Wacky Packages Forum
Wacky Packages Discussion => General Wacky Packages Discussion => Topic started by: Kook on March 24, 2015, 06:13:56 AM
-
Thought you would enjoy this courtesy of ebay. Looks like a nice 6th series pack. Gotta love that 70s "doo" :]
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DEM12-1974-Vtg-Topps-Wacky-Packages-Stickers-Gum-Dan-Marcouiller-Original-Photo-/181698690412?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a4e15fd6c
(http://s17.postimg.org/g485b3mij/Wacky_70s_photo_57.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/g485b3mij/)
-
Thought you would enjoy this courtesy of ebay. Looks like a nice 6th series pack. Gotta love that 70s "doo" :]
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DEM12-1974-Vtg-Topps-Wacky-Packages-Stickers-Gum-Dan-Marcouiller-Original-Photo-/181698690412?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a4e15fd6c
(http://s17.postimg.org/g485b3mij/Wacky_70s_photo_57.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/g485b3mij/)
Very nice. Man, runaway was such a hard pull for me.
Lol. Too bad it's from one of those time periods that can't be repeated. Unlike all those other eras which can be...
-
Pictures like this are very emotional to me. It drives home in an instant what motivates me to waste time and money on this stuff forty years later. For whatever crazy reason this stuff was a really important part of my life.
-
Thought you would enjoy this courtesy of ebay. Looks like a nice 6th series pack. Gotta love that 70s "doo" :]
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DEM12-1974-Vtg-Topps-Wacky-Packages-Stickers-Gum-Dan-Marcouiller-Original-Photo-/181698690412?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a4e15fd6c
(http://s17.postimg.org/g485b3mij/Wacky_70s_photo_57.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/g485b3mij/)
That is really cool.
-
Pictures like this are very emotional to me. It drives home in an instant what motivates me to waste time and money on this stuff forty years later. For whatever crazy reason this stuff was a really important part of my life.
Ditto
-
Pictures like this are very emotional to me. It drives home in an instant what motivates me to waste time and money on this stuff forty years later. For whatever crazy reason this stuff was a really important part of my life.
That picture reminds me of me at that age. Long hair and all. I know what you are feeling. I kept looking at it this morning while working. I finally broke down and bought it. It's a piece of Wacky history!
-
That picture reminds me of me at that age. Long hair and all. I know what you are feeling. I kept looking at it this morning while working. I finally broke down and bought it. It's a piece of Wacky history!
You beat me to it. I was considering it too. I think if it was still available tomorrow I probably would have pulled the trigger. That pic might look good in the header or footer of the forum website. Since you bought it, I would imagine you could use it...
-
I split this topic from the non-wacky discussions because this is real Wacky history. Some people may not read non-wacky stuff.
-
Pictures like this are very emotional to me. It drives home in an instant what motivates me to waste time and money on this stuff forty years later. For whatever crazy reason this stuff was a really important part of my life.
As far as I'm concerned, you're not wasting time or money if collecting and upgrading Wackys gives you pleasure.
Wackys were very important to me, too. It was such fun being out shopping with my mom and she'd sneak a pack into her purchase while I wasn't looking, and surprise me when we got home. And, I always looked forward to stocking stuffers!! Every year when we went lunchbox shopping we'd look all over, hoping to find a Wacky box. it's a shame they didn't make one of those.
-
Since you bought it, I would imagine you could use it...
Art ownership is not the same thing as image ownership....
-
Art ownership is not the same thing as image ownership....
Not to start a big heated debate over intellectual property but I have a couple questions:
1. This photo is over 40 years old so would it still be considered copyright infringement for personal use? I'm not planning on selling copies.
2. Now that I own the image wouldn't I now be the owner? It states that it was a press wire picture. Weren't these taken to be sold? I'm now the owner.
-
This is really cool! I hope you post a nice scan when you get it Brad.
Also interested in what looks like a news clipping on the back... I assume from the "Original News Press Wire Service"...whatever in the world that is
-
Not to start a big heated debate over intellectual property but I have a couple questions:
1. This photo is over 40 years old so would it still be considered copyright infringement for personal use? I'm not planning on selling copies.
