2009 UD Signature Stars Baseball Is Live and with More Hat Logos

Yesterday some images of 2009 Upper Deck Ultimate Baseball started popping up. Now some 2009 Upper Deck Signature Stars Baseball has emerged as well. After much speculation, it looks like Upper Deck has tipped its hand: all things are go save for the actual logos and nicknames. Clearly these cards show logos and there's no real attempt of even hiding the fact. For the casual collector who doesn't bother following the legal wranglings of the hobby, they likely wouldn't notice any difference from Topps licensed cards. As evidenced by the Hanson, they've even come up with their own answer to the rookie card logo.

On the one hand, I give Upper Deck credit for making some nice looking cards. On the other, I'm really getting tired of them wanting to make up their own rules. Yes, they're a business that's out to make a profit, but they're not the rebel start-up that they once were.

Back in 1989 Upper Deck was something fresh and new. They really did revolutionize the hobby. It was easy to get behind them because they were forcing everyone to do a better job at producing cards. But more than two decades later, they're the establishment. They've got a massive market share in North America. These moves in baseball equate to me like a big, old flipping of the bird at Topps, Major League Baseball and anyone else who's bothering to pay attention. This is just the latest move of many that haven't been so much about competition as they've been about appearing petty to at least this collector. Other instances include the Sweet Spot Michael Buysner and the blatant ripoff of Topps designs masqueraded under the guise of O-Pee-Chee.

It seems obvious that Upper Deck is ready to fight with these baseball cards. Otherwise, why would they hold back releasing images? Just remember Upper Deck, you do hold an exclusive with hockey, which is going to make your argument seem a little superficial. But then again, maybe a small chunk of baseball is worth more than all of hockey.

In the long run, I find it difficult to see how Upper Deck will be successful in landing future licenses. By sticking their thumb up to baseball (not to mention the whole counterfeiting CCG thing), they're showing disrespect to the hobby that has made them what they are today. I know if I were a licensor with a brand name and image to protect, I'd be very leery when dealing with such attitudes. I may be way off base here, and if I am I'd love to hear different perspectives.

Update:

This card from the Signed, Sealed and Delivered insert set shows Upper Deck is still willing to mention the team names as well, not just the cities:

Upper Deck Involved in Another Lawsuit

Here's the article (from DailyRecord.com).

So Upper Deck's being sued for $40,000 by a golf memorabilia dealer. The plaintiff, Robert Zafian, is cheesed that he sent some Masters pin cup flags to the company and, as according to the suit, Upper Deck said they were "probably lost."

The $40,000 was determined based on what Zafian figues he could have sold the autographed flags minus his fees to Upper Deck for the signing.

Upper Deck has already reversed their charges for the signing and said they'd pay an additional $200 per flag in damages. But the price guide (gasp!) says unsigned Masters flags are worth $5000.

No word yet on if Paypal has been appointed judge in the case.

Upper Deck Sticks It to Topps One More Time

In light of the whole Upper Deck paying homage to Topps O-Pee-Chee lawsuit, including the 2009 O-Pee-Chee parallels that were supposed to mimic the 1971 design, I find this card from 2009 SP Legendary Cuts a little funny:

So do you think the card containing the disappearing ink penmanship to be from 1971 Topps Baseball or 1971 O-Pee-Chee Baseball?

Holy cow is that one ugly card. Ugly signature. Face cut off to protect image rights. Blech. The "new" part of the card has Martin on the Yankees but the not-so-obvious "inner card" has him on the Tigers. I love the clean stamp look of this year's SP Legendary Cuts but this card is pretty bad. But it can be found on eBay for a penny less than $175.

Smoke Screens Abound in Topper Deck Suit

I just read this interesting article from the Wall Street Journal about the Topps/Upper Deck (Topper Deck) suit. While there hasn't been any movement and the release of 2009 O-Pee-Chee Baseball still appears to be on, it does list some interesting points.

First, the obvious. Topps isn't liking the look of the O-Pee-Chee stuff. It's a little to deja vu.

Upper Deck's response: the 1970s Topps cards were posed. Theirs will feature action shots. Can we say smoke screen? I dunno, but I consider the design elements come from, well, the design, not so much the photo that sits around it. Don't get me wrong, the picture is key to any card, but color, fonts, borders, etc - those are the keys to design here. With that sort of argument Topps might as well counter and say that both cards are in English, therefore they're the same and Upper Deck should pay up.

I'm still under the belief that this suit's going to come down to the license Topps and O-Pee-Chee had. Did OPC own their borrowed designs or were they licensed. There's no doubt in my mind that Upper Deck is lifting Topps' designs. They're also lifting O-Pee-Chee's designs. But who do they ultimately belong to? And quite frankly, with a new O-Pee-Chee set on the horizon, I'm fine with letting the millionaires duke it out in court.

1971 O-Pee-Chee (Topps) Baseball

Notice the clear use of a posed photo.

2009 O-Pee-Chee (Upper Deck) Baseball Parallels

This card is soooo different. Forget the stylistic use of lower case letters, theblack borders holding a white frame, the upper case team name, that annoying dot. It's an action photo so it's not copying. End of story.

And in a 2-for-1 double post, here's the card of the day:

1971 Topps 5. Thurman Munson

 

 

I'm loving the crazy action shot. Dust in the air, immediate emotions on the face. I wonder if the unnamed Athletics player is safe or out. You couldn't pose something like this.

 

Upper Deck Clears Legal Hurdle in Topps Suit

From an Upper Deck press release:

Upper Deck Scores Legal Victory Against Topps

Sports Card Company Firmly Denies Topps’ Allegations of Any Wrong-Doing

North Las Vegas, NV (April 15, 2009) – The Upper Deck Company won a legal victory today when a New York judge denied a Temporary Restraining Order sought by Topps to prevent the release of 2009 Upper Deck Series Two and 2009 O-Pee-Chee baseball card products.

Yesterday, the Topps Company filed a lawsuit against Upper Deck claiming copyright infringement. Upper Deck strongly denies the allegations and did, in fact, do its due diligence when researching, clearing and securing approvals to use the card designs. Upper Deck received necessary legal approvals and proper protocol was followed to ensure there were no infringements.

“Based on the tactics utilized by Topps thus far, Upper Deck questions the validity of this claim,” said Bernd Becker, Upper Deck’s vice president of Trading Cards. “We strongly disagree with the allegations. In today’s challenging economic environment, it seems petty and counterproductive to file such a frivolous suit.”

So is that it then or is this just one small part of a larger war?

Topps Player Contracts

I've heard about Topps selling some of their old player contracts via their eBay-affiliated Topps Vault, but I hadn't really given them much attention seeing as how the Topps Vault only ships within the US. This is odd to me seeing as how eTopps likes Canadians and you can get things shipped to Canada through their eStore, just not with the Topps Vault. Oh, well. I get to save some money, I guess. But man, did I want to bid on those A-Team proof cards.

I digress. Here's a little piece of interest for Yankees fans:

"Donald" Mattingly's 1989 Topps contract. $75 per year? WOW! And you have to use it to buy Topps swag. Interesting indeed.

By the time you read this, the Mattingly auction will likely have ended. But there's still plenty more to pick from including Ozzie Smith, Randy Johnson and Ron Kittle. Not to mention Wolverine and Rogue, but the mutants are from a different seller.