Grader Notes

[crassus]

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

 

ALL PERSON(S) PARTICIPATING IN THIS THREAD ARE HEREBY SUMMONED TO CGC HEADQUARTERS / SARASOTA, FLORIDA FOR A VIGOROUS AND SUBSTANTIAL GROUP SPANKING ON JULY 4th 2012.

 

Only if she's the spanker.

 

 

I was *so* hoping it would come to this.

[Mike's Rack]

Thanks for the subtle dismissiveness and passive aggressive tones - so pleasant. We're all trying to understand the merit and legal basis for CGC's "irrevocable non-exclusive right en perpetuity without consideration" to a derivative product created specifically by an expressed agreement counselor.

 

I stand by my post. You are reading things into it that are not there or intended. Your arguement makes no sense and you follow with an ad hominem attack. I am not your enemy, I simply don't follow your reasoning. I am being dismissive because I think you are wrong. However, I did indicate that I am open to reconsideration of my position.

[jimjum12]

Thanks for the subtle dismissiveness and passive aggressive tones - so pleasant. We're all trying to understand the merit and legal basis for CGC's "irrevocable non-exclusive right en perpetuity without consideration" to a derivative product created specifically by an expressed agreement counselor.

 

I stand by my post. You are reading things into it that are not there or intended. Your arguement makes no sense and you follow with an ad hominem attack. I am not your enemy, I simply don't follow your reasoning. I am being dismissive because I think you are wrong. However, I did indicate that I am open to reconsideration of my position.

 

......you're getting dangerously close to a Perfect World Dynamic.....just saying. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[Mike's Rack]

I've been know to be a bit pollyannish.

[Cat-Man_America]

@Mxwll Smrt - could CGC claim that the fee covers labour, administrative and storage (archiving) costs, enabling an on-demand service of recalling graders notes from that archive?

 

Jumping back in for a few posts (man, this thread keeps Rollin'). My ...

 

They could, but then they would probably be asked to explain why they've given the notes out for free all these years and now find it necessary to levy a tiered fee to boot.

[Mxwll Smrt]

OK. What is your position on CGC selling grading notes to whomever wishes to buy them for $15.00?

[pickycollector]

As someone who de-slabs every CGC-graded book I buy to read and add to my collection (thereby reducing its liquidity), I figured I'd throw out a few comments about my usage of the graders' notes:

 

- Depending on my buying patterns, I may not call the CGC for six months, but then call them five times in two weeks to get graders' notes for a group of books I'm interested in buying.

 

- I've called for notes on books that range in price from $50 to $1,500.

 

- My goal is to minimize the risk of buying a book that has flaws that bother me, and ideally want to avoid de-slabbing a book, finding a flaw that bothers me and then either having to sell it raw (most likely at a loss) or pay to have it re-slabbed.

 

- When graders' notes are available, they've often been vary valuable in alerting me to detached or rusty staples, stains, smudges and other defects that would keep me from buying a book if I were looking at a raw copy.

 

With all of the above noted, I'd gladly pay a monthly or annual fee for unlimited access to the graders' notes. I'd even be willing to pay the per-book fee, but it would have to be less than $5 per book.

I do the same and totally agree with these statements

[Mike's Rack]

OK. What is your position on CGC selling grading notes to whomever wishes to buy them for $15.00?

. I think it is a bad business move. It is alienating a portion of their costumer base. I am in the "put the notes on the label" camp. A company like cgc should never give the appearance of milking its best customers, it never works in the long run. But, I think it is legal.

[Cat-Man_America]

Don't take the position that you know what you're talking about and quit making assumptions.

 

It's a property rights issue governed by definitions and terms under copyright law and state contracts. The definitions and terms of an alleged non-exclusive license are paramount around a service which is clearly a work for hire. CGC's position is without merit or legal basis.

 

1. There is no such creature, other than in a comic board chat room, as an irrevocable non-exclusive license en perpetuity without consideration.

2. The submitter has all rights surrounding his property and how its used.

3. The property owner has the right to say no to the use of any derivative anytime he wants - and the notes are derivatives based on his property.

