Wacky Packages Forum

Trading Post => Sell Wacky Packages => Topic started by: messngretz on March 09, 2010, 11:23:12 AM

Title: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: messngretz on March 09, 2010, 11:23:12 AM
Hey all, I make custom-made Wacky tees. I can make any Wacky Pack from both original and new series. Let me know if you are interested.

Here's a sample of one:
(http://www.wackypackages.org/wackyforum/users/rangerjoe/uploads/COMMIE-ebay-shirt.jpg)

Thanks
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Kook-Aid on March 09, 2010, 07:38:16 PM
How much for a Schmutz on a Mens Large tan shirt??
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: quas on March 11, 2010, 05:13:21 AM
Can you do a tee-shirt with one Wacky image on the front and a different one on the back?
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 11, 2010, 05:03:02 PM
Hey all, I ask $14.99 for each tee plus $5.95 for shipping. Right now I only stock white tees but I can also do them on light color tees, such as light gray and tan. I'd just have to order the other colors.

I just did a Liptorn tee for someone, they love it. Attached are a few other samples:


what are you using as the source for the images?  Is the quality of the image top notch and how do these handle washing machine washings?
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: slamjim on March 11, 2010, 05:24:18 PM
Are these licensed shirts or bootleg? 10Again Clothing is the official license for Topps shirts as far as I was aware.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: BumChex on March 14, 2010, 06:44:18 PM
Are these licensed shirts or bootleg? 10Again Clothing is the official license for Topps shirts as far as I was aware.

Speaking of 10 again, he hasn't updated his website in quite a while. I spoke with him in December and he said he a a lot of new stuff to put up after the new year. I wonder what's happened?
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: slamjim on March 14, 2010, 06:57:09 PM
I saw a ton of new shirts from them at Topps a month or so ago.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: messngretz on March 26, 2010, 07:14:36 AM
Can you do a tee-shirt with one Wacky image on the front and a different one on the back?

Yes, I can do both front and back...
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: messngretz on March 26, 2010, 07:16:10 AM
what are you using as the source for the images?  Is the quality of the image top notch and how do these handle washing machine washings?

I have scans of all of the wackys as the source. The quality is very good, they are all edited prior to printing to clear up any blemishes, and a slight drop shadow is added to the image. They hold up well in washing machines...

Thanks
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: messngretz on March 26, 2010, 07:18:04 AM
Are these licensed shirts or bootleg? 10Again Clothing is the official license for Topps shirts as far as I was aware.

No, these are custom-made by myself...
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: slamjim on March 26, 2010, 09:41:41 AM
No, these are custom-made by myself...

Right, so you are aware that that is illegal?
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: messngretz on March 26, 2010, 09:45:23 AM
Right, so you are aware that that is illegal?

yeah, I understand about the legality of it...I make them for people here and there simply due to to the fact that nobody has made enough to satisfy Wacky fans...obviously you have a problem with it, yes?
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Crakola Crayons on March 26, 2010, 09:51:41 AM
I have scans of all of the wackys as the source. The quality is very good, they are all edited prior to printing to clear up any blemishes, and a slight drop shadow is added to the image.

Drop shadows?  Who else do we know that added drop shadows to his images of his Wacky scans?  Oh, yeah...Greg.  Hope you didn't take these images from Greg's site.

Actually, it looks like you totally cut out Topps copyright (based on what I can see of the images posted of the shirts).  Looks like you dropped the borders entirely too before adding your drop shadows (though, again, can't tell from the tiny images posted).
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: wackyman on March 26, 2010, 09:52:11 AM
wow... just wow
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: slamjim on March 26, 2010, 10:03:36 AM
yeah, I understand about the legality of it...I make them for people here and there simply due to to the fact that nobody has made enough to satisfy Wacky fans...obviously you have a problem with it, yes?

Well, it would not be just me. There are a number of people here who have been discussing this very issue. Just wait until 'the gum' (Plan9) hears this one. I guess you have not been reading the other threads on this forums. Big debate about this stuff on a couple of them.

Anyway, if you know the legality of it you also know that thinking you have a righteous reason is still the wrong reason. Another company that does have the rights to make the shirts is paying good money to do it the legal way. They may be slower at getting the images but that may be because they are only allowed certain images to use and that could be due to a variety of reasons which is between them and Topps. You putting any image on a shirt which will be worn in public makes it look like a legal shirt and an approved shirt by Topps. This could have repercussions for everyone here in that if a company you put on the shirt finds out they can go to Topps and cause problems. Those problems could be a lawsuit or maybe a cease and desist which could mean that Topps has less products to parody in future series. That sucks for all of us. I know for a fact that Topps has a number of agreements with some companies that they won't go beyond stickers when marketing their parody of that company's product.

Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: messngretz on March 26, 2010, 10:06:31 AM
Just giving people the ability to put their favorite wackies on a tshirt since nobody else does so... if you guys have a big problem with it, then not a problem, I won't bother posting on the board about them. It's not like I sell hundreds of them, I've done a couple for some people.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: wackyman on March 26, 2010, 10:27:25 AM
Well, it would not be just me. There are a number of people here who have been discussing this very issue. Just wait until 'the gum' (Plan9) hears this one. I guess you have not been reading the other threads on this forums. Big debate about this stuff on a couple of them.

Anyway, if you know the legality of it you also know that thinking you have a righteous reason is still the wrong reason. Another company that does have the rights to make the shirts is paying good money to do it the legal way. They may be slower at getting the images but that may be because they are only allowed certain images to use and that could be due to a variety of reasons which is between them and Topps. You putting any image on a shirt which will be worn in public makes it look like a legal shirt and an approved shirt by Topps. This could have repercussions for everyone here in that if a company you put on the shirt finds out they can go to Topps and cause problems. Those problems could be a lawsuit or maybe a cease and desist which could mean that Topps has less products to parody in future series. That sucks for all of us. I know for a fact that Topps has a number of agreements with some companies that they won't go beyond stickers when marketing their parody of that company's product.

There is one huge difference between what I think you are referring to and what this thread is about,  the other topic was simply displaying images not for profit  where this topic is exactly 100% against the law and the OP knows and admitted it.

*edit* I'm  holding my tongue on the other three paragraphs I wrote and erased for now but it's saved to a text  file

-Jay-
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: messngretz on March 26, 2010, 10:32:14 AM
Sorry if I've offended or pissed anyone off, that wasn't my purpose...nor am I being defiant here. I just wanted to throw it out to everyone if they are looking for anything specific.

I won't post anything else about tees. Again my apologies if it has bothered any of you guys.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: wackyman on March 26, 2010, 10:36:27 AM
Sorry if I've offended or pissed anyone off, that wasn't my purpose...nor am I being defiant here. I just wanted to throw it out to everyone if they are looking for anything specific.

I won't post anything else about tees. Again my apologies if it has bothered any of you guys.

You are being 100% defiant of the law, it is against the law to reproduce copyrighted images and sell them.

When asked if you KNEW it was against the law you flat out said YES (But you don't sell many of them) meaning it's okay to break the law 'a little'

-Jay-
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: messngretz on March 26, 2010, 10:39:32 AM
You are being 100% defiant of the law, it is against the law to reproduce copyrighted images and sell them.

When asked if you KNEW it was against the law you flat out said YES (But you don't sell many of them) meaning it's okay to break the law 'a little'

-Jay-

Did I ever say I was selling them all on a regular basis? No I didn't not. All I did was post them as a sample, plain and simple. I'd barely make anything on them, the price of the shirts and transfers is what a person would be paying for.

Not worth the trouble explaining it any further...like I've already stated, sorry if it bothers you so much.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: wackyman on March 26, 2010, 10:45:10 AM
Did I ever say I was selling them all on a regular basis? No I didn't not. All I did was post them as a sample, plain and simple. I'd barely make anything on them, the price of the shirts and transfers is what a person would be paying for.

Not worth the trouble explaining it any further...like I've already stated, sorry if it bothers you so much.

Makes no difference if you sell one or one million,  if you make 1 dollar profit or 10 dollars profit per shirt, it's against the law and you've admitted you knew that.

What you might not know or understand is WHO is on this board, people who crated those images your stealing and selling just for an example
wonder what they would think of you selling just a few of their hard work

-Jay-
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: messngretz on March 26, 2010, 10:50:10 AM
Makes no difference if you sell one or one million,  if you make 1 dollar profit or 10 dollars profit per shirt, it's against the law and you've admitted you knew that.

What you might not know or understand is WHO is on this board, people who crated those images your stealing and selling just for an example
wonder what they would think of you selling just a few of their hard work

-Jay-

You are right...like I said, I apologize if I've bothered or hurt anyone. I'm a big fan of wackies and used to wear wacky shirts as a kid, frustrating not being able to find many of them around.

Whoever runs the boards, just remove this post so it doesn't cause anyone any more anger.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: wackyman on March 26, 2010, 10:57:31 AM
You are right...like I said, I apologize if I've bothered or hurt anyone. I'm a big fan of wackies and used to wear wacky shirts as a kid, frustrating not being able to find many of them around.

Whoever runs the boards, just remove this post so it doesn't cause anyone any more anger.

a few things,  

(1) you were already told of one place: http://10againclothing.com/  they sell OFFICIAL WP clothing, your knockoffs are close to half the price, and you have examples of the same images they sell, IF you really were doing this due to a lack of product why have the same stuff that's already officially for sale.

(2) Saying "I'm sorry" doesn't change the fact that myself, some of the artists, and anyone else who has read your thread KNOW your openly breaking the law and selling these shirts

(3) Your photo names have the word Ebay on them, so your claim of "making shirts for people who want them" is not 100% honest now is it? or do you make the shirts and then sell them on Ebay... why else would you have the Ebay name on the images.

(4) Having this thread deleted does not change the fact that you are selling pirated stuff, and you show no regard in what your doing, you've justified yourself here by saying 'there's not enough out there' and 'I don't sell allot of them'  that shows point blank that you don't care one bit that what your doing is against the law.

I'm more then a little angry that more people are not stepping up on this thread more, but at the same time it really speaks true volumes :(

-Jay-
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Crakola Crayons on March 26, 2010, 11:03:15 AM
Jay, I'm willing to step up and say I don't support people making bootleg products.  As Dave pointed out quite well, this guy sellings unlicensed products can jeopardize not only licensed merchandise but also the very Wacky Packages parodies produced by Topps that we all love.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Gurgle on March 26, 2010, 01:05:25 PM
I'm more then a little angry that more people are not stepping up on this thread more, but at the same time it really speaks true volumes :(
Jay, what speaks "true volumes" about the other forum members? This guy has been called out. What he's doing is blatantly illegal and we can all see he's crawling away with his tail between his legs. You seem upset more people aren't piling on and, to you, this speaks "true volumes" about us. He has apologized. Whether his apology will change his actions is not clear, but once someone apologizes it's not unusual for people to back off.

