• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

C2E2 Variant Drama
24 24

4,556 posts in this topic

On 8/9/2022 at 2:07 PM, Atomic Ponkie said:

I would say there needs to be a little more digging on the relationship between black flag and cgc. 

Have they had legitimate store exclusive variants?  And do we know the grade distribution of those books?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'No Marvel Comics copyright infringement' 

It's too bad that isn't their question to determine. It's a jury question and they'll spend a lot of money vs. Marvel proving that. It looks like an unauthorized derivative work to me that is most definitely prohibited by the copyright act. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 5:09 PM, aardvark88 said:

Black Dog drove 22 hours to get to C2E2 to sell out of Acetate covers reposted on YouTube. 'No Marvel Comics copyright infringement' thus retail for $85 and then $100 each.

 

"Everybody knows Black Flag Comics are dopes!"

 

That's what I heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 4:12 PM, DrunkWooky said:

'No Marvel Comics copyright infringement' 

It's too bad that isn't their question to determine. It's a jury question and they'll spend a lot of money vs. Marvel proving that. It looks like an unauthorized derivative work to me that is most definitely prohibited by the copyright act. 

Likelihood of confusion as to origin.

It was made for a commercial purpose.

This reminds me a lot of the controversy last year when L'il Nas X added art to Nikes and real quickly got a cease and desist because Nike didn't want their product associated with the message being added.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/nike-sues-over-lil-nas-x-satan-shoes-human-blood-n1262406

Edited by Red84
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 4:12 PM, DrunkWooky said:

'No Marvel Comics copyright infringement' 

It's too bad that isn't their question to determine. It's a jury question and they'll spend a lot of money vs. Marvel proving that. It looks like an unauthorized derivative work to me that is most definitely prohibited by the copyright act. 

On 8/9/2022 at 4:13 PM, Red84 said:

This is an example of why non-lawyers should not give themselves legal advice.

:butbutbutemoji: he googled it on LegalZoom.com first!

:roflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 3:15 PM, Red84 said:

Likelihood of confusion as to origin.

It was made for a commercial purpose.

This reminds me a lot of the controversy last year when L'il Nas X added art to Nikes and real quickly got a cease and desist because Nike didn't want their product associated with the message being added.

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/nike-sues-over-lil-nas-x-satan-shoes-human-blood-n1262406

Right, that's the basic form of the trademark infringement test. The copyright test is much simpler. Did the prohibited act occur? The contract issue is even easier than that: does their exclusive contract prohibit this without Marvel's consent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 4:17 PM, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:
On 8/9/2022 at 4:12 PM, DrunkWooky said:

'No Marvel Comics copyright infringement' 

It's too bad that isn't their question to determine. It's a jury question and they'll spend a lot of money vs. Marvel proving that. It looks like an unauthorized derivative work to me that is most definitely prohibited by the copyright act. 

On 8/9/2022 at 4:13 PM, Red84 said:

This is an example of why non-lawyers should not give themselves legal advice.

:butbutbutemoji: he googled it on LegalZoom.com first!

:roflmao:

I was set up at a convention once selling my original artwork which is collage where I use hundreds of pieces of comics to make the image. The guy set up next to me had the gall to accuse me of copyright infringement when all he was selling was simple drawings of individual comic book characters. What he was selling was clearly copyright infringement while what I was selling was artwork that was transformative fair use. Everyone seems to think they are lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 3:52 PM, jaxcomics said:

The most disturbing part of this entire thing is that CGC is setting the precedent that you can take a book that has previously capped out at 9.8, modify it by adding a shiny layer, and then get a higher grade. That isn't conservation, that isn't restoration, that's straight-up modification of an original book. To allow that without denoting it in any way as a flaw and most importantly to allow it to improve the grade of the book itself - is mind-blowing. Where does that stop?

next, they label it a double cover and give 10's to both covers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2022 at 4:21 PM, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

I am still waiting to find out how much it will cost for CGC 10's & 9.9's since it is clear that CGC will sell them. 

Correction - Black Flag will sell them, CGC sold their soul for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
24 24