Topps Project 2020 is the worst product since 1991 Fleer

[mwheeler27]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Not sure why it makes you feel bad. I'm genuinely curious why Topps would align with that.

Align with what, exactly?

Are you saying you know for a fact one of the P2020 artists committed copyright infringement?

[redauto5]

Just bought 3 Rochester Trouts for $15 each from the same guy. Wonder if he will combine shipping?...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[justin80]

Are we going to see a new Money Bear tomorrow?

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by Elodin

I’m not trying to convince you of anything, but I suggest you read a little art history if you’re going to make these statements.

The soup cans debuted at his first art show ever in 1962. When the show moved to NYC he literally sold autographed soup cans, so you also can’t say it wasn’t about selling things.

Warhol Pop Art was almost exclusively about consumerism and it’s role in American society. All of these artists are using popular culture as a statement and to make money. There’s no distinction between them and Ermsy. You created one because you haven’t heard of him before this. He’s had plenty of art shows where these pieces have been created, sold as originals, and then remarketed ad prints.

I don't doubt you--I admittedly don't know much about Warhol.

With that said--if Warhol was selling the cans in 1962, the present governing Federal copyright laws didn't take effect until 1976. It appears that a big portion of copyright infringement prior to 1976 was based on various state laws, which were preempted by the the 1976 Act. It looks like fair use was a mere common law doctrine up until this 1976 Act, so I'm not sure how it would have been litigated in 1962.

Maybe there are some copyright experts on the board that can shed more light.

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by redauto5

Thanks for the kind words and gifs everyone. I'm putting my money where my mouth is on the "weekend of despair" prediction and continuing buying down here. I'm seeing some semblance of floors here for a few cards (Siff Ripken for one) but for the most part the price carnage continues. I know a bunch of wise people on this thread are predicting pricing to remain under pressure from here on out as they no longer see a runway to values holding for various reasons.

Those include print runs continuing to contract, devaluing what we all once thought were long gone low prints. Concerns about the sheer number of cards (400) in the set abound as well, and I see the point that the monies available to each card could dwindle as more pieces are released and people get P2020 fatigue.

I also would like to note the $$$ going to artists companion cards and autos does have the chance of diluting the values of what have now been called "base cards". I see this from a couple different perspectives. It's super exciting the artists are taking the time to do these things for us and am glad they are making hay while the sun shines. These offerings "flesh out" the project as a whole and give it more depth and life.

On the other hand, as a collector getting in late just trying to catch up on the base cards I missed (the first 80+ pieces) as well as not fall behind on the current offerings I just dont have the budget. Or I'm choosing to forego these extras in my attempts to catch the falling knife on earlier cards. Both hands are in pretty rough shape! Anyone find any fresh kingsfoil in the wild lately? I could use that healing draught.

Anyone else buying down here? I havent heard it mentioned much that I can remember. More chatter about liquidating or just holding, not worrying about price and just collecting the cards you like.

Off to my Ebay watchlist...

Eric

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Your entry into this thread and fresh enthusiasm is much appreciated.

I think the thread is a mix of people holding, continuing to buy new releases and people playing catch up on early releases at these now more affordable price points.

I'm attempting to make some trades so as to focus more on a couple player sets (Griffey & Thomas) rather than the assortment of artists and players that I currently have.

I think I speak for most of us when I say we're appreciating the thought you're putting into your posts as a new collector of P2020.

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Well, to be fair, Chris, this product has about a -500% ROI since I started posting.

Wait, is this copyright infringement?


.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by redauto5

Just bought 3 Rochester Trouts for $15 each from the same guy. Wonder if he will combine shipping?...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

NICE!

who was the seller?

[Chris P]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Well, to be fair, Chris, this product has about a -500% ROI since I started posting.

And to be fair you're just a jerk who enjoys talking down on this product and the people who enjoy it as much as you can..its pathetic

[Snakeonia]

Originally Posted by justin80

Are we going to see a new Money Bear tomorrow?

