Site Forum

I was checking the Herschel Walker page today, and I noticed a new space for a card.  The 2016 Bob Lemke All American set (unlicensed).  There are four or five examples of the cards in the checklist, all sumbitted by the same guy.  I don't think these unlicensed sets should be allowed to be listed on here.  I know this has been discussed, but can't Administration step in and say licensed cards only?

The design is a ripoff of a copyrighted design, so yes it should not belong here.

Admin created an "Unlicensed" category, so he must approve of adding them.  Lots of people collect them.  Lots of people think they are garbage.  But they do exist, and they are cards.

That's a big can of worms to open up, if you ask me.

First, it's "Bob Lemke". He was the former editor of various sports card publications, including the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards.  He was well known for his blog and making custom cards. http://boblemke.blogspot.com/2016/12/checklist-1960-77-custom-football-cards.html

Custom cards are not allowed since they use copyrighted designs. It also violates site guidelines because it contains current players.

I'm not sure what you're saying, C2.  Are you saying that because it's, "Bob Lemke", with his credentials, that the set should be allowed in?  Or are you saying that, despite it being Lemke, the set should be disallowed because it's based on a copyrighted set?

I'd like to start a campaign for a new term for the truly unlicensed. There's a difference between Panini not having the MLB license to use team names and logos; and bootleggers who have no permission to use team names or logos, nor the player's images, nor the copyrighted photos.

I think "BOOTLEG" would be a better term/category.  We can refer to them as BUGs (Bootleg Unlicensed Garbage).

I looked at the one card with a back image, unlikely these were produced by Bob Lemke.  He put his own copyright line on his custom card, ©B.C.C. or ©B.O.B. or ©B.C.G.C.

https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/239409/cid/14911004/2016-Bob-Lemkes-1955-All-American-(Unlicensed)-101-Peyton-Manning?PageIndex=1

I agree with switz. ADMIN felt that unlicensed cards were "cards", should be allowed and therefore made a category for them.

TCDb has so many different categories of cards, I don't see the big deal, if you don't like them, don't click on them, trade for them or anything else. Licensed or Unlicensed. And Who decides? That's the can of worms. My guess, would be that ADMIN added the category, so he didn't have to make decisions everytime a post like this comes up.

Maybe the distinguishing difference is "homemade" cards, and then I agree [accept C2C business cards] or any other card a member makes that memoralizes the site. ex. Site All-Stars.

So to conclude, it's no secret that I/m in favor of other collectibles being allowed, but that wouldn't happen unless ADMIN decides there is substantial evidence to list them.. Look back in history, to Jello Molds and Coasters. Actually there are Coasters listed but only with ADMIN's specific OK. I have been reminded many times, that ADMIN drives the bus and we are all passengers. lol, ~bob~

I think the issue with the unlicensed products is that it touches the borderline of illegal.  Not like we are we re-producing the cards for sale or anything of the such, but the digital legality is very broad.  

Panini are not unlicensed products.  They have a license with MLBPA so they are allowed to use the players images and such, but no license with the MLB, so they can't use the MLB logos and team names.

With the site "reproducing" images of the unlicensed cards, therein lies the issue with legalities.