both.

If I was making a living at this (i.e. buying and selling cards for profit) I can see myself being pissed investing such a huge amount of money ($100) and not getting something that was worth $200.00, or even $50.00. I can also see that the stock market is a much better place to invest money.

[baytowntex]

i guess some people like non official, non licensed artwork in there collection...

[eldavojohn]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

its a crime to alter cards and then try to sell them..if you dont have the right to alter the card then there are major legal issues..it is common sense...and im sure this is what sellers will do or have done...i dont see how the artist would agree to alter it...

Um, I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being a jerk but I'm starting to think that you actually think this is legally criminal activity. I am doubtful you could produce any statute or section of U.S. law that prevents the owner of a piece of art from defacing it -- licensed by a card manufacturer or not. I'm aware of the Berne Convention and some copyright law but I fail to see how any of that could apply to this situation.

I do understand that misrepresentation during a sale could be a civil (not criminal) suit but I'm failing to find anything in the books calling this illegal. As long as the information of the card's history is pushed forward, I don't see anyway you could charge anybody involved with anything.

Could the manufacturer blacklist all those involved in the operation? Sure, why not? You choose who you do business with.

To reiterate, I am super against this but I'm not so keen on stripping away people's rights to do with their possession as they so choose. This is a freedom that this country is founded upon. Again, it is morally reprehensible but not a crime.

Please stop calling it a crime unless you can cite what criminal charges should be brought forth!

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by mikecthomas

My first sketch ever was a pencil drawing by Davd Rabbitte. Simple, clean, and cool. I loved it, and I still do. I'm sure the compensation for sketch card artists has been debated to no end on these forums, but as a collector, art is art. Whether it's the pencil card I got, or the Charles Hall Elektra I pulled from the same set. Love em' both.

If I was making a living at this (i.e. buying and selling cards for profit) I can see myself being pissed investing such a huge amount of money ($100) and not getting something that was worth $200.00, or even $50.00. I can also see that the stock market is a much better place to invest money.

buying 100 dollar boxes hoping for a hit is not an investment, even if the buyer thinks it is, it is a gamble..

[mikecthomas]

It truly is a gamble. A bad one at that. It's a whole lot of fun, that's no gamble...but if you're looking to make money, it's a horrible way to do so.

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by eldavojohn

Um, I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being a jerk but I'm starting to think that you actually think this is legally criminal activity. I am doubtful you could produce any statute or section of U.S. law that prevents the owner of a piece of art from defacing it -- licensed by a card manufacturer or not. I'm aware of the Berne Convention and some copyright law but I fail to see how any of that could apply to this situation.

I do understand that misrepresentation during a sale could be a civil (not criminal) suit but I'm failing to find anything in the books calling this illegal. As long as the information of the card's history is pushed forward, I don't see anyway you could charge anybody involved with anything.

Could the manufacturer blacklist all those involved in the operation? Sure, why not? You choose who you do business with.

To reiterate, I am super against this but I'm not so keen on stripping away people's rights to do with their possession as they so choose. This is a freedom that this country is founded upon. Again, it is morally reprehensible but not a crime.

Please stop calling it a crime unless you can cite what criminal charges should be brought forth!

so when you misrepresent an item during a sale. it is not a crime? my wording may be off buy you know what i mean. and yes hopefully the history of the card will be pushed forward. i am talking about altering cards and trying to sell them as unaltered. what if the history isnt pushed forward, what happens then?

[Incarnadine]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

who cares, that is the price you pay.. how else do you expect for these companies to eat

While collectors should know better now, for the first Indiana Jones set nobody could know how bad it would be, not 1 of those cards was ever shown off by TOPPS or the artists before the set was released, and nobody knew how many of those sketches there would be.
While not every sketch will be a full color detailed masterpiece there should be some minimal level of quality.
This was bad for everyone, except TOPPS. Collectors that ordered at full price before knowing how bad it would be, sellers that were stuck with cases that were rapidly plummeting in value.

There is no reasonable defense for a set like this, cases were like $360 or so (8 box cases) and it was a pathetic effort from TOPPS as a pure cash grab.

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by Incarnadine

While collectors should know better now, for the first Indiana Jones set nobody could know how bad it would be, not 1 of those cards was ever shown off by TOPPS or the artists before the set was released, and nobody knew how many of those sketches there would be.
While not every sketch will be a full color detailed masterpiece there should be some minimal level of quality.
This was bad for everyone, except TOPPS. Collectors that ordered at full price before knowing how bad it would be, sellers that were stuck with cases that were rapidly plummeting in value.

