Copyright and trademark infringement are much different - some people here are really conflating copyright and trademark while ignoring the biggest difference - fair use. There is also a third doctrine of entertainment/intellectual property law which no one really has mentioned at all - namely the right to publicity. There is also something which is big in European countries and now starting to appear in the U.S. called "moral rights."
Fair use is fairly strong in American copyright law, being specifically protected under the First Amendment (see, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose) - a non-commercial parody football card may or may not qualify as a fair use.
Trademark law on the other hand, is much differnet. To use someone else's tradename/trademark is much different and creates much higher pontential exposure because there because you do not have the fair use considerations (for trademark, fair use basically covers reviews - one can write a review of a product using the product's name) and commentary. Sorry, your custom card design doesn't qualify - trademark law is not an area where one wants to fight.
Ask Negativland why they did not include the album name of their DisPepsi album (an album which consisted of several samples from Pepsi commercials) until Pepsico specifically said they wouldn't sue giving them permission - its because Negativland took the advice of their pro bono attorneys (including some top guys in the IP field and partners at large law firms) - that was that they could win on fair use in a copyright claim, but were likely to lose on a trademark claim.
There are some songs, movies, etc. which contain a product name - all (at least recently) have been with permission of the trademark holder. Indeed, one of the reasons why product placement came about is because without product placement, you cannot show the name of a namebrand - that is why many old and even current television programs would show generic products rather than name brands.
The good news is that chances are that the card company and the NFL would simply send a take down request saying please remove it because it was non-commerical - at least until someone else put the card on E-Bay.
The final element is the right of publicity of the players - you cannot use someone else's picture without their permission. Unless you have permission from RGIII and Andrew Luck to use their images, they could give a take down order - like copyright there is an element of fair use here - obviously a famous person cannot stop news coverage or commentary newspapers from printing their image - does your photobucket site qualify as news coverage or commentary.
Copyright/trademark law firms all have paralegals whose job is to go onto E-Bay and purchase infringing products to then use in a law suit. Personally, I would steer way clear of the guy who put those cards up and would not have even sent a "please stop" letter.
Fair use is fairly strong in American copyright law, being specifically protected under the First Amendment (see, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose) - a non-commercial parody football card may or may not qualify as a fair use.
Trademark law on the other hand, is much differnet. To use someone else's tradename/trademark is much different and creates much higher pontential exposure because there because you do not have the fair use considerations (for trademark, fair use basically covers reviews - one can write a review of a product using the product's name) and commentary. Sorry, your custom card design doesn't qualify - trademark law is not an area where one wants to fight.
Ask Negativland why they did not include the album name of their DisPepsi album (an album which consisted of several samples from Pepsi commercials) until Pepsico specifically said they wouldn't sue giving them permission - its because Negativland took the advice of their pro bono attorneys (including some top guys in the IP field and partners at large law firms) - that was that they could win on fair use in a copyright claim, but were likely to lose on a trademark claim.
There are some songs, movies, etc. which contain a product name - all (at least recently) have been with permission of the trademark holder. Indeed, one of the reasons why product placement came about is because without product placement, you cannot show the name of a namebrand - that is why many old and even current television programs would show generic products rather than name brands.
The good news is that chances are that the card company and the NFL would simply send a take down request saying please remove it because it was non-commerical - at least until someone else put the card on E-Bay.
The final element is the right of publicity of the players - you cannot use someone else's picture without their permission. Unless you have permission from RGIII and Andrew Luck to use their images, they could give a take down order - like copyright there is an element of fair use here - obviously a famous person cannot stop news coverage or commentary newspapers from printing their image - does your photobucket site qualify as news coverage or commentary.
Copyright/trademark law firms all have paralegals whose job is to go onto E-Bay and purchase infringing products to then use in a law suit. Personally, I would steer way clear of the guy who put those cards up and would not have even sent a "please stop" letter.