Wacky Packages Forum
Trading Post => Buy Requests for Wacky Packages => Topic started by: Rabanv on May 23, 2016, 03:17:05 PM
-
I have something interesting to ask the Wacky package members.We all know about how Ratz and Cracked animals die cuts from 1967 had to immediately be stopped in printing due to Nabisco company severely sending desist letters to Topps company threatening them with a severe law suit if they were to continue printing the two now extremely rare cards.What bugs me somewhat is this,there is a Wacky sticker card from 2004 called Choperation which is EXTREMELY crude and somewhat horrifying and yet Milton Bradley company was not the least bit offended by that and yet Nabisco company got extremely offended over two die cuts which were hardly even offensive.I do understand Ratz being somewhat insulting but that is nothing compared to Choperation.It is amazing how from 1967 to 2004 our society have become very insensitive to what really is considered offensive.i don't get it.
-
I have something interesting to ask the Wacky package members.
So.......what's your question to us?
-
My question is,why Milton Bradley company did not get the least offended by the 2004 Choperation No.34 wacky sticker,yet Nabisco got very irate threatening to sue Topps company over the two 1967 No. 32 and 38 die cuts which were hardly offensive at all.
-
My question is,why Milton Bradley company did not get the least offended by the 2004 Choperation No.34 wacky sticker,yet Nabisco got very irate threatening to sue Topps company over the two 1967 No. 32 and 38 die cuts which were hardly offensive at all.
Maybe it's now perceived more as a form of free advertising. Everything and everyone is parodied nowadays........certainly more than in the 1960s.
-
There is no evidence that Nabisco was offended. Perhaps the just didn't want any illegal likeness of their products to be used. For all we know. Milton Bradley has no idea about choperation, perhaps they do know and don't care, perhaps they do know and they like the free advertising. Company motives is purely speculation.
-
There is no evidence that Nabisco was offended. Perhaps the just didn't want any illegal likeness of their products to be used. For all we know. Milton Bradley has no idea about choperation, perhaps they do know and don't care, perhaps they do know and they like the free advertising. Company motives is purely speculation.
It was mentioned in one of the reference books that Topps returned to Nabisco products with Bum Bums in Series 6, which suggests maybe there never was a C&D request on Ratz/Cracked, or maybe they were just willing to take a gamble on a new parody after some 7 years had passed between the 1967 Die-Cuts and 1974 Series 6.
In the early stages of the ANS era, I had questioned whether maybe Topps had done some legal maneuvering to eliminate The C&D problem, maybe even something that could have taken years to get through the courts. No one knew the answer to that, but there is no evidence of modern-day Wackies being hampered by C&D issues in any way. Maybe corporate attitudes have changed, believing that any attention, good or bad, to their products is better than none.