The way that CGC states that the customer authorizes the companies to use the images makes it seem like the images are the customer’s property and you’re giving them the rights to use them.
PSA’s clause more so seems like PSA is the owner of the images and you can’t use them at all.
If there are any lawyers here I’d be particularly interested to hear your thoughts on these clauses, but I’m curious to hear anyone’s thoughts on this
You have read the paragraphs correctly. CGC says that you are the owner but can use the images as they would like and PSA says that they are the owner and can use the images as they would like.
Neither company will go after you for using images to sell cards that you own. It’s just not worth their time/effort, and it would only hurt their business.
If images are misused in a defamatory or libelous nature to negatively affect the company or the interests of the company, PSA would have a stronger case to take down such images in a copyright claim. Once again though, that will likely never happen because it would cost more in legal fees and time than it is worth.
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that copyright protects creative works. Many types of photos aren’t seen by courts as creative and aren’t protected. For example, here’s a case where before-and-after dental work photos were found to be unprotected. Imo, graded card scans are in the same boat.
But it’s a purely academic discussion because 1) like Dyl said, PSA wouldn’t want to fight you and 2) you probably don’t have the money to fight back, so it doesn’t really matter if you’re right or wrong.
This is completely anecdotal but Nat Turner was on PokeRadar’s podcast recently and mentioned that PSA knows people are using the scans for listings. Didn’t act like they cared and if nothing else almost seemed like it was a bonus for the customer.
Side note if you haven’t listened to that episode you definitely should.
Why would anyone use those scans for listing’s pictures? The colors and hues on those scans are often off and anyone can take much better photos with their phones
Well some people use vaults and dont have their cards physically with them, but can ship to a buyers address directly from the vault. Rather, any event where you cannot have the card physically with you but can arrange shipments, I think the PSA scans are a great resource to be able to provide when listing for sale.
I vault all my cards and screenshot the PWCC scans when making my eBay listings. I would venture to guess that I’ve never seen or touched over 50% of my collection in person.
This has been partly said, but you’re not representing the photos as your own, and they may not even be protected “creative work” at all, according to @destase 's post. It would be like a car manufacturer suing you for using the specs of the vehicle in an ad for your own car. You’re selling the thing, not claiming the specs [photo] as your own.
A TV show (not news) once used a photo of one of my performances, taken for the explicit use of the theatre company. My attorney explained it this way:
“It’s technically illegal, because it was taken in a venue where photos would not normally be allowed. But…”
(That part only pertains to my case)
“…[the TV show company] will probably say, (and they did), that they are ‘reporting on an event, like a news story, and as such, do not need permission to use or take photos.’ This is only the case if the ‘reporting’ part is true, but a lot of firms, especially reality TV shows, will get away with it because their pockets are deeper than yours.” Not exact, but close to an exact quote.
edit: I never added the point I was making.
Because you are selling something, you are using the photo to demonstrate what it is, in a sense reporting on someone else’s work. FURTHER You paid and provided YOUR PERMISSION for them to use YOUR ITEM in their photo, so I reason you have at least some rights to use the photo.
Also not a lawyer, but even if the images were copyrightable, copyright belongs to the person or entity that created the image by default. You do not own copyright just because someone else took a picture of something you own.
Google Street View might be a good comparison. Google has photos of my truck and my house. They own the copyright to them because they came out here and took a picture themselves. I have no right or claim to those photos at all. Now those were taken from a public street so it’s not a perfect comparison, but you get the “picture”?
Anyway, bad jokes aside, the grading companies surely cover this in TOS to make things explicit and simpler in case someone complains or sues - “I told them not to take a picture!” or something like that.
Remember though, “use rights” are separate from “copyrights” and can be granted by the party that owns the photo without granting copyright.
But what about vaults?
There may be an im/explicit ‘use right’ if the item is being documented, and stored for you. There may be something in the vault agreement about this. (I don’t personally use a vault yet, so I don’t know.)
Do they take photos of things that you submit to vault?
Yes absolutely, just trying to help with the question about who “owns” the scans or any other image that might be generated.
There are images that are not copyrightable. If you took a scan of just the card without the grading case, you might not be able to claim ownership that image. It’s not really your original work if it’s just a digital representation of the card. But maybe you do. Again, not a lawyer
