Author Topic: New Wacky product  (Read 25874 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1791
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2014, 09:04:10 AM »
Yep, you certainly were consistent, and if you displayed little empathy for his situation, I do realize that is colored by the personal history.

Thanks for the clarification!

I'll be honest, I'm as surprised as anyone that I wasn't driven to some profound intellectual inconsistency back then, and I was gratified and relieved to hear that, for the most part I wasn't. 

I'm only human, but I like to believe I step back a bit, and look at my life and my actions with as much intellectual distance as is possible...   I think I do it with some degree of healthy regularity.  But we are all the victims of our own mythology, and the beneficiaries of it.  :-)

None of us get to be privileged observers.
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #71 on: August 06, 2014, 09:13:14 AM »
One thing I disagreed with at the time, and still do, is your characterization of wacky items as common enough that they can be easily found for scanning when desired. I won't dispute that few wacky items are one-of-a-kind like many of your wrappers. And obviously the stickers themselves are beyond common for the most part.

However, items such as uncut sheets, high grade display boxes and unopened packs....these are not as common as you suggest, and Greg's work in creating high quality scans of such items in volume is significant IMHO. Your statements about the difficulty of acquisition and curatorship would seem to apply equally to Greg's efforts. That admission is what I felt was lacking in your 2010 comments. At best, the difference is one of small degree.

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1791
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #72 on: August 06, 2014, 09:21:11 AM »
One thing I disagreed with at the time, and still do, is your characterization of wacky items as common enough that they can be easily found for scanning when desired. I won't dispute that few wacky items are one-of-a-kind like many of your wrappers. And obviously the stickers themselves are beyond common for the most part.

However, items such as uncut sheets, high grade display boxes and unopened packs....these are not as common as you suggest, and Greg's work in creating high quality scans of such items in volume is significant IMHO. Your statements about the difficulty of acquisition and curatorship would seem to apply equally to Greg's efforts. That admission is what I felt was lacking in your 2010 comments. At best, the difference is one of small degree.

I'm quite happy to concede that point. 

And of course as a sort of modern-amateur-internet-archivist I can't dismiss the value of archiving of the rare items of Wacky lore.  Being a much less serious collector and appreciator of Wacky Packages, my only opportunity to enjoy such things is through those efforts. 

Efforts like yours and Greg's and the countless others who deemed to devote their time to photographing, scanning, compiling data on, and recording our shared pop cultural artifacts for all the world to enjoy online - these are the things that initially inspired and provoked all of the work I've done.  It's work that I am now quite proud of and is something I can hang my hat on (even if it's only just a scan that a wee child could do - ha!)  And by direct connection, those efforts have led to the opportunities I'm currently enjoying.  Which is a positive thing. 
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1791
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #73 on: August 06, 2014, 09:26:33 AM »
Oh, and just to get back on track:  White Mountain Puzzles can BITE ME for using the work product of people without compensating them for it.  

 >(
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #74 on: August 06, 2014, 09:30:12 AM »
I admire your work profoundly. I agree with everything you said about your own work, particularly the acquisition/curatorship aspects, and believe it is also applicable to Greg's. Glad you agree, thanks for all the clarification!
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 09:31:49 AM by Paul_Maul »

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #75 on: August 06, 2014, 09:33:27 AM »
Oh, and just to get back on track:  White Mountain Puzzles can BITE ME for using the work product of people without compensating them for it.  

 >(

No argument there. In a way it's quite shocking that otherwise ethical people pull this kind of thing, but I don't think ethics have really caught up with the internet age. The images are kind of just "out there," and I don't think most people give much thought to ethical use.

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1791
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #76 on: August 06, 2014, 09:40:51 AM »
No argument there. In a way it's quite shocking that otherwise ethical people pull this kind of thing, but I don't think ethics have really caught up with the internet age. The images are kind of just "out there," and I don't think most people give much thought to ethical use.

Of course.  As I initially said, I exchanged e-mails with Charlie Giraud, the guy who assembled the collages.  He's a decent decent fellow.  And he's not making a ton of money doing these things.  So, my heart is sort of like... well... that's alllright....

Having curated literally many thousands of images of product packaging online, images and scans of items that in most cases there were not even photos of online before I posted them - I see my stuff lifted all the time.  Buzzfeed has become a regular feeder of my Flickr stream, though I've finally got them to credit and link back properly.  They were often crediting blog sites that had pirated my images - sigh.  