4. The notes are part of a process he paid for - they were created to support the grade of his book/ property. That was created for him and no one else.

5. The company was paid by him.

6. CGC has the right to control access to CGC products but have no interest or rights in the property (because they've been paid under clearly expressed terms).

7. The use of legal mumbo jumbo without merit or basis does not grant a license, either expressed or implied by conduct - especially where commerce is concerned.

 

Please also see:

 

Fair Use

Elements of the state based contract

Negligent Misrepresentation (Tort)

Material Concealment (Tort)

 

....let me get this right....are you saying that due to my hiring CGC for 15 dollars to slab and grade my comic, I now have exclusive rights to someone else's opinion? I thought we had a right to free speech in this country. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

For all I know he may be pulling some opinions from inapplicable laws, but some of what he has highlighted seems valid, at least from my layman's POV. BTW, $15 would definitely be the low end of the scale. Some folks pay many times that to get books graded and slabbed.

 

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic (it's 3AM here in London and my Spidey-sense doesn't tingle so well after a couple of pints), but your free speech point might've been more valid if we weren't discussing information derived from work contracted and paid for by customers with a vested interest in the contents of those notes.

 

Asking the submitters to pay twice is the biggest flaw with the new policy, not free speech or copyright. The information isn't proprietary as it has been freely shared for many years, but it is still contracted work product and the submitters should have some say whether work that they've paid for can be resold.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyrights?...has anyone ever asked permission from the

publishers to scan all the comic book covers shown on this

site?

 

mm

 

.....as I recall, it's also grounds for legal action if one selles them in a mutilated or secondary fashion......but that didn't stop my hero, Howard M. Rogofsky from stylin' and profilin' GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

The US mint also sells uncirculated coins to the collector market at a premium while allowing the secondary sale of both coins and currency at prices much greater than their respective denominations. They turn a blind eye to mutilation and when the gold standard was dropped the US government even allowed limited numbers of gold coins to continue being sold to the collector market.

 

Coins are collectibles, as are comics. If memory serves, I seem to recall that the mutilation and secondary sale laws were designed to protect publishers from distributors stripping returns and reselling them at a discount.

 

Peace, bro! (thumbs u

[comicwiz]

@Mxwll Smrt - could CGC claim that the fee covers labour, administrative and storage (archiving) costs, enabling an on-demand service of recalling graders notes from that archive?

 

Jumping back in for a few posts (man, this thread keeps Rollin'). My ...

 

They could, but then they would probably be asked to explain why they've given the notes out for free all these years and now find it necessary to levy a tiered fee to boot.

 

Explaining the new charge would probably be the easiest part of the claim to prove. A directive under new management. Outsourcing the "technical management" as the demands on doing it in-house became too unmanageable, costly and became a drain on resources. I'm sure with NGC as the parent, there are a number of creative ways for them to back things up on paper, even if the basis of the change is intended to explore a new revenue stream to offset the revenue losses from providing it "free" for the past decade.

[RockMyAmadeus]

IMO, it's a work for hire contract - and there's no such thing as a royalty free non-exclusive license en perpetuity. Compiling data is one thing. Charging a fee for access to data is another. Not clearly communicating to the client that there's commerce based on the process that's being entirely covered by the client or offering a reduction for license is negligent misrepresentation and material concealment. Again, JMO.

 

Why would they need a license for the data they're selling? It costs their customer nothing to compile or sell it. What law makes written descriptions of an item not created by the item's owner the property of that owner?

 

I'm not a lawyer, I've just had a long-time interest in the law surrounding creative works, particularly copyright/patent/trademark law. I'm not saying law doesn't exist, I'm just not familiar with one that covers this.

 

 

I'm no legal expert either, but I do see what Mxwell Smrt is getting at.

 

First of all, I don't think he's describing a physical license, such as a document, but rather the granting of permission, as in being given license to do something.