I think this is a good lesson. If someone does something unethical or wrong, then apologizes, people have a tendency to back off. If there is no apology or admission of wrongdoing, people will probably continue to confront the person and the controversy will continue.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: wackyman on March 26, 2010, 01:31:43 PM
Jay, what speaks "true volumes" about the other forum members? This guy has been called out. What he's doing is blatantly illegal and we can all see he's crawling away with his tail between his legs. You seem upset more people aren't piling on and, to you, this speaks "true volumes" about us. He has apologized. Whether his apology will change his actions is not clear, but once someone apologizes it's not unusual for people to back off.

I think this is a good lesson. If someone does something unethical or wrong, then apologizes, people have a tendency to back off. If there is no apology or admission of wrongdoing, people will probably continue to confront the person and the controversy will continue.

What speaks volumes is a little thing called "double standards"  I was picked apart and downright attacked for simply using someone else's images on a not for profit level,  those SAME PEOPLE were all over this thread and yet MOST of them SAID NOTHING (you can see who is viewing threads by looking at the top)

The people who DID speak in this thread FIRST actually wanted to buy the bootlegs, "How much"  "can you make this one"  & "can you make one with two diff wackys"

It's a well known fact who is allowed and who is not allowed to sell WP stuff, but from what I see it's only wrong to post images for free, but it's ok to sell them :(

Saying sorry does not mean that person will STOP selling the shirts, right now there are 14 WP shirts on Ebay
http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=wacky+packages+shirts&_sacat=See-All-Categories

Are any of them his/hers ? his images (that are now gone from this thread ALL said "card name-ebay-image" meaning he either HAS sold via ebay, is selling on ebay now OR about to sell on Ebay.

when it comes to out right breaking the law "sorry" does not mean jack shit

If Topps decided to take him to court with his admission he KNEW it was against the law to sell the shirts, do you really think "Sorry" will make the charges drop?

I'm more then livid on this matter,  there was an outright witch hunt on me (still is in a round about way) because I simply posted images for free, but selling images, that's ok?

I think my time here might just be about over :(

-Jay-
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: wackyman on March 26, 2010, 01:37:47 PM
This shirt for example: http://cgi.ebay.com/WACKY-PACKAGES-rare-t-shirt-Kelloggs-Frosted-Flakes_W0QQitemZ380218084041QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item5886c38ac9

with this image:
(http://i.ebayimg.com/06/!BlbojoQCGk~$%28KGrHqEOKj0EtjzYJJ7tBLbtIilnjw~~_3.JPG)

no topps copyright on this and it follows what this poster said he could to (tan or grey shirt)  tag is removed (prolly as it was some store bought plain shirt he put a transfer on)

I don't know if that is him/her or not, but look at the other & prior auctions, there quite a bit of 'questionable' shirts there.

-Jay-
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: wackyman on March 26, 2010, 01:56:07 PM
After doing a bit of digging I can say clearly that this person is "Rangerjoe" from Greg's board and he even showed off his home made shirts in this thread http://www.wackypackages.org/wackyforum/getmessage.php?mn=1&t=3603&mode=u&a=1&stealth=

in case you don't want to go there and look for his posts here they are:

From:   rangerjoe
To:   ronofthedead 
   Posted: Tuesday 1:23 pm, March 9, 2010   message 3603.14 in reply to 3603.10
Yeah it's pretty cool. I make wacky tees too, check out attached as an example...

http://www.wackypackages.org/wackyforum/users/rangerjoe/uploads/COMMIE-ebay-shirt.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:   rangerjoe
To:   ronofthedead 
   Posted: Friday 10:09 am, March 26, 2010   message 3603.16 in reply to 3603.15
I can make any wacky you'd guys like on the tee...let me know if you'd like to see a sample of the ones you choose.

Thanks


Note that that image was the exact same one he posted here,  he actually just hotlinked it from Greg's forum

-Jay-
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: slamjim on March 26, 2010, 02:05:14 PM
Jay,

All those shirts you linked to on Ebay are legal and sold second hand. The other ones there a 1970s knock-off iron-ons (copyright from some other company). You are correct that this member has sold shirts on Ebay before. He has also posted the shirts for sale on Greg's site over the years and as recently as yesterday or today posted an ad for them. I would expect Greg or his defenders will have something to say about that post considering the uproar.

I see your point in that even though the guy said that he was sorry and would not sell them anymore he also admitted they were illegal and felt that was OK because he was just doing a favor. But...because he did so so quickly I don't think your going to see everyone have to pile it on because that would then just be overkill and have to be a show to help your case. What really needs to happens from this is for people to just drop the subject with you since they are being hypocrites with others doing something questionable. You've dropped the images, given credit, admitted it up front and volunteered to make things right with the site owner but haven't given the "i'm sorry" line that a few people think you still owe. If they aren't going to drop it at this point with you then they must pile it on this guy which to me seems like BS as both of you have given enough of an explanation and repented enough for my tastes. If it happens again then fine, attack away but both of you have promised what people asked. Done.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: wackyman on March 26, 2010, 02:12:20 PM
Jay,

All those shirts you linked to on Ebay are legal and sold second hand. The other ones there a 1970s knock-off iron-ons (copyright from some other company). You are correct that this member has sold shirts on Ebay before. He has also posted the shirts for sale on Greg's site over the years and as recently as yesterday or today posted an ad for them. I would expect Greg or his defenders will have something to that post considering the uproar.

I see your point in that even though the guy said that he was sorry and would not sell them anymore he also admitted they were illegal and felt that was OK because he was just doing a favor. But...because he did so so quickly I don't think your going to see everyone have to pile it on because that would then just be overkill and have to be a show to help your case. What really needs to happens from this is for people to just drop the subject with you since they are being hypocrites with others doing something questionable. You've dropped the images, given credit, admitted it up front and volunteered to make things right with the site owner but haven't given the "i'm sorry" line that a few people think you still owe. If they aren't going to drop it at this point with you then they must pile it on this guy which to me seems like BS as both of you have given enough of an explanation and repented enough for my tastes. If it happens again then fine, attack away but both of you have promised what people asked. Done.

I hear you Dave, and I really don't want to turn this into my own soapbox for my thread / case even if it seems that way,  I just hate that this thread has been going on since the 9th or 11th both here and on Greg's forum, and it was clear as day that the shirts were knock offs even before he admitted it.

What I can't stand is that if I used images on a website for free I get 18 pages of people calling me a theif, asshole, scammer, attacker, etc etc  but this guy comes out SELLING stuff and people ask "how much?"

He did NOT say he would stop selling them, he simply said he would not MENTION THEM HERE,  that's a double slap in the face as far as I'm concerned.

I gotta walk away for a bit,  I'm more then furious here, and I just can not put into words my true feelings on this shit,  so before I totally piss everyone off here it's best for me  to just walk away and go cool off.

-Jay-
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: JasonLiebig on March 26, 2010, 02:12:27 PM
What speaks volumes is a little thing called "double standards"  I was picked apart and downright attacked for simply using someone else's images on a not for profit level,  those SAME PEOPLE were all over this thread and yet MOST of them SAID NOTHING (you can see who is viewing threads by looking at the top)

The people who DID speak in this thread FIRST actually wanted to buy the bootlegs, "How much"  "can you make this one"  & "can you make one with two diff wackys"

It's a well known fact who is allowed and who is not allowed to sell WP stuff, but from what I see it's only wrong to post images for free, but it's ok to sell them :(

Saying sorry does not mean that person will STOP selling the shirts, right now there are 14 WP shirts on Ebay
http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=wacky+packages+shirts&_sacat=See-All-Categories

Are any of them his/hers ? his images (that are now gone from this thread ALL said "card name-ebay-image" meaning he either HAS sold via ebay, is selling on ebay now OR about to sell on Ebay.

when it comes to out right breaking the law "sorry" does not mean jack shit

If Topps decided to take him to court with his admission he KNEW it was against the law to sell the shirts, do you really think "Sorry" will make the charges drop?

I'm more then livid on this matter,  there was an outright witch hunt on me (still is in a round about way) because I simply posted images for free, but selling images, that's ok?

I think my time here might just be about over :(

-Jay-

Jay,

I don't think there's even a question of legality of selling these bootleg tees is there?  It's pretty clear.  Which is, perhaps, why there aren't people "piling on".  It's fairly cut-and-dry, and not worthy of discussion.   There are lots of folks out there on Ebay bootlegging t-shirts, and we all clearly understand that it's illegal.  

The issue with utilizing Greg's scans as the basis for your cleaned-up images for your site is far more complicated and, apparently, worthy of debate/discussion.   It's also understandably closer to people here, because it is closer.  

It's easy to dismiss this guy because no one knows him, and it would appear he's disappeared.   But with you, it's far more different.  I can't speak for everyone, but for myself, I have high hopes for your continued online efforts with Wacky Packages.  So I'm far more interested in seeing you do things the right way (even if what the "right way" is less clearly defined).  

Ironically, inditing members here due to some perceived dual-standard is the kind of thing Greg did when we were discussing the issue with his scans.  I hope that's not what you're doing, and mentioning that you're "time here might just be about over", I don't understand what you mean.  It's a loaded statement, and I'd rather not read too much into it.

I don't think anyone here "supports" this guys' bootleg tees.  It just seems SO cut-and-dry that there's no reason to add to the discussion.  What he's doing is illegal, and he's going away, never to bother us again.   If he's selling bootleg Wacky tees on Ebay, Topps should stop him.  I believe Ebay's current policies only allow the copyright holder the ability to officially make that kind of complaint.  

Undertaking the kind of effort with Wacky Packages and your website is not something I would attempt.   I'm sure doing so will present opportunities for gratification and frustration.   I look forward to seeing what you can do, and I hope you have the stamina to go the long-haul.

Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: JasonLiebig on March 26, 2010, 02:34:02 PM
I hear you Dave, and I really don't want to turn this into my own soapbox for my thread / case even if it seems that way,  I just hate that this thread has been going on since the 9th or 11th both here and on Greg's forum, and it was clear as day that the shirts were knock offs even before he admitted it.

What I can't stand is that if I used images on a website for free I get 18 pages of people calling me a theif, asshole, scammer, attacker, etc etc  but this guy comes out SELLING stuff and people ask "how much?"

He did NOT say he would stop selling them, he simply said he would not MENTION THEM HERE,  that's a double slap in the face as far as I'm concerned.

I gotta walk away for a bit,  I'm more then furious here, and I just can not put into words my true feelings on this shit,  so before I totally piss everyone off here it's best for me  to just walk away and go cool off.

-Jay-

Let me be clear, I think you removing images created from Greg's scans was the right thing to do.  I've said that publicly, and to you via PM.  But I never called you any of the names you are listing here, and in fact I felt I was always supportive of your efforts whenever I criticized your use of the scans.

Greg may not have legal protection for his scans, as they might be copyright infringement themselves.  That said, removing them was the right thing to do, and I believe it was a mis-step to utilize them in the way you did initially, especially since it's for a comprehensive website on Wacky Packages.  I'm happy that you removed the images and committed to go forward without using Greg's sticker scans, replacing them with new ones.   