Things like Pintrest make it even worse, as there are nostalgia groups on Pintrest just littered with my scans - and with Pintrest it's really hard/impossible to track down the people behind specific posts (or it has been for me).  

Of course one of the funnest things my work has allowed me to do is to contribute to the legacy of Wacky Packages, as I've provided the reference packaging for many Wacky Packages Old School paintings.  In many cases, I have the only quality image reference or the sole image reference of specific vintage packaging.  I even managed to catch Dave and stop him from using a 1980's package for the 1970's-based Old School series.  All because someone mistakenly called it a 1970's package online.  

And to the points brought up here, a few months ago I'd started adding tasteful watermarks to everything I post now.  But I have over 5,000 unique non-watermarked scans already in my archive and I'm not going to overhaul the entire archive.  It would take years - though I no longer allow access to the 600dpi source scans like I used to.  But going forward, I've begrudgingly conceded that counting on the integrity of others will result in many disappointments - so now I watermark.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 09:59:16 AM by JasonLiebig »
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline deadpresidentsvisa

  • Posts: 2654
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #77 on: August 06, 2014, 09:43:58 AM »
Oh, and just to get back on track:  White Mountain Puzzles can BITE ME for using the work product of people without compensating them for it.  

 >(
WHERE'S BANDACHES WHEN YOU NEED HIM                                                     NEVER AROUND WHEN HE'S NEEDED THE MOST
"DID YOU TRY MONKEYING WITH IT" FROM *THE HOT ROCK*....ROBERT REDFORD...ZERO MOSTEL

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #78 on: August 06, 2014, 11:10:24 AM »

Of course one of the funnest things my work has allowed me to do is to contribute to the legacy of Wacky Packages, as I've provided the reference packaging for many Wacky Packages Old School paintings.  In many cases, I have the only quality image reference or the sole image reference of specific vintage packaging.  I even managed to catch Dave and stop him from using a 1980's package for the 1970's-based Old School series.  All because someone mistakenly called it a 1970's package online.  

 

That is both fun for you and very helpful to the project. I experienced similar fun by supplying the scans for the Old School vintage pack subset. Though those images are much more obtainable than your one-of-a-kind stuff, it was the first time I had ever participated in a wacky project and it was cool to pull my own packs from a pack!

Offline Monsterettes

  • Posts: 588
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #79 on: August 06, 2014, 05:28:31 PM »
I work as a communications consultant for art museums, and this discussion touches on points that come up for us frequently.  If a photographer takes a picture of someone else's painting, the photographer owes the copyright to his or her photo -- while the artist owns the copyright to the image in the painting. (So if the artist is living, they give permission for the photography -- if it's being done on a professional basis vs. a museum visitor taking an image with their phone). You can't use the photographers' images without payment or permission. Even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the painting.  It's a recognition of the effort, expertise, skill, and time the photographers put into making their images.  Now you *also* have to get permission of the artist to reproduce the photo.  It can get complicated -- two sets of permissions in every case -- so there are blanket agreements allowing use of the images in certain types of ways -- for example, in press coverage and reviews of exhibitions.  But even for that free usage, you must credit the artist *and* the photographer.      

Edited for grammar
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 05:43:05 PM by Monsterettes »

Offline BumChex

  • Wacky Packages Forum
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #80 on: August 06, 2014, 07:34:07 PM »
I work as a communications consultant for art museums, and this discussion touches on points that come up for us frequently.  If a photographer takes a picture of someone else's painting, the photographer owes the copyright to his or her photo -- while the artist owns the copyright to the image in the painting. (So if the artist is living, they give permission for the photography -- if it's being done on a professional basis vs. a museum visitor taking an image with their phone). You can't use the photographers' images without payment or permission. Even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the painting.  It's a recognition of the effort, expertise, skill, and time the photographers put into making their images.  Now you *also* have to get permission of the artist to reproduce the photo.  It can get complicated -- two sets of permissions in every case -- so their are blanket agreements allowing use of the images in certain types of ways -- for example, in press coverage and reviews of exhibitions.  But even for that free usage, you must credit the artist *and* the photographer.      

I think this pretty much explains this argument.