 

Secondly, and more to the point, the legal(?) gray area is whether any license to resell work product has been granted to CGC via the convoluted legal jargon of the T&C document. The sticking point has nothing to do with creative rights associated with who manufactured the comic book, it's about a change in policy regarding the work product acquired under contract for a grade appraisal and what rights, if any, the owner of the comic book has after the work has been completed.

 

Ultimately, I suppose the owner could claim a right to privacy not wishing to have any information disclosed about books he or she has submitted for grading. For a dealer, this would seem counter intuitive, but full disclosure might depend on the actual grade received in contrast to what internal data was exposed in the grader's notes (some flaws being more distasteful to collectors than others). More likely, the dealer might prefer complete disclosure, allowing free dissemination of all information associated with grading his/her books. Assuming the latter, the ethical issue then falls squarely on CGC.

 

The two problems CGC's new data selling policy generate are 1) confusion over whether owners have any right to disseminate requested information about the books they own, and 2) whether CGC has the right to charge exorbitant fees In a steeply tiered fashion for work product previously contracted and paid for by others.

 

 

If a dealer submitted a lot of walk-throughs or expedited appraisals it could make acquisition of those notes by prospective customers a deal breaker. IOW, it could be argued that this new policy is more than just double-dipping, it also penalizes those customers who pay the most for a quicker turnaround.

 

It still begs the question, what were they thinking?

 

Sorry about the long response, but I can't find a more succinct way of putting this; maybe some of our board's bright legal minds can state this better.

 

 

 

[Mxwll Smrt]

I think it's an unwise business decision as well - but I understand the reasoning behind developing the notes as a revenue stream. I have a few questions though - why do you think its legal? Secondly, since you're an attorney, what is an "irrevocable, royalty free non exclusive license en perpetuity" as outlined on #10 in CGC's TOU? Moreover, as an attorney, doesn't the submitter have a right to revoke a non-exclusive license? If not, why? Moreover, concerning the notes themselves and why they were created - are they the sole property of CGC or are they a product created to support the grade that is a central theme of the contract between the submitter and CGC? Thanks.

[batman_fan]

CGC's decision to sell grader notes can best be described with a simple picture

 

 

Just to be clear, we would be the cow in this picture and CGC would be the guy smiling.

[toro]

CGC's decision to sell grader notes can best be described with a simple picture

 

 

Just to be clear, we would be the cow in this picture and CGC would be the guy smiling.

 

I found the photo of the cow from the front.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

The notes are not the property of the person--they didn't create them, CGC created them. They own them. As stated earlier in the thread, they're usually not unique enough to fall under copyright, but they're in CGC's possession and I can't see how the client has any right to a text description of their item.

Just b/c you keep repeating the same thing, doesn't make it so.

 

[Peter Loves Gwen]

The grading notes are not anything unique to CGC or part of a magical process that they can claim special privileges of. The defects are all common knowledge conditions which have been analyzed and applied to fit as a group into a grading scale, none of which was created by CGC.

 

Grading of comics is a very old process that CGC had nothing to do with defining. They learned how to do it from other long time experts, most all of it published and developed by the Overstreet Price Guide since 1970.

 

So CGC is simply identifying defects and writing down the most notable of those for a given comic. What part of that should CGC have more rights to than the owner or submitter of the book?

 

I say it's a vague area and CGC should not have pushed it this far. If they had changed from free to a basic $0.25 charge or $0.50 charge for each request for notes, that would have easily have been accepted. They could easily justify that to cover increased costs for the labor to handle the requests, online or by phone, or both. That would have been much wiser, and they could have "milked" the cow for more as time passed.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The notes wouldn't exist absent the task/ service order outlined by a payment to create a grade for the book.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

This falls in a few places. The US Copyright Act (USC 17), State Contract Law.

 

Stop it with the vitriol

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

The grading notes are not anything unique to CGC or part of a magical process that they can claim special privileges of. .

 

[Cat-Man_America]

CGC's decision to sell grader notes can best be described with a simple picture

 

 

Just to be clear, we would be the cow in this picture and CGC would be the guy smiling.

 

I found the photo of the cow from the front.

 

 

 

Another bovine analogy: I know bull when I see it; that second cow should have horns.