Money bear about the only card thats up in the last 11 days. Reprint hammer coming value to be sucked out in short order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MTBRM]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

I don't doubt you--I admittedly don't know much about Warhol.

With that said--if Warhol was selling the cans in 1962, the present governing Federal copyright laws didn't take effect until 1976. It appears that a big portion of copyright infringement prior to 1976 was based on various state laws, which were preempted by the the 1976 Act. It looks like fair use was a mere common law doctrine up until this 1976 Act, so I'm not sure how it would have been litigated in 1962.

Maybe there are some copyright experts on the board that can shed more light.

It's pretty apparent you don't know much about art period. I honestly doubt anyone in this thread cares about copyright law and how it relates to a street artist. You don't understand the culture, and that's fine, but making a mountain out of a molehill in regards to an artist's work is ridiculous.

Here's hoping he sneaks in a Garfield on the next card so we get 5 pages of you being miserable about it.

[Chris P]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Well, to be fair, Chris, this product has about a -500% ROI since I started posting.

Guess I don't get what your purpose is anymore. The set tanked. You won..yipeee...but that's not enough right..gotta nitpick at everything and degrade the artists (fly by bootlegger..seriously gtfo with this..so condescending). Do you really have nothing better to do than to crap all over a set you never liked from the get go?

[Chris P]

Originally Posted by MTBRM

It's pretty apparent you don't know much about art period. I honestly doubt anyone in this thread cares about copyright law and how it relates to a street artist. You don't understand the culture, and that's fine, but making a mountain out of a molehill in regards to an artist's work is ridiculous.

Here's hoping he sneaks in a Garfield on the next card so we get 5 pages of you being miserable about it.

Well said..he'll find something else to pick at..don't worry..he's bored after all

[ThoseBackPages]

hes bored AND a lawyer

[Chris P]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

hes bored AND a lawyer

A very very bored lawyer

[Boredlawyer]

Originally Posted by mwheeler27

Align with what, exactly?

Are you saying you know for a fact one of the P2020 artists committed copyright infringement?

I don't know any of this for a fact--I explicitly stated that in my last post.

With that being said, I have never heard of a situation where Disney issue a copyright license for Winnie the Pooh drizzling honey all over Betty Boop's exposed breasts. (Sometimes Bart Simpson or Garfield watch.)

If Disney failed to issue a license for the above, then I assume the artist can only use the likeness of the characters if it falls under the fair use doctrine exception defined in the 1976 Copyright Act. This fair use test would analyze the following factors in determining whether the product fell within fair use:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

If we are talking about the Winnie the Pooh scene, my answers to the above would be:
1. Explicitly for profit
2. Heavily sexualized imagery of a fictitious character
3. The entirety of the work
4. Little effect on overall market

And #4 is why is no one has gone after this.

[redauto5]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

NICE!



who was the seller?

jasowannoma0. Not sure if that was a rhetorical question... Or should I say a TBP question?!? Heh.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[RAV2773]

Originally Posted by blakejamieson

The real question is - will he include all the cards im stuffing inside? I am guessing no. The fanny itself will prob hold value bc its the first one, but it was more of a vessel to get you guys a bunch of dope CardArt!

Blake will you still be zip tying the fannies? If so, any thoughts of using a unique zip ltie so that it cant be opened and re-sealed? Maybe a zip-tie with your name on it or painted on so that anyone buying these on the secondary market knows if it is still "factory sealed" or not. Also will some of the fannies still have randomly inserted P2020 signed cards inside? And a painted Nationals ticket inside? I think I remember you mentioning these possibilities in your early youtube videos.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by redauto5

jasowannoma0. Not sure if that was a rhetorical question... Or should I say a TBP question?!? Heh.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

wanted to see what else they were giving away! LOL

[redauto5]

Originally Posted by Jopeal

Your entry into this thread and fresh enthusiasm is much appreciated.