Offline sco(o)t

  • Posts: 4489
  • Looking:Postcard Ser4 BUGWEISER Smokin' Joe sketch
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #81 on: August 06, 2014, 07:46:45 PM »
I work as a communications consultant for art museums, and this discussion touches on points that come up for us frequently.  If a photographer takes a picture of someone else's painting, the photographer owes the copyright to his or her photo -- while the artist owns the copyright to the image in the painting. (So if the artist is living, they give permission for the photography -- if it's being done on a professional basis vs. a museum visitor taking an image with their phone). You can't use the photographers' images without payment or permission. Even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the painting.  It's a recognition of the effort, expertise, skill, and time the photographers put into making their images.  Now you *also* have to get permission of the artist to reproduce the photo.  It can get complicated -- two sets of permissions in every case -- so their are blanket agreements allowing use of the images in certain types of ways -- for example, in press coverage and reviews of exhibitions.  But even for that free usage, you must credit the artist *and* the photographer.      

Very interesting. Thanks for that Elizabeth. So it sounds as if commercial use is intended, the photographer must get permission to take a photo of the artwork. Is there ever an issue concerning ownership of a piece where the artwork is owned by someone other than the artist? In this case, does the owner need to give permission instead of or in addition to the artist? I can see where this could all become complicated quickly. I know in the music world, an artist has the rights to their compositions for a period of time then it enters into the public domain unless the rights are purchased by someone. I wonder if the art and music worlds parallel one another in this respect or differ.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 07:50:00 PM by sco(o)t »
aka Scot Leibacher (no trademark)

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1791
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #82 on: August 06, 2014, 10:20:32 PM »
I work as a communications consultant for art museums, and this discussion touches on points that come up for us frequently.  If a photographer takes a picture of someone else's painting, the photographer owes the copyright to his or her photo -- while the artist owns the copyright to the image in the painting. (So if the artist is living, they give permission for the photography -- if it's being done on a professional basis vs. a museum visitor taking an image with their phone). You can't use the photographers' images without payment or permission. Even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the painting.  It's a recognition of the effort, expertise, skill, and time the photographers put into making their images.  Now you *also* have to get permission of the artist to reproduce the photo.  It can get complicated -- two sets of permissions in every case -- so their are blanket agreements allowing use of the images in certain types of ways -- for example, in press coverage and reviews of exhibitions.  But even for that free usage, you must credit the artist *and* the photographer.      

Yeah, it's fascinating stuff.  Thanks for sharing.  

There's another side of this argument that I've seen with comic book artists and them doing commissioned sketches of characters owned by Marvel or DC.  Technically, they can't do that, from a legal standpoint.  But it's long been something that is given a pass.  Because it's such a big part of the fandom and the artistic community that the business is built upon.  

I've actually commissioned things from artists and been clear that it was not to be used for commerce (meaning I wouldn't reproduce the art).  That ties into the question of owning a piece of art and does that grant you reproduction rights.  In some cases it might, but I think in many cases it doesn't.  I remember trying to get Drew Struzan to do some covers for me while I was at Marvel.  For those that don't know, Drew might be the greatest movie poster artist of all time.  

Anyway, Drew was an absolute joy to talk to... such a smart, kind, softspoken guy... and to be that way with all that talent.  But he was also very serious when it came to his contracts (which I'm sure came from decades working on major motion picture campaigns).  And one of the things that got me was that commissioning him for a cover only got you rights to use his work for that cover.  Further use was not implied or granted.  And he retained full rights to use the work in art books and to promote gallery showings.  That's what you had to sign to get him to work for you.  And it would have been worth it, IMO.  

So there are lots of fun and unexpected turns all of this can take.

Though, in my case, I think it's far more cut-and-dried - in that my legal rights, if any, are very few.  

I did get my perspective through to the owner of the Big League Chew trademark, when discussing using my scans to source for t-shirts and the like. And I explained that somehow, I was the only person left with any of this artwork.  I had the only packages that even showed certain pieces existed.  And that had to be worth something... if someone thought they could make money off of it.  And he agreed.  He believed my curation and preservation of the artwork had a real value, when it had not been saved by anyone or any other entity.  That was pretty nice to hear.  
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 11:29:51 PM by JasonLiebig »
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline Hustler08

  • Posts: 1797
  • I Hustle for Wacky Packs!!!
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #83 on: August 07, 2014, 05:26:03 AM »
I think this pretty much explains this argument.