You may have noticed that I'm not hitting this guy up for bootleg t-shirts, either.  It's clearly illegal, but I have no interest in cheering on HIS further efforts.  The fact that licensed shirts are currently available makes this simple. 

If you're implying that you're "pissed" at members here for a perceived dual-standard, I'd say you're being largely unfair, and it worries me for the future of your site.  I'd expect Greg to make those kinds of statements, not you. 

These situations might seem to involve similar fundamental issues of copyright (even though I think your situation was about taking the higher road of respect), but even granting that, the bigger picture is very different.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Crakola Crayons on March 26, 2010, 02:36:08 PM
Jay, I too hope you're here for the long haul and will continue to do your site the way it originally should have been done - by building it from your own sources.

As Jason and Dave pointed out, the t-shirt bootlegger is pretty cut and dried - we all know they're illegal, he admitted it and he's going away.  Case is closed.  No point in everyone screaming about it at this juncture.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Bum_and_Mabel on March 26, 2010, 03:43:14 PM
I think my time here might just be about over :(
-Jay-
This broke my heart. Did this break anyone else's heart?
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Bum_and_Mabel on March 26, 2010, 05:01:45 PM
Quoting messngretz: "Sorry if I've offended or pissed anyone off..."

"Again my apologies if it has bothered any of you guys."

"...like I've already stated, sorry if it bothers you so much..."

"...like I said, I apologize if I've bothered or hurt anyone..."


None of these statements is an "apology."

A person can apologize for his own actions. Perhaps, in a manner of speaking, he can "apologize" for someone else's actions (such as "I'm sorry you got pissed," or "I'm sorry you stepped out in front of that bus."). But apologizing for someone else's actions is not an apology for one's own actions.

As far as this guy is concerned, the problem isn't with what he's done, but with other people's uptight response to it...

Someone above asked about the shirts' exact appearance. Even if his shirts were legal, those mock-up photos of his don't depict the product he's selling, merely an approximate "artist's conception" of them. For all intents and purposes, he might as well say to me, rather than posting a photo,

"Okay: imagine a white t-shirt. Sleeves about ...yea-long. Got it? Now, imagine a package of "Commie" on it, about...eight inches high! Can ya see it?"

Me: "Am I imagining a vintage look?"

Him: "No, no. If you're imagining a vintage look, stop. They aren't vintagey."

Me: "Okay. (concentrating) ...Okay."

Him: "...Wanna buy it? ...Believe me: it'll look just like you imagined."
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 26, 2010, 05:42:24 PM

What I can't stand is that if I used images on a website for free I get 18 pages of people calling me a theif, asshole, scammer, attacker, etc etc  but this guy comes out SELLING stuff and people ask "how much?"


When you first rolled out your webpage, all of the responses were in the vein of "Cool," "Nice Site," etc. Most people (with the exception of The Gum :)) are reluctant to go into attack mode no matter what the provocation. That's the same phenomenon we initially saw here. Once someone points out that the emperor has no clothes, everyone feels comfortable jumping in with their disapproval.

For the record, while I support enforcement of the law, I wouldn't be too worked up if this guy were infringing Topps' copyrights in the absence of a legitimate licensee. The main party I'm upset for is 10again, who are paying money for the right to make these shirts and are potentially being undercut by someone who is not.

Topps never poured hours and days of blood and sweat into creating these images, Norm Saunders did. If he were the copyright holder, I'd be as outraged as I am about the lifting of Greg's work. Whether money is being made means nothing to me, it's the principle of using the fruits of someone else's substantial labor without permission that bothers me.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: slamjim on March 26, 2010, 05:58:25 PM
When you first rolled out your webpage, all of the responses were in the vein of "Cool," "Nice Site," etc. Most people (with the exception of The Gum :)) are reluctant to go into attack mode no matter what the provocation. That's the same phenomenon we initially saw here.

To be fair to the people who initially said these types of things I don't think they even noticed it or put 2+2 together. I know I would not have known what Greg's images were compared to someone else's images as I have barely looked at the sticker, wrapper, box images content on his site (got the Gallery or my own collection for that).
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Crakola Crayons on March 26, 2010, 06:04:43 PM
To be fair to the people who initially said these types of things I don't think they even noticed it or put 2+2 together. I know I would not have known what Greg's images were compared to someone else's images as I have barely looked at the sticker, wrapper, box images content on his site (got the Gallery or my own collection for that).

Same here, Dave.  I have my Gallery to look at for items as well as the new Wacky Packages book(s) for larger views of the classic stickers.  I don't think I've ever looked at the images on Greg's site close enough that I'd be able to pick them out of a line-up with other images.  Without some kind of watermark on them, I wouldn't have been able to tell the source.  That's why I didn't jump on the bandwagon for chastizing Jay.  Jay took Greg's images down and that's a good enough "apology" as far as I am concerned.  His actions speak well enough for the words, in my eyes.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Sue Mee on March 26, 2010, 06:10:34 PM
Jay took Greg's images down and that's a good enough "apology" as far as I am concerned.  His actions speak well enough for the words, in my eyes.


I agree Martin.  The images have been removed.  Time to move on.

Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: slamjim on March 26, 2010, 06:18:23 PM

Topps never poured hours and days of blood and sweat into creating these images, Norm Saunders did. If he were the copyright holder, I'd be as outraged as I am about the lifting of Greg's work. Whether money is being made means nothing to me, it's the principle of using the fruits of someone else's substantial labor without permission that bothers me.

Another to be fair, Norm Saunders did some of the hours and days as did the people who wrote the gags, drew the roughs, painted the packaging, painted the lettering, did touch-ups, edited the images etc. All that is an equal part of creating these images. Norm's work is the creamy frosting on the cake though. Beyond that it's just weird that you would say that a single person's labor, hard work, investment (time and money) counts but a company's (same) doesn't. All of that can be applied to a company. I know there is no love for Topps but let's say a family run company who's family members built it from day one, did the work had their images or work used without permission. Same thing. Company or single person should not be any different. As far as Greg's site it's made up of a few components. A fan site, a forum gathering place and a business. While his intentions may be honorable in terms of having a fun place and just being a fan he has also made a big business out of "the principle of using the fruits of someone else's substantial labor without permission". Guy has two apartments now to run this business. He has a (claimed) 2700-4000 person mailing list of buyers. Even if you have some kind of dislike of businesses (don't know so I'm only speculating here) this is all the exact same thing and is very selective reasoning. (and for the record I have never cared that Greg used these images. It's Topps responsibility to enforce it if they want to).

Also, now that I think about it, just like 10 Again you have to look at Greg's business. He is not a Topps dealer. He buys stock from other dealers. The Topps dealers buy directly from Topps and Greg then undercuts them and is able to use the site he created with all these Wacky Packages images he uses to help to that end. Eh, this can go round and round.
Seems like it should all be dropped at this point rather than continually singling out people when it's pretty clear there is some shady stuff that was and is done by all of them.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Sue Mee on March 26, 2010, 06:27:58 PM
To be fair to the people who initially said these types of things I don't think they even noticed it or put 2+2 together. I know I would not have known what Greg's images were compared to someone else's images as I have barely looked at the sticker, wrapper, box images content on his site (got the Gallery or my own collection for that).

That's true for me.  I was happy to see an alternative website but I did not even look at the images, let alone compare them.  To be honest it's been ages since I looked at Greg's images because it's easier to search and look at them locally. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who downloads and saves every Wacky image they run across and views them off line. 
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Bum_and_Mabel on March 26, 2010, 06:39:21 PM
To be fair to the people who initially said these types of things I don't think they even noticed it or put 2+2 together. I know I would not have known what Greg's images were compared to someone else's images as I have barely looked at the sticker, wrapper, box images content on his site (got the Gallery or my own collection for that).
For the record, I was criticizing the WOW website for looking so shoddy and having so many typos as soon as learned of its existence (this guy does this professionally, he says; I take that with a shaker of salt). But that's to some extent a matter of taste, so I'm not surprised that others at first said they found it a commendable effort. When I found out he'd lifted Greg's images, I, unlike some others, was not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he might just be naive. My personal response to the theft was immediate and as clear-cut as realizing I'd just accidentally drunk bleach.

To those who say, "Let it go," I would tend to agree. But then we had that epic, 2-part testimony from the guy this morning, which says within the two parts, multiple times, all he's said before, multiple times. (Luckily it came through just as I'd run out of other things to read!) Then he jumps into the illegal t-shirt fray with both feet. Sure, we should all be mature and restrained and everything about this. But the guy just keeps asking for it!
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: slamjim on March 26, 2010, 06:45:49 PM
For the record, I was criticizing the WOW website for looking so shoddy and having so many typos as soon as learned of its existence (this guy does this professionally, he says; I take that with a shaker of salt). But that's to some extent a matter of taste, so I'm not surprised that others at first said they found it a commendable effort. When I found out he'd lifted Greg's images, I, unlike some others, was not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he might just be naive. My personal response to the theft was immediate and as clear-cut as realizing I'd just accidentally drunk bleach.

To those who say, "Let it go," I would tend to agree. But then we had that epic, 2-part testimony from the guy this morning, which says within the two parts, multiple times, all he's said before, multiple times. (Luckily it came through just as I'd run out of other things to read!) Then he jumps into the illegal t-shirt fray with both feet. Sure, we should all be mature and restrained and everything about this. But the guy just keeps asking for it!

I was responding to the comments that were positive as if they had known anything beforehand.

True, Jay does not seem to be able to let it go after saying he will let it go but he also has a point that there is some hypocritical thinking going on here concerning T-shirt guy, Greg and hell, let's even say Topps! Just the fact they use other companies properties, alter them into a parody and them sell a product from that seems to fit into the equation. Everyone and everything about this hobby is a thief!  Good reason to not go to lengths to fight about this all day.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Bum_and_Mabel on March 26, 2010, 06:58:31 PM
I was responding to the comments that were positive as if they had known anything beforehand.

True, Jay does not seem to be able to let it go after saying he will let it go but he also has a point that there is some hypocritical thinking going on here concerning T-shirt guy, Greg and hell, let's even say Topps! Just the fact they use other companies properties, alter them into a parody and them sell a product from that seems to fit into the equation. Everyone and everything about this hobby is a thief!  Good reason to not go to lengths to fight about this all day.
You're right. Good attitude.


So I imagine you won't object to my line of Dave Gross t-shirts?  :^)
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Crakola Crayons on March 26, 2010, 07:01:21 PM
True, Jay does not seem to be able to let it go after saying he will let it go but he also has a point that there is some hypocritical thinking going on here concerning T-shirt guy, Greg and hell, let's even say Topps! Just the fact they use other companies properties, alter them into a parody and them sell a product from that seems to fit into the equation. Everyone and everything about this hobby is a thief!  Good reason to not go to lengths to fight about this all day.