I think the thread is a mix of people holding, continuing to buy new releases and people playing catch up on early releases at these now more affordable price points.

I'm attempting to make some trades so as to focus more on a couple player sets (Griffey & Thomas) rather than the assortment of artists and players that I currently have.

I think I speak for most of us when I say we're appreciating the thought you're putting into your posts as a new collector of P2020.





Wait, is this copyright infringement?


.

Super happy to add my thoughts and glad they are appreciated! Looking forward to the slow and steady once this insanity dies down to be honest. I just cant help myself trying to time the bottom. Something deep within me gets a kick out of these things.

Good luck on your trades man.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Jopeal]

Originally Posted by redauto5

Super happy to add my thoughts and glad they are appreciated! Looking forward to the slow and steady once this insanity dies down to be honest. I just cant help myself trying to time the bottom. Something deep within me gets a kick out of these things.

Good luck on your trades man.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Thanks mate! I'd be right with you buying now if I wasn't already into the set for my allotted budget.

Saladeen Griffey trade anyone?

[elny43]

Topps' quality control with these cards has been atrocious. I just got a card in hand where there's something inside the case and a few scuff marks inside the case - it's in one of those no-name holders. Has anyone complained to Topps? I assume they won't do anything but still annoying.

[Elodin]

Last comment from me on this. It’s certainly an interesting discussion. But, I think the problem is you’re not giving Ermsy credit for doing any of this research on his own and that he’s just stealing copyrighted things.

There are “fair game” principles in the art world. The courts have ruled that artists can add “transformative value” to a piece of pop culture and make it their own. I’m not saying that Ermsy is or isn’t doing this, but to state that he’s a bootlegger and topps should be concerned is not the appropriate way to approach his art.

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

I don't know any of this for a fact--I explicitly stated that in my last post.

With that being said, I have never heard of a situation where Disney issue a copyright license for Winnie the Pooh drizzling honey all over Betty Boop's exposed breasts. (Sometimes Bart Simpson or Garfield watch.)

If Disney failed to issue a license for the above, then I assume the artist can only use the likeness of the characters if it falls under the fair use doctrine exception defined in the 1976 Copyright Act. This fair use test would analyze the following factors in determining whether the product fell within fair use:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

If we are talking about the Winnie the Pooh scene, my answers to the above would be:
1. Explicitly for profit
2. Heavily sexualized imagery of a fictitious character
3. The entirety of the work
4. Little effect on overall market

And #4 is why is no one has gone after this.

[Kobe101]

Originally Posted by Boredlawyer

Well, to be fair, Chris, this product has about a -500% ROI since I started posting.

Not everyone has -500% ROI on the set.... just like anything else it depends when you bought in.

If you don’t like the set that is your right but to constantly come into a thread that is solely about this set and constantly try to piss on it just makes you seem like such a miserable person.

Go be bored somewhere else.

[Chris P]

Originally Posted by Kobe101

Not everyone has -500% ROI on the set.... just like anything else it depends when you bought in.

If you don’t like the set that is your right but to constantly come into a thread that is solely about this set and constantly try to piss on it just makes you seem like such a miserable person.

Go be bored somewhere else.

Yep..but he wont listen..i wish he'd get clients to enlist his services so he wouldnt have time to post

[Ra3]

Originally Posted by Kobe101

Not everyone has -500% ROI on the set.... just like anything else it depends when you bought in.

If you don’t like the set that is your right but to constantly come into a thread that is solely about this set and constantly try to piss on it just makes you seem like such a miserable person.

Go be bored somewhere else.

Lol...I think it’s probable that NO ONE has a -500% ROI on this. Unless the statements about some people borrowing multiples of their equity base to buy multiples of new card issues really was true. In which case I’m not sure what to tell them...

[Kobe101]

Originally Posted by Chris P

Yep..but he wont listen..i wish he'd get clients to enlist his services so he wouldnt have time to post

Really it’s amazing how negative some people can be.

I am guessing he has a hard time getting and keeping clients!