But Greg was not a photographer - so would it apply in that case?? I would think its free roam - just mentioned the image was taken from his website - as a courtesy...right?? unless he has a watermark...SBI

Offline NEZHEAD42

  • Posts: 525
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #84 on: August 07, 2014, 05:45:39 AM »
I am about to complete my degree in Health Information Management Technologies (HIMT). There is a somewhat similar parallel with medical records. The patient owns the information in the medical record, but the medical facility that created the record owns the actual record. Kinda like getting a divorce and owning the furniture in the house, but the ex owns the house.
"What's the point of being grown up, if you can't act childish?" - Doctor Who

Offline BumChex

  • Wacky Packages Forum
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8327
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #85 on: August 07, 2014, 06:18:42 AM »
But Greg was not a photographer - so would it apply in that case?? I would think its free roam - just mentioned the image was taken from his website - as a courtesy...right?? unless he has a watermark...SBI

I don't think any of us really know. All we have are rocket scientists on this forum and no lawyers...LOL

Offline Hustler08

  • Posts: 1797
  • I Hustle for Wacky Packs!!!
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #86 on: August 07, 2014, 06:23:36 AM »
I don't think any of us really know. All we have are rocket scientists on this forum and no lawyers...LOL

nice!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1791
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #87 on: August 07, 2014, 07:46:32 AM »
But Greg was not a photographer - so would it apply in that case?? I would think its free roam - just mentioned the image was taken from his website - as a courtesy...right?? unless he has a watermark...SBI

A watermark only makes it harder to steal images, but it's still stealing.  Leaving a thank-you note doesn't make it okay.  

Scanning and cleaning up an image, matching true original colors in photoshop, rebuilding oversized pieces from multiple scans...this might not be the same as photography, but it IS serious work (and much of it that a child could NOT do)...And ethically should carry similar protections.  Though there is a note in the law about true reproduction, so if you photograph a sign so well that it just looks like you're hanging the sign, then your rights are limited.  

I just think, where serious work product is concerned.,,if someone avails themselves of your work product, where that product was NOT marked for the public domain, it should be done with compensation or at least permission.  For me, a great deal of the work product is also the curation and preservation that lead to the scans.  But I'm also NOT just slapping a wrapper on a scanner and posting it.  I put effort into making the scan be as true to the original as possible.

On Flickr, where the vast majority of my scans reside, there is the option to categorize them as "All rights reserved", "Creative Commons", or "public domain".  My archive an every image in it was always marked "All Rights Reserved"..not that any of these people bothered to look for the tags or limited their searches to CC images.  But there you have it.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 10:14:17 AM by JasonLiebig »
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1791
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #88 on: August 07, 2014, 07:51:33 AM »
My opinion has always been this:  I may not have any, or only limited, rights implied with the scans I create and post.  But I did create the scan.  I might not have the legal right to even publish it online.  Even so, that should not grant everyone the right to steal it.  

The only thing it should do is grant the right of the trademark holder the ability to cease and desist me.

But it doesn't make it public domain.  Just the opposite.

Here's an interesting case:  for Lifesavers 100th Anniversary in 2012, they released a special anniversary box.  Inside the box was a visual timeline for the brand.  The image they used to showcase the introduction of Gummi Savers was MY wrapper scan.  It was clear as it was a scan with folds, shadows and wrinkles...and they were all there.

It was quite the thing.  I was not asked permission, I received no image credit (which would have made me happy) but they did it.  I think it's kinda cool, but it could have been cooler if they had respected my work.  Because it's clear they couldn't find that image anywhere else.  
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 07:58:07 AM by JasonLiebig »
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline Fanatical_and_Sickly

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5690
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #89 on: August 07, 2014, 03:50:39 PM »
Here's an interesting case:  for Lifesavers 100th Anniversary in 2012, they released a special anniversary box.  Inside the box was a visual timeline for the brand.  The image they used to showcase the introduction of Gummi Savers was MY wrapper scan.  It was clear as it was a scan with folds, shadows and wrinkles...and they were all there.

did you write them a nice 'thank you for using my image in your product' note?  :-\

those are the same reasons I believe at least the Slopicana is listed from Greg's site - the folds and shadows. While the posters were all folded the same, they are still unique from one another

Offline Monsterettes

  • Posts: 588
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #90 on: August 07, 2014, 06:02:46 PM »
I didn't get into all the details because it can get really complicated!  Often the photo will be used for non-commercial, educational purposes -- say a lesson plan with pictures of works of art that a museum gives for free to school teachers.  Both the artists and the photographers pretty much always give their permission, gratis, for that kind of use. The goal there isn't making money, but providing a public service.  The basic point that I think applies here: if someone puts a specialized level of effort and skill into creating an image, that is recognized. This applies to scans (very rare in the museum world) and photos.  The recognition might mean payment or a simply a credit. Even if they didn't generate the original work themselves.   So Jason, I can understand why you're not thrilled when people or organizations use your images without so much as a fare thee well!
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 06:05:44 PM by Monsterettes »

Offline g.u.e.s.t.