Wow, that puts an interesting perspective on the entire hobby indeed.  Good analogy, Dave. :D
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Gurgle on March 26, 2010, 07:16:17 PM
To be fair to the people who initially said these types of things I don't think they even noticed it or put 2+2 together. I know I would not have known what Greg's images were compared to someone else's images as I have barely looked at the sticker, wrapper, box images content on his site (got the Gallery or my own collection for that).
No kidding. I'm annoyed by the implication that anyone who glanced at the site knew the origins of any images. I went to the site and didn't even look around because it loads funny on my browser. But once the subject was brought up, I went back and looked around.

On a separate note, I don't think Jay owes anyone here an apology. Some of us were simply concerned that he didn't realize what he did was wrong. He has since acknowledged this so the issue is over in my mind.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Gurgle on March 26, 2010, 07:20:33 PM
I was responding to the comments that were positive as if they had known anything beforehand.

True, Jay does not seem to be able to let it go after saying he will let it go but he also has a point that there is some hypocritical thinking going on here concerning T-shirt guy, Greg and hell, let's even say Topps! Just the fact they use other companies properties, alter them into a parody and them sell a product from that seems to fit into the equation. Everyone and everything about this hobby is a thief!  Good reason to not go to lengths to fight about this all day.
Not agreeing with these comparisons, but do happen to agree with the not fighting part.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: slamjim on March 26, 2010, 07:31:09 PM
Not agreeing with these comparisons, but do happen to agree with the not fighting part.

I should have used an emoticon. There was a bit of sarcasm (and hyperbole) in that post.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Gurgle on March 26, 2010, 08:07:35 PM
I should have used an emoticon. There was a bit of sarcasm (and hyperbole) in that post.

Damn. I forgot to turn on my sarcasm detector.

(Comic Book Guy: A sarcasm detector! That's a REAL useful invention!)
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: JasonLiebig on March 27, 2010, 12:20:27 AM

Topps never poured hours and days of blood and sweat into creating these images, Norm Saunders did. If he were the copyright holder, I'd be as outraged as I am about the lifting of Greg's work. Whether money is being made means nothing to me, it's the principle of using the fruits of someone else's substantial labor without permission that bothers me.

Dave already pointed this out, but it's a bit silly to have outrage over the usage of Greg's scanning and research work, but not Topps' body of work, while invoking the principle of "using the fruits of someone's labor".   

Topps has put infinitely more into Wacky Packages than Greg could ever do - EVER.   If Topps and it's many employees weren't "pouring hours and days of blood and sweat" into their work over the decades; Norm might not have had work at all in an era that his incredible style was not in high demand, Greg would not have had stickers to scan and lift images from for his site and his business, and none of us would be here having this discussion.

God forbid anyone should dismiss Greg Grant's massive importance to the history and evolution of Wacky Packages - but then to hear this casual dismissal of Topps - it's downright bizarre. 

Back on point:  Having hunted for, acquired, scanned, and shared thousands of scans of vintage items, most far more unique than many Wacky Package sticker images - I know how rough it feels when someone utilizes my images without any kind of acknowledgment.  It sucks.  That's why I don't think Jay should've used Greg's images.  It was a wrong move, and an unfortunate one, that was corrected.   

Greg has been nothing but a jerk to me.  However, if Jay stridently holds that he had every right to use Greg's scans, simply because Greg doesn't hold the copyrights - that's something I cannot agree with.  I have always respected the work that Greg has put into his site, and not just because I've done similar work, but it certainly colors my point-of-view.  Collecting and scanning doesn't equate to ownership of the scans, but the work should be respected, and the wishes of the person(s) who did it, with regards to the scans usage, should be respected as well.  Doesn't matter if Greg is your best friend or if he spits on you.


Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Bum_and_Mabel on March 27, 2010, 12:27:30 AM
I don't think Jay owes anyone here an apology. Some of us were simply concerned that he didn't realize what he did was wrong. He has since acknowledged this so the issue is over in my mind.

(...I feel as if I owe everyone an apology for insinuating that anyone owes everyone or anyone an apology:)


Hey, if it seems to you like I insinuated something, well, hey, sorry!!!




... ;)




Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 27, 2010, 09:04:42 AM
You are right...like I said, I apologize if I've bothered or hurt anyone. I'm a big fan of wackies and used to wear wacky shirts as a kid, frustrating not being able to find many of them around.

Whoever runs the boards, just remove this post so it doesn't cause anyone any more anger.
the Lost Wackys that greg and matt spearheaded were sold at a profit and used Topps images. You might want to check into how they got permission to do that without penalty just to be safe.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 27, 2010, 09:07:32 AM
Jay, I'm willing to step up and say I don't support people making bootleg products.  As Dave pointed out quite well, this guy sellings unlicensed products can jeopardize not only licensed merchandise but also the very Wacky Packages parodies produced by Topps that we all love.

I made the mistake of buying a couple of bootlegged shirts, I think from a ex-forum member and the shirts were absolute crap and after a couple of washings were a mess.  I think it wise to stick to licensed products only for the legalities, ethics and potential quality.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 27, 2010, 09:14:38 AM
No kidding. I'm annoyed by the implication that anyone who glanced at the site knew the origins of any images. I went to the site and didn't even look around because it loads funny on my browser. But once the subject was brought up, I went back and looked around.


If people really didn't notice all the photos were Greg's I'll accept that. I just figured it was pretty obvious, what with images of packs and full boxes floating by from left to right on the front page, the box images having been discussed in a lengthy thread on Greg's forum just recently. But though it was obvious to me immediately they were Greg's, I admit the images are probably more familiar to me.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 27, 2010, 09:24:49 AM
Dave already pointed this out, but it's a bit silly to have outrage over the usage of Greg's scanning and research work, but not Topps' body of work, while invoking the principle of "using the fruits of someone's labor".  

Topps has put infinitely more into Wacky Packages than Greg could ever do - EVER.   If Topps and it's many employees weren't "pouring hours and days of blood and sweat" into their work over the decades; Norm might not have had work at all in an era that his incredible style was not in high demand, Greg would not have had stickers to scan and lift images from for his site and his business, and none of us would be here having this discussion.

God forbid anyone should dismiss Greg Grant's massive importance to the history and evolution of Wacky Packages - but then to hear this casual dismissal of Topps - it's downright bizarre.  

If people don't leap to Topps' defense when someone profits off of their copyrighted images, it could be related to the company's historical record of underpaying, ripping off and exploiting their creative talent.  This is a record shared by Marvel and DC comics well into the early '80's. I think people would be much more sympathetic to a company like EC comics, who were well known for being creator-friendly during a time when few others were.

In other words: yes, Topps was responsible for creating the setting within which wackys could be produced. Beyond that, their record is pretty blemished. As for Norm getting work when his style was not in demand,
well, yes, that's technically true. The same argument was made by factory owners paying their workers pennies an hour while they made millions: "If it weren't for us, they'd have no jobs at all!" Can I assume you're OK with such exploitative labor practices?

As for comparing Greg's importance to the evolution of wackys with that of Topps, well, you're the only one doing that. Who ever said anything about Topps being unimportant? I understand there has to be some element in the conversation that allows you to belittle Greg's importance, but the topic here was why I was more upset about Greg's images being stolen than those of Topps. That had nothing to do with who was more important to the evolution of wackys.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 27, 2010, 09:28:19 AM
What speaks volumes is a little thing called "double standards"  I was picked apart and downright attacked for simply using someone else's images on a not for profit level,  those SAME PEOPLE were all over this thread and yet MOST of them SAID NOTHING (you can see who is viewing threads by looking at the top)

The people who DID speak in this thread FIRST actually wanted to buy the bootlegs, "How much"  "can you make this one"  & "can you make one with two diff wackys"

It's a well known fact who is allowed and who is not allowed to sell WP stuff, but from what I see it's only wrong to post images for free, but it's ok to sell them :(

Saying sorry does not mean that person will STOP selling the shirts, right now there are 14 WP shirts on Ebay
http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m38.l1313&_nkw=wacky+packages+shirts&_sacat=See-All-Categories

Are any of them his/hers ? his images (that are now gone from this thread ALL said "card name-ebay-image" meaning he either HAS sold via ebay, is selling on ebay now OR about to sell on Ebay.

when it comes to out right breaking the law "sorry" does not mean jack shit

If Topps decided to take him to court with his admission he KNEW it was against the law to sell the shirts, do you really think "Sorry" will make the charges drop?

I'm more then livid on this matter,  there was an outright witch hunt on me (still is in a round about way) because I simply posted images for free, but selling images, that's ok?

I think my time here might just be about over :(

-Jay-
Another history lesson for you here.  matt and greg spearheaded a project called "lost wackys" where unused wacky pack images owned by Topps were produced as a card set.  It was preached that this was a collector set sold for no profit but that was a big smoke screen.  There was nearly ZERO outcry about this illegal use of topps images.  I was pretty much alone in calling this out because most others fear greg like death. 

In fact, the person who asked about double sided T shirts here(marc) was one of the first to take a Lost Wacky set and flip it on ebay for huge profits.  I missed that auction while it was running but shortly after, the brother of a forum member who was VERY CLOSE to greg did the same.  I made a public stink about it and greg blew a gasket and accused me of just trying to be a trouble maker and having un-specified alterior motives all while he was supposed to be the one curtailing the profiteering that was taking place in insuring that collectors were informed not to flip these on ebay.

After those two ebay auctions went for several hundred $, all of the sudden, the "cost" of the sets went from $75 to $225.  The guy greg bought his recent hoard of display boxes(from NJ) bought a lost wacky set for $225 and greg told him to make sure not to let me know about this.  The guy was so bewildered about this that he asked me why I wasn;t supposed to be told that sets were being sold privately for $225.  I had a pile of 2nd and 3rd hand reports of sets being sold for $225.

greg threw up a major smoke screen about how much blood, sweat and tears went into the lost wacky project(gee, have you heard that story before) and how Duane Dimock sabotaged the project by altering images that the poor quality control of the Lost wacky project failed to detect.  This somewhat succeeded in shifting focus from the illegalitiies of the extreme profits being made from this "collector" set.

Do feel free to take the specific ids of the most vocal folks relating to your image lifting and go scour the old forum for their public posts about lost wacky project.  I assure you that you won't find any of them complaining about the Lost wacky project.  The wrath of greg was not worth enfocement of ethics and legalities.

I again warn you, double standards run rampant in this hobby so you will do yourself a favor to get used to it.  Topps not going after the lost wackys profiteers seemed to set a precedence that Topps wasn't interested in protecting its copyrights so I don't blame people for making other bootlegs as the door looks like it was swung wide open!  Maybe Topps is only now shutting the door again but the double standard is already well under way and topps should get off its ass and do some cleanup about the past transgressions.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 27, 2010, 09:33:58 AM
After doing a bit of digging I can say clearly that this person is "Rangerjoe" from Greg's board and he even showed off his home made shirts in this thread http://www.wackypackages.org/wackyforum/getmessage.php?mn=1&t=3603&mode=u&a=1&stealth=

in case you don't want to go there and look for his posts here they are:

From:   rangerjoe
To:   ronofthedead 
   Posted: Tuesday 1:23 pm, March 9, 2010   message 3603.14 in reply to 3603.10
Yeah it's pretty cool. I make wacky tees too, check out attached as an example...

http://www.wackypackages.org/wackyforum/users/rangerjoe/uploads/COMMIE-ebay-shirt.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:   rangerjoe
To:   ronofthedead 
   Posted: Friday 10:09 am, March 26, 2010   message 3603.16 in reply to 3603.15
I can make any wacky you'd guys like on the tee...let me know if you'd like to see a sample of the ones you choose.

