To tell you the truth, im not sure any more. Here are the facts, followed by my own questions and comments.
Fact: MLB’s license to use logos and team names lies only with Topps.
Question: Because UD’s cards feature no printed logos or team names on the cards themselves, does this leave them exempt? Im going to say that in my opinion, they shouldnt have risked it by including what they did in the photos, or at least tried to blur it a little. On the other hand, no where on the card does it use the team names or logos.
Fact: MLB is contending that collectors will mistake licensed cards for unlicensed ones
Question: Is UD on the right side of the law because they prominently display a lack of license in 3 spots? I side with UD on this one, as there should not be any confusion in the hobby. Unless the people have been living under a rock, are blind, and cant hear the little birds on their own shoulder, they know UD is out of the baseball logo game.
Fact: Upper Deck will have a market with or without logos
Question: Does MLB really expect it to get any better if the players were airbrushed? I think Ultimate would have been Ultimate with or without blurred or airbrushed pictures. I thought the point of a cease and desist was to stop someone before damage is done. In my opinion there is little damage done by a lack of airbrushed photos. Its not like more collectors would avoid a product with cleverly done logo blurring.
In the end, im not really sure where this lawsuit will go, and how much MLB will be able to prove. According to a few other bloggers, Upper Deck is going be using message boards and blogs to show a lack of misunderstanding about their license status, and they may actually have a point. Remember, this is ONLY about the photos, not about the cards. However, with MLB saying that the uniforms and hats are part of their likeness, it may be hard for a judge to overlook that.
The main question really is why Upper Deck would even risk it in the first place.