  • Posts: 251
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #91 on: August 15, 2014, 05:38:02 PM »
We finished the puzzle today. I like the Jaymar puzzle, but I like this one even more because of its larger size and the fact the images are larger as well. I also like the fact that several ANS titles were included because it brings it up to date and into the 21st Century. The puzzle has 68 images, at first I thought I'd counted 67 images, which would have been kind of cool to represent 1967. It got me to thinking, it would be really cool to have a WP puzzle that would represent all (or at least what I could think of) of these Wacky releases.

How about one image (72ish images total) from each of the following series/releases:
die cut, Wacky ads,  Wacky Posters 1-2, 1-16, Irish, 1985, 1991, OLDS 1-4, ANS 1-11, Flashback 1-2, Chrome, Wacky cans, Postcards 1-9, Halloween postcards 1-2, Wacky erasers 1-2, ANS posters, Good Stuff Collection 1-2 (Plush Toys), Beach Towels, Vintage T-shirt, Modern T-shirt, Wacky keychains, Wacky Placks, Box Image, Pack image, Checklist, Gum, Sketch, Color Sketch, Binder, Wacky Books.

I'm sure there are others I may have missed.




« Last Edit: August 15, 2014, 05:42:25 PM by g.u.e.s.t. »

Offline Paul_Maul

  • Posts: 3333
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #92 on: August 16, 2014, 08:00:10 AM »
What, no can labels??

Offline Jean Nutty

  • Posts: 3377
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #93 on: August 16, 2014, 08:59:15 AM »
It got me to thinking, it would be really cool to have a WP puzzle that would represent all (or at least what I could think of) of these Wacky releases.

How about one image (72ish images total) from each of the following series/releases:
die cut, Wacky ads,  Wacky Posters 1-2, 1-16, Irish, 1985, 1991, OLDS 1-4, ANS 1-11, Flashback 1-2, Chrome, Wacky cans, Postcards 1-9, Halloween postcards 1-2, Wacky erasers 1-2, ANS posters, Good Stuff Collection 1-2 (Plush Toys), Beach Towels, Vintage T-shirt, Modern T-shirt, Wacky keychains, Wacky Placks, Box Image, Pack image, Checklist, Gum, Sketch, Color Sketch, Binder, Wacky Books.


Maybe a fun project for someone? Make your own collage and have a puzzle made by one of many online companies, including Zazzle, Cafepress, Amazon, and others. Smaller puzzles in the $20 range and upwards of $45 for 1000 piece ones.

I’m sure Topps won’t come after you for copyright infringement because they are too busy updating the Wacky area of their web site.

Offline sco(o)t

  • Posts: 4489
  • Looking:Postcard Ser4 BUGWEISER Smokin' Joe sketch
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #94 on: August 16, 2014, 09:18:17 AM »
Maybe a fun project for someone? Make your own collage and have a puzzle made by one of many online companies, including Zazzle, Cafepress, Amazon, and others. Smaller puzzles in the $20 range and upwards of $45 for 1000 piece ones.

I’m sure Topps won’t come after you for copyright infringement because they are too busy updating the Wacky area of their web site.


About 4 years ago I had a couple custom Wacky Packages binders made by Zazzle. One was for non U.S. released WPs I have (OPC and Irish test sets) and another was for the Flashback sets. About a year later I tried to have another binder made but they kept kicking it back. At first I thought it was something technical like a picture not high enough quality etc. After contacting their customer services, they apparently had knuckled down on items they viewed as trademarked or copyrighted. Even though I was just ordering one single unit, they would not proceed. I don't know if they have lessened their tolerances after that or not.
aka Scot Leibacher (no trademark)

Offline JasonLiebig

  • Posts: 1791
    • CollectingCandy.com
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #95 on: August 16, 2014, 02:43:05 PM »
About 4 years ago I had a couple custom Wacky Packages binders made by Zazzle. One was for non U.S. released WPs I have (OPC and Irish test sets) and another was for the Flashback sets. About a year later I tried to have another binder made but they kept kicking it back. At first I thought it was something technical like a picture not high enough quality etc. After contacting their customer services, they apparently had knuckled down on items they viewed as trademarked or copyrighted. Even though I was just ordering one single unit, they would not proceed. I don't know if they have lessened their tolerances after that or not.