Thanks


Note that that image was the exact same one he posted here,  he actually just hotlinked it from Greg's forum

-Jay-
Dude, RangerJoe has been selling these T-shirts for a long time.  I think Buzooka or some similar named forum member has also sold knock off T-shirts that many of us purchased.  Not a peep of concern about it because people were happy to be able to get wacky t-shirts.  Legalities and ethics are only brought up when convenient, there is no consistancy at all(well there is, you will eventually see it....).

Go back to the old forum, I believe both would sometimes stop by and mention the availability of their products. 

Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 27, 2010, 09:40:21 AM
Jay,

All those shirts you linked to on Ebay are legal and sold second hand. The other ones there a 1970s knock-off iron-ons (copyright from some other company). You are correct that this member has sold shirts on Ebay before. He has also posted the shirts for sale on Greg's site over the years and as recently as yesterday or today posted an ad for them. I would expect Greg or his defenders will have something to say about that post considering the uproar.

I see your point in that even though the guy said that he was sorry and would not sell them anymore he also admitted they were illegal and felt that was OK because he was just doing a favor. But...because he did so so quickly I don't think your going to see everyone have to pile it on because that would then just be overkill and have to be a show to help your case. What really needs to happens from this is for people to just drop the subject with you since they are being hypocrites with others doing something questionable. You've dropped the images, given credit, admitted it up front and volunteered to make things right with the site owner but haven't given the "i'm sorry" line that a few people think you still owe. If they aren't going to drop it at this point with you then they must pile it on this guy which to me seems like BS as both of you have given enough of an explanation and repented enough for my tastes. If it happens again then fine, attack away but both of you have promised what people asked. Done.
GREAT POST!!  Obviously, we are never going to get an "I'm sorry" from greg for his being out of line in calling us all dipshits and blaming us all for Jay's website.  Remember greg's attack of me when I DID call out Lost Wackys on ebay, it was HIS job to do so and yet he made me out to be the badguy when he should have been all over these ebay auctions just like he feels we should have been all over Jay.  Does that make greg a dipshit?
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 27, 2010, 09:46:39 AM
I hear you Dave, and I really don't want to turn this into my own soapbox for my thread / case even if it seems that way,  I just hate that this thread has been going on since the 9th or 11th both here and on Greg's forum, and it was clear as day that the shirts were knock offs even before he admitted it.

What I can't stand is that if I used images on a website for free I get 18 pages of people calling me a theif, asshole, scammer, attacker, etc etc  but this guy comes out SELLING stuff and people ask "how much?"

He did NOT say he would stop selling them, he simply said he would not MENTION THEM HERE,  that's a double slap in the face as far as I'm concerned.

I gotta walk away for a bit,  I'm more then furious here, and I just can not put into words my true feelings on this shit,  so before I totally piss everyone off here it's best for me  to just walk away and go cool off.

-Jay-
you are 100% correct, he has no plans to stop selling them so ignorance is bliss will be the final rule here.  L'et's see if Ranger Joe can make some T-shirts showing display boxes using images from greg's site.....any predictions on who the complainers will be?
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 27, 2010, 09:48:23 AM
Jay,

I don't think there's even a question of legality of selling these bootleg tees is there?  It's pretty clear.  Which is, perhaps, why there aren't people "piling on".  It's fairly cut-and-dry, and not worthy of discussion.   There are lots of folks out there on Ebay bootlegging t-shirts, and we all clearly understand that it's illegal.  

The issue with utilizing Greg's scans as the basis for your cleaned-up images for your site is far more complicated and, apparently, worthy of debate/discussion.   It's also understandably closer to people here, because it is closer.  

It's easy to dismiss this guy because no one knows him, and it would appear he's disappeared.   But with you, it's far more different.  I can't speak for everyone, but for myself, I have high hopes for your continued online efforts with Wacky Packages.  So I'm far more interested in seeing you do things the right way (even if what the "right way" is less clearly defined).  

Ironically, inditing members here due to some perceived dual-standard is the kind of thing Greg did when we were discussing the issue with his scans.  I hope that's not what you're doing, and mentioning that you're "time here might just be about over", I don't understand what you mean.  It's a loaded statement, and I'd rather not read too much into it.

I don't think anyone here "supports" this guys' bootleg tees.  It just seems SO cut-and-dry that there's no reason to add to the discussion.  What he's doing is illegal, and he's going away, never to bother us again.   If he's selling bootleg Wacky tees on Ebay, Topps should stop him.  I believe Ebay's current policies only allow the copyright holder the ability to officially make that kind of complaint.  

Undertaking the kind of effort with Wacky Packages and your website is not something I would attempt.   I'm sure doing so will present opportunities for gratification and frustration.   I look forward to seeing what you can do, and I hope you have the stamina to go the long-haul.


You'd be sorely wrong in believing this hobby and the exact recent vocal people haven't endorsed boot legged T-shirts.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 27, 2010, 10:02:09 AM
When you first rolled out your webpage, all of the responses were in the vein of "Cool," "Nice Site," etc. Most people (with the exception of The Gum :)) are reluctant to go into attack mode no matter what the provocation. That's the same phenomenon we initially saw here. Once someone points out that the emperor has no clothes, everyone feels comfortable jumping in with their disapproval.

For the record, while I support enforcement of the law, I wouldn't be too worked up if this guy were infringing Topps' copyrights in the absence of a legitimate licensee. The main party I'm upset for is 10again, who are paying money for the right to make these shirts and are potentially being undercut by someone who is not.

Topps never poured hours and days of blood and sweat into creating these images, Norm Saunders did. If he were the copyright holder, I'd be as outraged as I am about the lifting of Greg's work. Whether money is being made means nothing to me, it's the principle of using the fruits of someone else's substantial labor without permission that bothers me.
Your characterization of the "people" here is offensive.  You are suggesting that people purposefully looked away and only piled on when the discomfort of doing so was broken.  I take personal offense to your comment and I wouldn't blame others for doing the same.

Many have said they didn't notice greg's images were lifted.  Some said they thought it was greg's images and were going to check it out soon.  greg's meltdown was within what, 48 hours of the website being made available all while people were still getting used to this being the new forum and how to navigate.  Maybe their #1 priority wasn't go to greg's website and doublecheck images.


My specific experience was that I went to Jay's site, spent like 2 minutes berusing all of the original series stuff, looked over the Old School stuff in much more detail as that was on my mind.  I would say the only thing would have jumped out to me would be the display box images and since I didn't review that page, I had little chance to even draw the conclusion that greg's images were lifted.  The only thing that stuck in the back of my mind was it seemed to me the same stuff was missing that greg was missing but I didn't give it another thought.

So....again, your assertion that the "people" here purposely looked the other way and jumped on the criticism bandwagon is offensive as you are in effect endoring greg's declaration that we are all dipshits.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 27, 2010, 10:06:13 AM
No kidding. I'm annoyed by the implication that anyone who glanced at the site knew the origins of any images. I went to the site and didn't even look around because it loads funny on my browser. But once the subject was brought up, I went back and looked around.

On a separate note, I don't think Jay owes anyone here an apology. Some of us were simply concerned that he didn't realize what he did was wrong. He has since acknowledged this so the issue is over in my mind.
Paul Maul is completely out of line with his implication and it is clear many of us are taking his implication the same way so his message is clear....even though it is wrong!
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: JasonLiebig on March 27, 2010, 11:31:52 AM
If people don't leap to Topps' defense when someone profits off of their copyrighted images, it could be related to the company's historical record of underpaying, ripping off and exploiting their creative talent.  This is a record shared by Marvel and DC comics well into the early '80's. I think people would be much more sympathetic to a company like EC comics, who were well known for being creator-friendly during a time when few others were.

In other words: yes, Topps was responsible for creating the setting within which wackys could be produced. Beyond that, their record is pretty blemished. As for Norm getting work when his style was not in demand,
well, yes, that's technically true. The same argument was made by factory owners paying their workers pennies an hour while they made millions: "If it weren't for us, they'd have no jobs at all!" Can I assume you're OK with such exploitative labor practices?

As for comparing Greg's importance to the evolution of wackys with that of Topps, well, you're the only one doing that. Who ever said anything about Topps being unimportant? I understand there has to be some element in the conversation that allows you to belittle Greg's importance, but the topic here was why I was more upset about Greg's images being stolen than those of Topps. That had nothing to do with who was more important to the evolution of wackys.

PaulMaul,

Sorry if my Greg comment was too strong for you, I don't know any other way to address these things you say.  I just get sick of hearing you seem to dismiss Topps while also seeming to canonize Greg, with regards to their "goodness" in the realm of Wacky Packages.   It provokes an equivalent reaction from me.  You're pals with Greg, but I'm not friends with Topps, so I'm trying to find some way to address this that is not distasteful to you - it's not easy. 

As an editor, I fought tooth and nail for years to get my artists and writers higher rates, going so far as to nearly argue myself out of my job with regards to Ariel Olivetti's painted cover rate.  So you don't need to make me out to be pro-exploitation, because it's bull.   I'd have to guess that I've actually fought harder and increased more artist's salaries than most members here (including you) have.  So before you continue sing-songing the tragedy of Norm Saunders' exploitation under the evil oppression of Topps, and others under Marvel and DC, how have you championed the plight of artists? 
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 27, 2010, 12:14:33 PM
Paul Maul is completely out of line with his implication and it is clear many of us are taking his implication the same way so his message is clear....even though it is wrong!

If it's really the case that nobody noticed any of the images were Greg's, then I apologize. I do find it difficult to believe, because I (like you) merely gave the front page a cursory glance, and it was obvious to me just from that. There was a parade of Greg's images moving across the screen, tough to miss, but maybe everyone was mesmerized by the Old School sketch card images and just didn't notice anything else.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 27, 2010, 12:22:07 PM
PaulMaul,

Sorry if my Greg comment was too strong for you, I don't know any other way to address these things you say.  I just get sick of hearing you seem to dismiss Topps while also seeming to canonize Greg, with regards to their "goodness" in the realm of Wacky Packages.   It provokes an equivalent reaction from me.  You're pals with Greg, but I'm not friends with Topps, so I'm trying to find some way to address this that is not distasteful to you - it's not easy. 