2. Now that I own the image wouldn't I now be the owner? It states that it was a press wire picture. Weren't these taken to be sold? I'm now the owner.
I think "theoretically" you own the picture but the photographer owns the copyright. The photographer can sell you the image or the entire rights to the image by agreement. Without an agreement in force either way, you probably don't really have solid grounds for copyright ownership, but in reality, the chances of dealing with any legal issue over what you do with a picture taken 40 years ago is likely pretty negligible unless you stood to make big bucks with it somehow IMO.
-
Not to start a big heated debate over intellectual property but I have a couple questions:
1. This photo is over 40 years old so would it still be considered copyright infringement for personal use? I'm not planning on selling copies.
2. Now that I own the image wouldn't I now be the owner? It states that it was a press wire picture. Weren't these taken to be sold? I'm now the owner.
I'm not sure what the age limit is, but likely more than 40 yrs. Personal use is one thing and is fine. But selling is just one way to infringe. Reuse and reproduction rights covers a lot of areas.
My understanding is that you only own the photograph. The print. There is never a transfer of image rights unless specified.
Like Kook says though, this is all very trivial in this case.
That's my understanding. But I'm not a lawyer, I'm just staying at a holiday inn.
-
I think "theoretically" you own the picture but the photographer owns the copyright. The photographer can sell you the image or the entire rights to the image by agreement. Without an agreement in force either way, you probably don't really have solid grounds for copyright ownership, but in reality, the chances of dealing with any legal issue over what you do with a picture taken 40 years ago is likely pretty negligible unless you stood to make big bucks with it somehow IMO.
My understanding is there is nothing theoretical about it, only the physical object was sold and not the image.
And there is an agreement in force. There is *always* a tacit agreement that the creator of the image has the copyright ownership, unles there was an agreement otherwise to sell it.
-
When the group home found I was buying wacky packages they told me I was wasting my allowance. I said well you and the other guys buy cigarettes and burn the money, and they said well they needed them because they smoked. Boy there's no reasoning with some people. At least they didn't take my wackies away from me.
-
I'm not sure what the age limit is, but likely more than 40 yrs. Personal use is one thing and is fine. But selling is just one way to infringe. Reuse and reproduction rights covers a lot of areas.
My understanding is that you only own the photograph. The print. There is never a transfer of image rights unless specified.
Like Kook says though, this is all very trivial in this case.
That's my understanding. But I'm not a lawyer, I'm just staying at a holiday inn.
Overall I don't think we are going to have any lawyers knocking at my door over this picture. I don't plan on selling copies so it shouldn't matter at all. I'm also not charging any money for the forum so I'm making no profit of a picture. It's probably the same for using the logo for Wacky Packages. Topps hasn't come after me either.
-
Overall I don't think we are going to have any lawyers knocking at my door over this picture. I don't plan on selling copies so it shouldn't matter at all. I'm also not charging any money for the forum so I'm making no profit of a picture. It's probably the same for using the logo for Wacky Packages. Topps hasn't come after me either.
That was my point.
BTW, the kid in the pic reminds me of the one on the wacky patches box, (just a little longer hair).
(http://s11.postimg.org/6ajyerz9r/patch_box.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/6ajyerz9r/)
Pic courtesy of Rusty's site: http://www.lostwackys.com/1974-PATCHES-box-wacky-packages.htm
-
Overall I don't think we are going to have any lawyers knocking at my door over this picture. I don't plan on selling copies so it shouldn't matter at all. I'm also not charging any money for the forum so I'm making no profit of a picture. It's probably the same for using the logo for Wacky Packages. Topps hasn't come after me either.
Err, there's someone at the gate for you...
(http://s13.postimg.org/qq0xhfhhf/pitchforks_mob.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/qq0xhfhhf/)
-
It's interesting that the reporter described Wackys as meaningless, ridiculous, stupid and silly. I wonder if that was the prevailing opinion of adults at the time.
-
It's interesting that the reporter described Wackys as meaningless, ridiculous, stupid and silly. I wonder if that was the prevailing opinion of adults at the time.