I can attest that they have not lessened their tolerance for printing copyrighted or trademarked work.  They kill that stuff pretty quick now. 
Jason Liebig - A swell TV host (currently on History Channel) who used to oversee Marvel Comics' X-Men - now creator and curator of WishbookWeb.com and CollectingCandy.com, a celebration of candy packaging, marketing and the people behind it all

Offline vahsurfer

  • Posts: 1523
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #96 on: August 16, 2014, 02:56:31 PM »
I just created an AWEOME!!!!! Binder from Zazzle  (thanks for the introduction)

We will see if I am first Chromie Homie to get one - Even before Topps! LMBO!


Offline sco(o)t

  • Posts: 4489
  • Looking:Postcard Ser4 BUGWEISER Smokin' Joe sketch
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #97 on: August 16, 2014, 04:13:12 PM »
I just created an AWEOME!!!!! Binder from Zazzle  (thanks for the introduction)

We will see if I am first Chromie Homie to get one - Even before Topps! LMBO!


Good luck and let us know the outcome. I would submit the request successfully and receive an email notice that my order had been placed, then a day or two later would receive a somewhat cryptic cancellation notice.
aka Scot Leibacher (no trademark)

Offline g.u.e.s.t.

  • Posts: 251
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #98 on: August 16, 2014, 05:59:38 PM »
What, no can labels??


How about one image (72ish images total) from each of the following series/releases:
die cut, Wacky ads,  Wacky Posters 1-2, 1-16, Irish, 1985, 1991, OLDS 1-4, ANS 1-11, Flashback 1-2, Chrome, Wacky cans, Postcards 1-9, Halloween postcards 1-2, Wacky erasers 1-2, ANS posters, Good Stuff Collection 1-2 (Plush Toys), Beach Towels, Vintage T-shirt, Modern T-shirt, Wacky keychains, Wacky Placks, Box Image, Pack image, Checklist, Gum, Sketch, Color Sketch, Binder, Wacky Books.

I'm sure there are others I may have missed.






Offline g.u.e.s.t.

  • Posts: 251
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #99 on: August 16, 2014, 06:01:37 PM »
Maybe a fun project for someone? Make your own collage and have a puzzle made by one of many online companies, including Zazzle, Cafepress, Amazon, and others. Smaller puzzles in the $20 range and upwards of $45 for 1000 piece ones.

I’m sure Topps won’t come after you for copyright infringement because they are too busy updating the Wacky area of their web site.


I think their even busier sending out baseball related emails every few hours...

Offline DrDeal

  • Posts: 3414
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #100 on: August 17, 2014, 07:26:41 AM »
I just created an AWEOME!!!!! Binder from Zazzle  (thanks for the introduction)

We will see if I am first Chromie Homie to get one - Even before Topps! LMBO!



Can you post the pic you used so maybe I can do one too?

Andrew

Offline vahsurfer

  • Posts: 1523
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #101 on: August 17, 2014, 08:35:50 AM »
Well...... FRAZZELD by ZAZZLE  :sad: >(

They sent me a cancellation e-mail within an hour.......  :03: :argue:

I am just going to print it myself and will take pics later, hopefully I will create it today, and will be happy to share if everyone likes.

SHAME ON YOU TOPPS!

Our money is green too and you took the time and effort to create the Chrome Series, so why not the supporting products like a binder.

Instead I receive countless e-mails about the Next Apparel Sale or about ANOTHER???? Baseball release.... SHAME ON YOU!!!!

Offline vahsurfer

  • Posts: 1523
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #102 on: August 17, 2014, 01:03:28 PM »
Here is my NEW Chrome Series 1 Binder (Sorry Zazzle)







« Last Edit: August 17, 2014, 01:06:22 PM by vahsurfer »

Offline vahsurfer

  • Posts: 1523
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #103 on: August 17, 2014, 01:07:01 PM »
Here are the converted PowerPoint files to JPG - I hope this helps and shows Topps (IF they read) we really want a Binder!!!!








Offline drono

  • Posts: 1412
Re: New Wacky product
« Reply #104 on: August 17, 2014, 06:48:16 PM »
We finished the puzzle today. I like the Jaymar puzzle, but I like this one even more because of its larger size and the fact the images are larger as well.

I'm curious if you used the standard method of putting together the edges first, then systematically working on areas by colors and similar patterns.

When I put together the Jaymar puzzle many years ago, I just randomly picked each piece from the box, identified the sticker, and placed it about where it should go by looking at the box.  It's the only puzzle that I'd been able to put together using that technique.  Now that I'm about 20 years removed from actively collecting wackys, I wonder if I'll be able to do the same with this one.