As an editor, I fought tooth and nail for years to get my artists and writers higher rates, going so far as to nearly argue myself out of my job with regards to Ariel Olivetti's painted cover rate.  So you don't need to make me out to be pro-exploitation, because it's bull.   I'd have to guess that I've actually fought harder and increased more artist's salaries than most members here (including you) have.  So before you continue sing-songing the tragedy of Norm Saunders' exploitation under the evil oppression of Topps, and others under Marvel and DC, how have you championed the plight of artists? 

Your Greg comment is not "too strong" for me. It's just out of left field, because I never compared Greg's importance to Topps' in any way.  "Goodness in the realm of Wacky Packages" is far too non-specific to compare Topps and Greg. They are not engaged in similar endeavors, so comparing them is pointless.

Of course I'm not implying you are against creators' rights. Based on your other postings I was pretty certain the exact opposite was the case, which is why I found it odd for you to be patting Topps on the back for "giving people work" when their underhanded and exploitative tactics from that period are well known.

And aside from making copious statements over the years in support of creators' rights (specifically in the comic book field), I've done nothing else. You worked in the comic book field during a time when the big names in the industry were slipping in their piles of cash, but I'm sure the lesser talents still had to struggle, and I commend you for going to bat for them.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: DrSushi on March 27, 2010, 02:30:15 PM
When you first rolled out your webpage, all of the responses were in the vein of "Cool," "Nice Site," etc. Most people (with the exception of The Gum :)) are reluctant to go into attack mode no matter what the provocation. That's the same phenomenon we initially saw here. Once someone points out that the emperor has no clothes, everyone feels comfortable jumping in with their disapproval.

Not to beat a dead horse, but since I was one of the ones who responded as you mentioned (mine was a scrolling "Wow") - I was not "reluctant to go into attack mode". I did not explore the site at that time and so saw nothing to attack. When I did go back, it was to find out which ANS series a particular image was from (to order a wall cling from LTL). I didn't notice anything specific about the ANS images that would make me think they were "borrowed" from Greg.

For the record, I agree that it was not cool for Jay to lift Greg's images without permission.

Also for the record, I'm comfortable with Jay's response to the situation.


Since we're calling for apologies, I would like to see Greg apologize to Brad for unjustly accusing Brad of banning Greg. (This is not to imply the transgression is on the same level as lifting images that took many hours to scan.)

Oh, and again for the record, I don't need an apology for being called a dipshit; because as you can see under my forum name, I am a dipshit.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: JasonLiebig on March 27, 2010, 02:32:19 PM
Your Greg comment is not "too strong" for me. It's just out of left field, because I never compared Greg's importance to Topps' in any way.  "Goodness in the realm of Wacky Packages" is far too non-specific to compare Topps and Greg. They are not engaged in similar endeavors, so comparing them is pointless.

Of course I'm not implying you are against creators' rights. Based on your other postings I was pretty certain the exact opposite was the case, which is why I found it odd for you to be patting Topps on the back for "giving people work" when their underhanded and exploitative tactics from that period are well known.

And aside from making copious statements over the years in support of creators' rights (specifically in the comic book field), I've done nothing else. You worked in the comic book field during a time when the big names in the industry were slipping in their piles of cash, but I'm sure the lesser talents still had to struggle, and I commend you for going to bat for them.

I appreciat that, Paul.  

The thing is, I've seen both sides of it.  I've seen creators from the 70's lying about the agreements they signed, and demanding huge sums of money because a character they created was turned into a film, for instance.  

Publishers like Topps and Marvel do make millions of dollars, and the rights of creators have been increased.  But what Marvel (or Topps for that matter) bring to the table is, in so many ways, as important as what the creators do.  So while I'm gratified that creators have become more important, and better compensated, the companies should not be thrown under the bus.  

Exploitation and "fair pay" is such a broad topic, especially when you're talking about freelance artists.  By their nature, freelance artists can be as mercenary as the companies that pay them, and they typically are.   They go where the best deal is.  I don't blame companies for "getting the best deal they can".  It SUCKS, but it's what we all do as individuals.   Companies, like individuals, make mistakes - sometimes we all sacrifice long-term quality for short term price, and it comes back to bite us.  

I don't know, Kirby created all of these amazing things for Marvel and DC (and others).  Was he compensated fairly?  Maybe not by todays standards, but he did jump ship from the companies he worked for and looked for better deals.  Did he start his own publishing company?   Could he have?  

You and I can look to the amazing work that Neal Adams and others did for bringing creators together to press publishers to return original artwork.  That's good stuff.  It's important.  

But like so many great things, it may be the increased salaries for the creative folks that eventually put the nail in the coffin of published comics.   Maybe not, but it's been said that freelance salaries are the primary reason for $4 comic books (I'm not sure I believe this - but I've had it told to me).

I don't know the answer, but I do know that it's easy to point a finger at Topps or Marvel and claim wrongdoing, or exploitation, when it's not nearly so cut-and-dry.    
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 27, 2010, 02:58:27 PM
The thing is, I've seen both sides of it.  I've seen creators from the 70's lying about the agreements they signed, and demanding huge sums of money because a character they created was turned into a film, for instance.  

Let's say Marv Wolfman signed over all rights to the Tomb of Dracula characters when he created them (which I assume he did based on the standard work for hire contract). When a major motion picture is made based on one of them, should Marvel really hold fast to that agreement, or would it ultimately serve their reputation better to compensate him fairly? I'm all for contracts being enforced, it just seems very exploitative to me to take advantage of starry-eyed youths thrilled just to be working in a medium they grew up loving who have absolutely no clout to get a better deal. The same thing was done to a lot of rock bands in the '60's and '70's. I guess they were all pretty naive, but it still seems exploitative.

The irony is that a lot of the young talent that broke in at DC in the early '70's got their shot because the veteran writers were pressing for better benefits, and were summarily fired by DC.
 
Exploitation and "fair pay" is such a broad topic, especially when you're talking about freelance artists.  By their nature, freelance artists can be as mercenary as the companies that pay them, and they typically are.   They go where the best deal is.  I don't blame companies for "getting the best deal they can".  It SUCKS, but it's what we all do as individuals.   Companies, like individuals, make mistakes - sometimes we all sacrifice long-term quality for short term price, and it comes back to bite us.  

It's one thing to get the best deal you can when the playing field is at least approximately level. But if economic circumstances at the time dictated that Topps could pay Norm $1 per wacky painting, should they do that? Or should they do what EC did, and thereby gain the loyalty of a lot of creators in the process? The question can be posed both as a practical question (for the employer's self-interest) and an ethical one.

I don't know, Kirby created all of these amazing things for Marvel and DC (and others).  Was he compensated fairly?

But like so many great things, it may be the increased salaries for the creative folks that eventually put the nail in the coffin of published comics.   Maybe not, but it's been said that freelance salaries are the primary reason for $4 comic books (I'm not sure I believe this - but I've had it told to me).

You make an interesting point. I agree that the quality we saw in the Silver Age of comics would probably have been untenable if the creators were paid fairly. I feel similarly about Major League baseball. The economic circumstances that prevailed in the game's golden age, while exploitative of the players, were in many ways beneficial to the product on the field. I've thought about it a lot, and I just don't see any way to reform baseball to make it both fair to the players and great for the fan.

Norm Saunders is of course the perfect example, as Topps never could have afforded to pay him what he was worth. But they could have done quite a bit better than they did.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: JasonLiebig on March 27, 2010, 03:17:45 PM
Let's say Marv Wolfman signed over all rights to the Tomb of Dracula characters when he created them (which I assume he did based on the standard work for hire contract). When a major motion picture is made based on one of them, should Marvel really hold fast to that agreement, or would it ultimately serve their reputation better to compensate him fairly? I'm all for contracts being enforced, it just seems very exploitative to me to take advantage of starry-eyed youths thrilled just to be working in a medium they grew up loving who have absolutely no clout to get a better deal. The same thing was done to a lot of rock bands in the '60's and '70's. I guess they were all pretty naive, but it still seems exploitative.

The irony is that a lot of the young talent that broke in at DC in the early '70's got their shot because the veteran writers were pressing for better benefits, and were summarily fired by DC.
 
It's one thing to get the best deal you can when the playing field is at least approximately level. But if economic circumstances at the time dictated that Topps could pay Norm $1 per wacky painting, should they do that? Or should they do what EC did, and thereby gain the loyalty of a lot of creators in the process? The question can be posed both as a practical question (for the employer's self-interest) and an ethical one.

You make an interesting point. I agree that the quality we saw in the Silver Age of comics would probably have been untenable if the creators were paid fairly. I feel similarly about Major League baseball. The economic circumstances that prevailed in the game's golden age, while exploitative of the players, were in many ways beneficial to the product on the field. I've thought about it a lot, and I just don't see any way to reform baseball to make it both fair to the players and great for the fan.

Norm Saunders is of course the perfect example, as Topps never could have afforded to pay him what he deserved. But they could have done quite a bit better than they did.

It really is tough.  I think the easiest thing to agree upon is that we wish these incredibly talented individuals like Kirby, Wolfman, Saunders, and others - all men who had hands in timeless creations - that they never suffered for money.  That's a real tragedy when that happens.  When some of these creators don't have health insurance or can't pay their rent.

Hypothetically speaking:  Claiming a work-for-hire guy is entitled to millions on a creation he did 30 years ago and walked away from is one thing, but seeing that same guy hit the skids while his "creation" is raking in millions at the box office just can't be right. 

I've had the pleasure (and occassional) frustration of working with Chris Claremont, and I feel fortunate that we've developed, if not a close friendship, at least a mutual respect.  Chris didn't "create" Wolverine, so when that movie comes out, he gets squat.  But he (and Frank Miller) probably did the most real work on creating the character that was seen on the screen.   Is that justice?  Or does the guy who simply "invented" him truly deserve the cash more?  Chris didn't invent the X-Men, but boy those movies and cartoon series have plagarized just about every great story he wrote.  But that doesn't get him gauranteed cash - because he didn't "create" them.   

Sitting with Claremont a year-and-a-half-ago, talking about the trailer and discussing which of "his" characters were appearing in it was exciting, and a little sobering.  Because Chris doesn't get money when a Wolverine movie is made.  The creators of Wolverine do (I believe they fall under that umbrella of getting money under some character creation agreement - though Wolverine may have been entirely work-for-hire - not sure).  So when working for a publisher, the idea of "creation" even becomes muddled. 

Sometimes a character is just a neat little creation, and it takes the publisher's continued existence and the many creators that work on that creation later, to turn it into something "worth millions".   