Adults probably all thought the same thing.
-
Overall I don't think we are going to have any lawyers knocking at my door over this picture. I don't plan on selling copies so it shouldn't matter at all. I'm also not charging any money for the forum so I'm making no profit of a picture. It's probably the same for using the logo for Wacky Packages. Topps hasn't come after me either.
Selling or profiting is really only a part of it, and not the sole criteria.
But back to the picture - looks very staged to me. I think I shredded just about every pack I opened just tearing open those wrappers! 😛
-
I love it. I pass chrome wackies around at work and most of them remember them as kids and post them on their cubes!
-
I just got the Photo. Pretty cool since it's the original. I have to travel this week so hopefully next weekend I can scan it without all watermarks on it.
-
I like it too! I enjoy how nice and neat the situation is with the wrapper, stickers and puzzle all in line. Probably not an improvised shot ;) But cool! BBG
-
I like it too! I enjoy how nice and neat the situation is with the wrapper, stickers and puzzle all in line. Probably not an improvised shot ;) But cool! BBG
Didn't really think too much about it, but I tend to think this was an impromptu shot. It just doesn't matter...It just doesn't matter...It just doesn't matter...
:P
-
Impromptu or staged? Discuss.... Girl or boy? Discuss... Looks like a girl to me.
-
Impromptu or staged? Discuss.... Girl or boy? Discuss... Looks like a girl to me.
Staged...Where's the gum? Its Pat...We just don't know?
-
Selling or profiting is really only a part of it, and not the sole criteria.
But back to the picture - looks very staged to me. I think I shredded just about every pack I opened just tearing open those wrappers! 😛
I agree this looks staged. I think most kids would remove the wrapper and look through the card without the wrapper.
-
Impromptu or staged? Discuss.... Girl or boy? Discuss... Looks like a girl to me.
Looks kind of staged... the front of the stickers are facing away so can't be seen easily by the child. They seem to be bending the stickers back slightly to peer over the top to see the title. But, on the other hand, that sure looks like my, "damn, I still didn't get a Bit-O-Money sticker after 20 packs" expression I remember having opening Series 6. This looks like a girl to me, but most of my male schoolmates and friends, including myself, had similar hairstyles and length in the mid to late '70s. Could go either way.
-
Impromptu or staged? Discuss.... Girl or boy? Discuss... Looks like a girl to me.
I'm quite certain it's a girl. Staged or not? Not certain now. Still leaning towards a natural shot.
-
Boy
Staged
-
Boy
Staged
Yes, I believe you are right. Regardless, it hard to find pictures of Wacky's in the 70's. We had Dynomite magazine and a couple other articles that Greg posted but this seems to emphasize how cool these were back then. Maybe I'm over thinking this but that is what I thought looking at the picture.
-
Another good pic...
(http://s19.postimg.cc/8dhkdmhgj/image.jpg)
-
Another good pic...
(http://s19.postimg.org/8dhkdmhgj/image.jpg)
What a nice stack of 3 OS boxes! Oh, to have a time machine...
P.S. Notice the Kung Fu poster in the background right above the kid's head. I used to love that show.
-
Great pic Dave! What a nice stack of 3 OS boxes! Oh, to have a time machine...
P.S. Notice the Kung Fu poster in the background right above the kid's head. I used to love that show.
-
Boy
Staged
I agree here too. As soon as I saw the pic, I remembered the long hair of the 70s. In looking at the pic, it never occurred to me that it was a girl. I also thought the pic was staged because, as soon as I saw the pic, I immediately thought "How could he open the pack that way? It looks so unnatural."
-
Also notice the 6 1974 baseball wax boxes, which go for about $8000 a pop these days.
-
P.S. Notice the Kung Fu poster in the background right above the kid's head. I used to love that show.
Looks like three boxes of Kung Fu cards right next to the Wackys.
-
Also notice the 6 1974 baseball wax boxes, which go for about $8000 a pop these days.
If only I'd held onto mine. Wait a minute, if only I'd ever had enough money to buy one to hold onto.