Anyone have experience with Topps or other trading card company and know typical fee for licensing?
I was contacted by Leaf Cards and they gave me a price they normally pay but I don't have anyway to know if what they offered is legit or not.

With regards to Topps, they've used my image on a 2012 rookie card that has been distributed. The image was obtained and used without my permission so I'm looking to rectify that.

Thanks for any comments.
.sam

Sam....I don't have any info for licensing fees, however, I just have a question on how they obtained your image?

I'd say if anything you need to know a little bit of info, such as the press run and how exclusive your image is. Are you the only one to have a shot of the player ect. Using FotoQuote with no info I got around $1000, and thats with a press run of 1million-5mil. Which I kind of expect Topps to be doing.

As for Topps, I would like to know as well how they got it as well... And with that in mind it should be the normal rate doubled or tripled for unlicensed usage.

First, I want to know how they got the image. After that I will advise on the illegal usage thing.

You will NOT get anywhere near $1000. I usually get paid around $50-$100.

Richard Rowe wrote:
You will NOT get anywhere near $1000. I usually get paid around $50-$100.

I disagree. It was used and obtained without authorization. That's copyright infringement. Could be worth a high dollar amount with proper representation.

Im sorry, I did not read the post correctly. You are correct. He will definitely get paid.

At this point I don't know where they obtained the image. The player and his family had a copy but did not provide they say. I also provided a copy to a St. Louis newspaper who did a spread on rookies/draft picks. The writer tells me they did use the image in the spread but did not provide to anyone and were not contacted by Topps. I was contacted by other card companies. Did not provide them image. I have not been contacted by Topps.

I'm working on finding appropriate Topps contact through the player's agent. Have not spoken to the agent yet to find out what he knows.

.sam

sballew wrote:
At this point I don't know where they obtained the image. The player and his family had a copy but did not provide they say. I also provided a copy to a St. Louis newspaper who did a spread on rookies/draft picks. The writer tells me they did use the image in the spread but did not provide to anyone and were not contacted by Topps. I was contacted by other card companies. Did not provide them image. I have not been contacted by Topps.

I'm working on finding appropriate Topps contact through the player's agent. Have not spoken to the agent yet to find out what he knows.

.sam


Call them directly and ask to speak to a senior editor. Explain to him the situation and ask how they obtained the image.

I have to ask something just to be on the safe side because it has happened to me - you are 100% sure this is your image? There is no possibility of another photographer having a similar images (for example one guy shooting an inch to your right at the same time)?

It's a stupid and embarrassing mistake when you go on a tangent and it turns out not to be your photo

That would be embarassing. In this case I'm certain.

sballew wrote:
That would be embarassing. In this case I'm certain.

It's being used on multiple cards across many set platforms.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=steve+bean&_sacat=0&_from=R40

sballew wrote:
At this point I don't know where they obtained the image. The player and his family had a copy but did not provide they say. I also provided a copy to a St. Louis newspaper who did a spread on rookies/draft picks. The writer tells me they did use the image in the spread but did not provide to anyone and were not contacted by Topps. I was contacted by other card companies. Did not provide them image. I have not been contacted by Topps.

I'm working on finding appropriate Topps contact through the player's agent. Have not spoken to the agent yet to find out what he knows.

.sam


Does the team own a copy of the image?

Also, make sure the family didn't provide the image to anyone. If Topps tell you they got it from the family you have to call them out on it. Might not be worth it to preserve the relationship down the road.

any updates?

I removed the pic until I understand complete legal standing
and until I discuss with Topps.

I'll update the topic with new information when it makes sense.

I am interested to know if there are other photographers whose images
have been used by Topps for the Bowman Chrome rookie set with
or without licensing. Basically wondering if there is anyone else like myself
that has had their image used without permission.

Topps sent me a message via twitter saying they exclusively use gettyimages.
Clearly not the case. I've looked and found a Chrome rookie card for all
the HS players drafted in 1st round. Doubtful getty would have image for these
high schoolers so the images came from other photogs. And all likely
derivative works because none of the players have played wearing
actual uniform of the MLB team as reflected on the cards.

sballew wrote:
Topps sent me a message via twitter saying they exclusively use gettyimages.


They are supposed to use Getty exclusively. If you want to take the time you can search for the players name on the Getty site and see if the image from the card is there.

http://www.gettyimages.com/sport

sballew wrote:
Topps sent me a message via twitter saying they exclusively use gettyimages.


Also, at this point, get a lawyer and have no more personal contact with Topps. They are going to deny ever speaking with you about this matter and insist the image was purchased through the proper channels.

You need to make a list of every card the image appears on. Even the variations. That's considered another usage.

Again, I can not stress, make sure there is NO WAY AT ALL Topps could have obtained this image from any other source but yourself.

If you have problems finding a copyright lawyer, I know a few here in NY that would probably look at this case take it based on the information provided so far.

Let me know.