As you point out, there's so much irony in all of this, and what is fair, is difficult to suss out. 
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: JasonLiebig on March 27, 2010, 03:19:56 PM
PaulMaul,

One comment on EC's practices.  I would think that's just good business, but some companies don't value loyalty the same way.  And sometimes they shouldn't.  I've always tried to be loyal, and not gone after top dollar, but maybe that's not smart.   I certainly respect companies (and people) that fall more on the loyal side, but if they choose to do business-as-usual, I can't necessarily fault them.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 27, 2010, 10:52:15 PM
If it's really the case that nobody noticed any of the images were Greg's, then I apologize. I do find it difficult to believe, because I (like you) merely gave the front page a cursory glance, and it was obvious to me just from that. There was a parade of Greg's images moving across the screen, tough to miss, but maybe everyone was mesmerized by the Old School sketch card images and just didn't notice anything else.
More annoying to me was that we all already defended ourselves for this exact issue when greg called us all dipshits so having to go through it again with you is tiresome.  You complain when I say there are undeniable patterns of your seeming to be a mouthpiece for greg yet time and time again, you make comments that match that pattern.  You are entitled to disagree that the pattern exists and I am entitled to call it out.  It is clear we disagree on this point so no need to debate your motive on in effect rehashing the dipshits issue.

Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: slamjim on March 28, 2010, 12:00:43 AM
If it's really the case that nobody noticed any of the images were Greg's, then I apologize. I do find it difficult to believe, because I (like you) merely gave the front page a cursory glance, and it was obvious to me just from that. There was a parade of Greg's images moving across the screen, tough to miss, but maybe everyone was mesmerized by the Old School sketch card images and just didn't notice anything else.

Didn't you work on some of these images? If that was the case that would make you way more sensitive to what they are.

I find it hard to believe that you find it hard to believe that most people who collect Wacky stickers and have probably looked at their stickers hundreds of times would notice that a sticker image posted on a website that they barely glanced at, that had some kind of drop shadow effect (which was probably not even noticed), was specifically someone else's doctored image. Not to mention (but again I have to) that I (and apparently some others here) have mentioned that Greg's image area was not something that we really ever looked at or even needed to look at. That area is really for newbies and guests. If your hardcore those images are not really heavy reading material.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 28, 2010, 08:36:49 AM

I find it hard to believe that you find it hard to believe that most people who collect Wacky stickers and have probably looked at their stickers hundreds of times would notice that a sticker image posted on a website that they barely glanced at, that had some kind of drop shadow effect (which was probably not even noticed), was specifically someone else's doctored image. Not to mention (but again I have to) that I (and apparently some others here) have mentioned that Greg's image area was not something that we really ever looked at or even needed to look at. That area is really for newbies and guests. If your hardcore those images are not really heavy reading material.

Of course I don't expect anyone to recognize sticker scans. It's the full box and unopened pack scans that were immediately obvious to me. Especially the full boxes, which no one else has ever had pictures of and which were displayed on Greg's forum in recent months. But if people say they didn't recognize anything as
Greg's I'll accept that.

I look at Greg's images all the time, but if you're not into things like looking at packs and sheets I can see where you might not visit too often.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 28, 2010, 09:03:53 AM
Of course I don't expect anyone to recognize sticker scans. It's the full box and unopened pack scans that were immediately obvious to me. Especially the full boxes, which no one else has ever had pictures of and which were displayed on Greg's forum in recent months. But if people say they didn't recognize anything as
Greg's I'll accept that.

I look at Greg's images all the time, but if you're not into things like looking at packs and sheets I can see where you might not visit too often.
How often are greg's pack and sheets pages updated?  twice a year?  I don't even understand your premise that since you are "into" these things that you view the same images "all the time".  This doesn't sound very rational and certainly is a ridiculous premise to impose on the rest of the hobby.

So, in the barely 48 hours from the time the WOW website was made available to the public primarily through a new forum that people were getting used to navigation, you decided that it was more reasonable that there was some sort of conspiracy that people noticed greg's stuff was lifted(which we all agree only had a shot of being obvious with THESE TWO AREAS you mention) and that they suddenly got honest("comfortable") about it after Mark said something. 

You decided the less reasonable explanation is that people didn't notice this and that when it was called out, they looked again and then agreed it was wrong which I will say with a high degree of confidence applies to just about all of us if not all of us.

If I were you, I would stop providing apologies that have an "*" relating to your disbelief that we all don't worship greg's website and images on an hourly basis and move on because your approach is starting to seem like Jay's approach of * laden acknowledgement.

One thing you might want to take note of, you at least are taking the time to understand a different point of view and are sorta providing an apology.  greg called us all dipshits, has never looked back and is totally comfortable that he is 100% justified in doing so.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 28, 2010, 09:53:57 AM
How often are greg's pack and sheets pages updated?  twice a year?  I don't even understand your premise that since you are "into" these things that you view the same images "all the time".  This doesn't sound very rational and certainly is a ridiculous premise to impose on the rest of the hobby.

It has nothing to do with being updated. I'm obviously very consumed with unopened packs, sheet positions and the like and have gone back time and time again to look at the sheet and pack scans while thinking about different things. I'm not imposing anything on the rest of the hobby, Dave implied only newbies and guests would ever look at Greg's images and I pointed myself out as an exception to that premise.

So, in the barely 48 hours from the time the WOW website was made available to the public primarily through a new forum that people were getting used to navigation, you decided that it was more reasonable that there was some sort of conspiracy that people noticed greg's stuff was lifted(which we all agree only had a shot of being obvious with THESE TWO AREAS you mention) and that they suddenly got honest("comfortable") about it after Mark said something.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. Most people on the forum (often, myself included) would rather shy away from controversy and make a positive comment, so I think they (we) sometimes look the other way to avoid unpleasantness. Maybe some people did that, maybe not, I obviously have no proof one way or the other.

And, at the risk of belaboring the point, these TWO AREAS did not have to be searched out, all the random images from the site (including these) were floating by on the front page.

Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Sue Mee on March 28, 2010, 10:22:11 AM
And, at the risking of belaboring the point, these TWO AREAS did not have to be searched out, all the random images from the site (including these) were floating by on the front page.


The disproportionate amount of attention you devote to this event (that was rectified long ago) is transparent.  Do you really think that what Jay did was way worse than somebody knowingly selling Flashback boxes to hobbyists knowing full well that they probably don't have a gold in them?

Or do you really think what Jay did was worse than someone trying to strike a deal with Topps so that they are the exception to the Old School on-line exclusive thereby shutting out all of the regular distributors?  

I think these two things are way worse because they were motivated by profit, greed and selfishness.  


Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 28, 2010, 11:16:27 AM
The disproportionate amount of attention you devote to this event (that was rectified long ago) is transparent.  Do you really think that what Jay did was way worse than somebody knowingly selling Flashback boxes to hobbyists knowing full well that they probably don't have a gold in them?

Or do you really think what Jay did was worse than someone trying to strike a deal with Topps so that they are the exception to the Old School on-line exclusive thereby shutting out all of the regular distributors?  

I think these two things are way worse because they were motivated by profit, greed and selfishness.  




The only reason I'm continuing to post about this at all is because Ernie continues to pick apart my responses and I feel I have to clarify them or allow myself to be defined by him.

As I've told Ernie, I don't see the point in comparing "how bad" totally unrelated things are. Is your point to prove my "bias" like Ernie constantly tries to? Am I supposed to be an ass-kisser toward Alfrey now too? I'm sorry, but I'm really getting lost with the point of all this. I posted about this originally because it bothered me. That doesn't mean it's objectively worse than anything else, just that it was up there for me. I am happy to let it go provided I don't have to endure any more badgering.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Sue Mee on March 28, 2010, 11:29:29 AM
The only reason I'm continuing to post about this at all is because Ernie continues to pick apart my responses and I feel I have to clarify them or allow myself to be defined by him.

As I've told Ernie, I don't see the point in comparing "how bad" totally unrelated things are. Is your point to prove my "bias" like Ernie constantly tries to? Am I supposed to be an ass-kisser toward Alfrey now too? I'm sorry, but I'm really getting lost with the point of all this. I posted about this originally because it bothered me. That doesn't mean it's objectively worse than anything else, just that it was up there for me. I am happy to let it go provided I don't have to endure any more badgering.

I'm not trying to badger you but yes, the point of comparisons is to imply you may not be as willing to rake Greg over the coals for doing worse things.  For me, that is the way you are coming across here.  You say "you posted about this because it bothered you".  I'm  simply asking you if these other events bothered you too.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 28, 2010, 11:55:31 AM
I'm not trying to badger you but yes, the point of comparisons is to imply you may not be as willing to rake Greg over the coals for doing worse things.  For me, that is the way you are coming across here.  You say "you posted about this because it bothered you".  I'm  simply asking you if these other events bothered you too.

Either the other events didn't bother Dave or they did bother him and he chose not to say anything.  Interestingly, he may say the latter is because he doesn't like controversy yet it would be rather clumsy and clueless to think that continually suggesting that we purposely ignored the lifting of greg's images wouldn't spark controversy so to narrow down Dave's desire to avoid controversy, it is to avoid controversy WITH greg! 

I totally understand that desire as I have heard many said they fear controvesry with greg like death.

I draw the same conclusion from either possibility that Dave has a more critical eye towards events when greg plays the victim card and it irks him that each time he does it, I call it out.  I couldn't call it out if the pattern wasn't repeating like a broken record.

In summary, it is EQUALLY clear cut that greg's images were lifted which wasn't cool as is it that we were all wrongly accused of looking the other way.  I vote both as being wrong(the image lifting and the unfounded accusation of the group) and I feel anyone who is spending time lamenting one more than the other is biased.  As much as I tend to be biased against greg, I wholeheartedly have felt taking his images is ethically wrong per a standard set by this hobby.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Jean Nutty on March 28, 2010, 11:58:10 AM
GREAT POST!!  Obviously, we are never going to get an "I'm sorry" from greg for his being out of line in calling us all dipshits and blaming us all for Jay's website.
I’ve been smoking some sweet herb today and feel the need to pipe in with a brief cotton-mouth comment.

When Greg was posting a while back, I couldn’t stay focused long enough to read all of his posts because they were a bit redundant and crazy, (I know, who am I to talk!?), but I did try to skim all of his messages, curious to see if he would ever slip in an I'm sorry somewhere…. maybe buried at the end of a post, maybe a tiny fragment of an apology or an obtuse hint of an I’m sorry. I watched, and one day I saw sorry at the end of one of his posts, and immediately stopped to read the paragraph, and realized Greg was calling someone/some people sorry. If I searched all of Charboy’s posts for the word sorry, would any of the results include the word I'm? I’ve missed zillions of Greg’s post’s, but I’m sorry doesn’t seem to be a word permutation that occurs frequently for him.

I’m sorry to dredge that up - just had to get that off my chest. Here, to lighten the mood a little . . .
[expando]http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8868/whirlpooltime0421196701.jpg[/expando]
Ernie, do you have anything in your living room that you’d call Mongolian Modern or Kuwait Colonial?!
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: RonZombie on March 28, 2010, 12:00:22 PM
Either the other events didn't bother Dave or they did bother him and he chose not to say anything.  Interestingly, he may say the latter is because he doesn't like controversy yet it would be rather clumsy and clueless to think that continually suggesting that we purposely ignored the lifting of greg's images wouldn't spark controversy so to narrow down Dave's desire to avoid controversy, it is to avoid controversy WITH greg! 