There is no reasonable defense for a set like this, cases were like $360 or so (8 box cases) and it was a pathetic effort from TOPPS as a pure cash grab.

you are talking about the set with the best nonsports autograph line-up in existence. anyways you should be mad at trading card company for putting out the product if you dont like what comes in it, and not the artist.

[Incarnadine]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

you are talking about the set with the best nonsports autograph line-up in existence. anyways you should be mad at trading card company for putting out the product if you dont like what comes in it, and not the artist.

This isn't an either/or situation, both are at fault here. The artists who put out such clearly shoddy work, I mean, show some damn professional pride for crying out loud! and the company for not only allowing so many sketches from any artist, but for approving them for pack insertion. There is no way these cards should have passed quality control. What makes it even worse is that all those artists kept getting hired for other sets by TOPPS.
This kind of thing is just 1 of the reasons I gave up collecting sketches and buying any boxes/cases of sketch based sets, my collection now consists of exactly 2 sketches.

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by eldavojohn

Um, I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being a jerk but I'm starting to think that you actually think this is legally criminal activity. I am doubtful you could produce any statute or section of U.S. law that prevents the owner of a piece of art from defacing it -- licensed by a card manufacturer or not. I'm aware of the Berne Convention and some copyright law but I fail to see how any of that could apply to this situation.

I do understand that misrepresentation during a sale could be a civil (not criminal) suit but I'm failing to find anything in the books calling this illegal. As long as the information of the card's history is pushed forward, I don't see anyway you could charge anybody involved with anything.

Could the manufacturer blacklist all those involved in the operation? Sure, why not? You choose who you do business with.

To reiterate, I am super against this but I'm not so keen on stripping away people's rights to do with their possession as they so choose. This is a freedom that this country is founded upon. Again, it is morally reprehensible but not a crime.

Please stop calling it a crime unless you can cite what criminal charges should be brought forth!

just look at what happen to Mastro for altering and misrepresentation, go to fbi.gov to read what they have to say about altering trading cards..and it is a crime

Bill Mastro and two partners indicted on fraud charges#@stemming from massive sports memorabilia scam, including altering famous Honus Wagner card#@ - NY Daily News

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by Incarnadine

This isn't an either/or situation, both are at fault here. The artists who put out such clearly shoddy work, I mean, show some damn professional pride for crying out loud! and the company for not only allowing so many sketches from any artist, but for approving them for pack insertion. There is no way these cards should have passed quality control. What makes it even worse is that all those artists kept getting hired for other sets by TOPPS.
This kind of thing is just 1 of the reasons I gave up collecting sketches and buying any boxes/cases of sketch based sets, my collection now consists of exactly 2 sketches.

the artist just do their job.. they get paid a certian amount to put out certain quality. quality control? yah but if one of these artist were famous as picasso you would care i bet. stop supporting these companies if you dont like what they are doing

[baytowntex]

Im surprised it wasnt a monkey sketch..this one is on ebay,, just thought i share for those who only seen monkey sketches

[Incarnadine]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

the artist just do their job.. they get paid a certian amount to put out certain quality. quality control? yah but if one of these artist were famous as picasso you would care i bet. stop supporting these companies if you dont like what they are doing

So, from the sounds of it you believe everything falls on the collector. The companies are just trying to make money and the artists are just doing their job.

Those things only go so far, and the collectors are the ones taking the biggest loss since the company does make it's money and the artists do the sketches and get paid (well, there are stories of artists not getting paid too).

I also agree that collectors should put the hammer down, cut back orders and contact the companies in significant numbers after a truly bad set is released.

I did stop supporting those companies, I sold off my collection and don't buy sketches, boxes or cases of sketch based products.

[Incarnadine]

Originally Posted by baytowntex

Im surprised it wasnt a monkey sketch..this one is on ebay,, just thought i share for those who only seen monkey sketches

That was probably one of his AP's, I saw a couple of his AP's way back and he does have skill, not you'd know it by the sketches that get pulled.

[baytowntex]

Originally Posted by Incarnadine

So, from the sounds of it you believe everything falls on the collector. The companies are just trying to make money and the artists are just doing their job.

Those things only go so far, and the collectors are the ones taking the biggest loss since the company does make it's money and the artists do the sketches and get paid (well, there are stories of artists not getting paid too).

I also agree that collectors should put the hammer down, cut back orders and contact the companies in significant numbers after a truly bad set is released.

I did stop supporting those companies, I sold off my collection and don't buy sketches, boxes or cases of sketch based products.

no the GAMBLERS are taking the biggest loss, artwork is artwork and it doesnt matter how much YOU think its worth.