I totally understand that desire as I have heard many said they fear controvesry with greg like death.

I draw the same conclusion from either possibility that Dave has a more critical eye towards events when greg plays the victim card and it irks him that each time he does it, I call it out.  I couldn't call it out if the pattern wasn't repeating like a broken record.

In summary, it is EQUALLY clear cut that greg's images were lifted which wasn't cool as is it that we were all wrongly accused of looking the other way.  I vote both as being wrong(the image lifting and the unfounded accusation of the group) and I feel anyone who is spending time lamenting one more than the other is biased.  As much as I tend to be biased against greg, I wholeheartedly have felt taking his images is ethically wrong per a standard set by this hobby.

I agree...very well put Ernie!
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: RonZombie on March 28, 2010, 12:03:49 PM
I’ve been smoking some sweet herb today and feel the need to pipe in with a brief cotton-mouth comment.

When Greg was posting a while back, I couldn’t stay focused long enough to read all of his posts because they were a bit redundant and crazy, (I know, who am I to talk!?), but I did try to skim all of his messages, curious to see if he would ever slip in an I'm sorry somewhere…. maybe buried at the end of a post, maybe a tiny fragment of an apology or an obtuse hint of an I’m sorry. I watched, and one day I saw sorry at the end of one of his posts, and immediately stopped to read the paragraph, and realized Greg was calling someone/some people sorry. If I searched all of Charboy’s posts for the word sorry, would any of the results include the word I'm? I’ve missed zillions of Greg’s post’s, but I’m sorry doesn’t seem to be a word permutation that occurs frequently for him.

I’m sorry to dredge that up - just had to get that off my chest. Here, to lighten the mood a little . . .
[expando]http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8868/whirlpooltime0421196701.jpg[/expando]
Ernie, do you have anything in your living room that you’d call Mongolian Modern or Kuwait Colonial?!

I'm getting ready to indulge in some "Sweet Stuff" myself!!! :o
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 28, 2010, 12:22:40 PM
You say "you posted about this because it bothered you".  I'm  simply asking you if these other events bothered you too.


I'm kind of in a no-win situation. Since my motives are constantly being scrutinized, no matter what I say it will be questioned or disbelieved. But here is the truth:

1. On Greg's dealings with Topps, I honestly had no idea about the details at all until the postings he made here. But from what I read, no, it doesn't bother me too much. He can ask for whatever he wants, whatever his motives, and Topps can say yes or no, so I don't see it as such a big deal.

2. As for cherry-picking the boxes, it bothered me at first, but after some more consideration, I honestly think Topps is the one at fault if anyone. It should be their responsibility to ensure equal probabilities within units that can be broken up. Otherwise, they should print "only for sale as a case; do not sell individually" on each box. I think it is much less bothersome than the numerous people who admitted to cherry-picking magnet packs, since that was being done to a certainty rather than just guessing. Would it be wrong for me in 1973 to research pack collation and then intentionally buy all the packs I could find that I concluded were likely to include a Band-Ache? It lowers the probability of others obtaining one. I certainly don't see anything wrong with that.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 28, 2010, 01:01:51 PM

Ernie, do you have anything in your living room that you’d call Mongolian Modern or Kuwait Colonial?!

LOL, no but I do collect old air conditioners and have them sitting in various locations in my living room and yes, they do go with all styles!
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 28, 2010, 01:12:57 PM
I'm kind of in a no-win situation. Since my motives are constantly being scrutinized, no matter what I say it will be questioned or disbelieved. But here is the truth:

1. On Greg's dealings with Topps, I honestly had no idea about the details at all until the postings he made here. But from what I read, no, it doesn't bother me too much. He can ask for whatever he wants, whatever his motives, and Topps can say yes or no, so I don't see it as such a big deal.

2. As for cherry-picking the boxes, it bothered me at first, but after some more consideration, I honestly think Topps is the one at fault if anyone. It should be their responsibility to ensure equal probabilities within units that can be broken up. Otherwise, they should print "only for sale as a case; do not sell individually" on each box. I think it is much less bothersome than the numerous people who admitted to cherry-picking magnet packs, since that was being done to a certainty rather than just guessing. Would it be wrong for me in 1973 to research pack collation and then intentionally buy all the packs I could find that I concluded were likely to include a Band-Ache? It lowers the probability of others obtaining one. I certainly don't see anything wrong with that.
I think you missed some points but let's just focus on the searching packs analogy.  It would be wrong if you pulled the bandache packs, recollated the packs to make some "full" boxes and sold them without disclosing that the packs in effect have been searched.  Don't you feel it almost statistically impossible that ZERO boxes or cases sold on ebay have had a disclaimer that they boxes or packs are leftovers from cherry picking?  Where are all of those cases and boxes if they aren't being sold into the market?

Blaming Topps for this is ridiculous. It is impossible for collation and distribution to be truly random, I would assume your mathematical backround makes you realize how challenging the concept of true random generation really is.   Exploitation of this imperfection is in the hands of the collectors and dealers and they own responsibility for actions taken in this area.

Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 28, 2010, 08:37:45 PM
It would be wrong if you pulled the bandache packs, recollated the packs to make some "full" boxes and sold them without disclosing that the packs in effect have been searched.

Sure, if I did what you describe that would clearly be wrong, as the implication is that what is being sold is an original full box when it is not. That's not the case here: the box being sold IS an original full box. If Topps is going to publish odds for golds, the implication is that any pack, from any box, bearing that statement has those odds. If that's not the case, they need to clarify.

Is it wrong to sell individual packs from these boxes too? On those packs, Topps states odds that are evidently not correct for those packs.

Exploitation of this imperfection is in the hands of the collectors and dealers and they own responsibility for actions taken in this area.

I don't disagree completely. I certainly wouldn't sell such a box to a friend. Let's say I sell the box cheaper due to its status. Ultimately, it's impossible to keep track of the box's pedigree, and it will seem like any other box. Wouldn't you agree Topps is the only party that can accurately control and describe how likely it is for a given box to contain a gold? Asking hobbyists to keep track of this is unrealistic and unfair.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: JasonLiebig on March 28, 2010, 09:31:59 PM
I think what you guys are getting to here is that it is wrong to intentionally mislead.   Especially when cash is on the line.

To to pull magnets and rebuild "full boxes" that you know are devoid of magnets is as messed up as re-sealing unopened packs.

The example of Mark "cherrypicking" boxes with gold flashbacks is not the same thing.  He didn't intentionally mislead, or even set out to do any cherrypicking at all.  He just figured out some odds along the way.  It's key to note that, in retrospect, he realized he could have provided more complete information, and thereby have made his transactions more fair. 

It's closer to a situation wher you think a certain sticker isn't worth a lot, telling that to someone, then buying the sticker from the person, only to find out months later, that it IS worth a lot.  Maybe not exactly, but similar.

With regards to t-shirt guy and to Jay's use of Greg's scans.  I don't believe Jay OR the t-shirt guy set out to intentionally mislead anyone (which doesn't make their actions "okay" but it's an interesting clarification).  I'm not going to go back and re-read everything so I COULD BE WRONG, but did Jay ever deny he was using Greg's scans?  Did he ever try to claim that Greg's scans were his?   I think he just maintained (and may still) that it was "okay to use them" in the way he did (because he touched them up, color-corrected, etc) - at least until it was brought to his attention that, legality or not, it wasn't ethical.  At least to a great number of us (me included). 

Similarly, the bootleg t-shirt guy was straight up about what he was doing, he just didn't seem to be bothered that it was in violation of copyright, and an existing licensing deal for Wacky Packages t-shirts.  The t-shirt guy should stop selling bootleg shirts.  If he wants to make them for friends, that's probably still in violation, but no one will ever know, or try to stop him.   Sounds like he might not be stopping, which IS pretty messed up. 

Jay should have taken down Greg's scans, and I believe he did so pretty quickly.   I'm honestly not sure if he ever tried to mislead anyone, but I don't think so.   
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: Paul_Maul on March 29, 2010, 08:25:09 AM
To clarify my comments above:

It would definitely be unethical of me to pull packs from a full box, replace them, and offer the box for sale as original. The analogous thing in Mark's situation would have been to pull the "good" boxes from the case, replace them with other spare boxes, and offer the CASE as original. This would clearly have been wrong.

His selling the "non-good" boxes off separately would be equivalent to me selling the other packs from the 1st series box after I had pulled the Band-Ache packs. I would be selling packs I know likely don't contain a Band-Ache without disclosing that. I'd like votes as to whether that's wrong. I don't think it's wrong because I'm selling a pack, I'm not making a guarantee that it is from an unsearched box, or any claim as to its contents except that it is legitimate and unopened.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: JasonLiebig on March 29, 2010, 10:21:54 AM
To clarify my comments above:

It would definitely be unethical of me to pull packs from a full box, replace them, and offer the box for sale as original. The analogous thing in Mark's situation would have been to pull the "good" boxes from the case, replace them with other spare boxes, and offer the CASE as original. This would clearly have been wrong.

His selling the "non-good" boxes off separately would be equivalent to me selling the other packs from the 1st series box after I had pulled the Band-Ache packs. I would be selling packs I know likely don't contain a Band-Ache without disclosing that. I'd like votes as to whether that's wrong. I don't think it's wrong because I'm selling a pack, I'm not making a guarantee that it is from an unsearched box, or any claim as to its contents except that it is legitimate and unopened.

I think the scenario you present IS more analogous.  But there is a difference:  I think what Mark and the rest of us began to realize after the fact is that while the idea of a "searched" box is common and well-understood to hobbyists, the idea of a "searched" case is something that was new to a lot of folks.

Given the hunt for "golds" and the like, and the possibility that cases could be searched in this way, it makes sense to bring the idea of searched cases into the hobbyist lexicon.   It could change the long-term selling-value of unopened boxes, and how we buy boxes from cracked cases, especially from folks we don't know.  Whether a box is sealed is no longer the only concern, at least where the hope of ultra-limited chase cards is concerned, and where collation can be somewhat predicted.
Title: Re: Wacky Packages Tees
Post by: bandaches on March 30, 2010, 04:07:06 PM
To clarify my comments above:

It would definitely be unethical of me to pull packs from a full box, replace them, and offer the box for sale as original. The analogous thing in Mark's situation would have been to pull the "good" boxes from the case, replace them with other spare boxes, and offer the CASE as original. This would clearly have been wrong.

His selling the "non-good" boxes off separately would be equivalent to me selling the other packs from the 1st series box after I had pulled the Band-Ache packs. I would be selling packs I know likely don't contain a Band-Ache without disclosing that. I'd like votes as to whether that's wrong. I don't think it's wrong because I'm selling a pack, I'm not making a guarantee that it is from an unsearched box, or any claim as to its contents except that it is legitimate and unopened.
You are not talking about the selling of a random pack, you are talking about a pack whose primary value would be a specific chase card that is sought, ie golds.  It would be unethical to sell a pack know its odds of having the chase card are zero.  Series 1 original packs is a bad example as they are rare in themselves.