Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Here's a sample page:
Moderator's Note: The Big Brown International albums are produced under license from Scott Publications by Vintage Reproductions, and marketed by Subway Stamp Shop.
You can make the changes that you want for your own personal use, but you cannot give them away or sell them without license from Scott and Vintage Reproductions, and possibly also Subway Stamp Shop. (See also comments posted by others below.) Due to legalities, the original post has been appropriately edited.
(Modified by Moderator on 2018-07-23 17:27:49)
Login to Like
this post
Hi Phil,
That is a kind offer but be aware that by offering them to others you are violating the Scott copyright by using their catalog numbers. (They consider even giving the pages away as a violation.)
You can probably get away with it for a little while but Amos does aggressively go after people and do not be surprised if you are contacted by their lawyer with a ‘cease and desist’ letter. Unfortunately I have a fair amount of experience with this issue.
Don
Login to Like
this post
Doug,
"Do you have permission from Scott to use there numbering"
copyright law includes a "fair use" clause, which allows folks to use their numbers in discussions.
David
Login to Like
this post
‘Fair use’ is open for interpretation but the legal game here is simple, ‘he with the deepest pockets wins’. If someone decides to bring legal action against you, are you willing to dig into your pockets and spend 5 or 6 figures in legal fees to fight for ‘fair use’? Whether or not something is ‘legal’, ‘ethical’, or ‘right or wrong’ has little to do with a civil action brought against you if you are a person with less wealth. It is more about financial attrition and tolerance; the party who is willing to spend the most generally wins.
Don
Login to Like
this post
Don,
I agree with you on your summation of the attrition strategy of those pursuing civil actions. That applies in any legal arena. I have myself settled for less than it would have cost to have won a suit, which I likely would have done. Sometimes, it is about the money.
That is different than obeying the law, which is fairly clear on copyright, at least in this instance.
David
Login to Like
this post
I have "permission" from Scott/Amos to put Scott numbers on the pages for my own use. "Permission" is in quotes because their response to me was that they recognize that I have the right to do so, i.e., I don't need their permission. Do you feel that you have to ask their permission to write Scott numbers in your numberless Brown International pages?
I submitted a license request form to Scott/Amos. I said I expected to have about 100 users of my pages, and was not going to charge for the PDF images of them. Their response was what I reported above. They denied me the right to use Scott numbers, so I took them off the pages I am supplying to (so far) only 4 users. They have since expanded their demands (see following).
I then sent an article on my project to the Philatelic Literature Review, which included the fact that Scott numbers were NOT on the pages for distribution. The APRL split my article in two (published in the first two 2019 issues) but censored the second part of my article where I offered my pages. They said they were worried about copyright issues and that this had been raised by Scott/Amos when they saw the first part of my article. The APRL said Scott/Amos had complained about Scott number (which I specifically said in my version of the article that I was NOT using in the distributed version) and about "design and layout." Scott did not complain to me, nor have they sued me. They saw my sample pages and introductory material when I applied for a license and mentioned nothing about "design and layout" at that time.
I have done some research on copyright recently in response. It appears that all works copyrighted in the United States before 1923 were declared in the public domain by one of the more recent copyright laws (it appears that each year, another past year will go into the public domain, i.e., 1924 in 2020). Also, the first International Postage Stamp Albums were copyrighted by J. Walter Scott. He died in 1919. Copyriighted material by a singular author (as opposed to that by a company) expires 70 years after his death, but this applies only to works copyrighted long after the Browns. In addition, the last Brown was published in 1942, and subsequent copyright coverage laws allowed up to 95 years of coverage, BUT ONLY IF SUCH COVERAGE WAS REQUESTED IN THE 28TH YEAR FOLLOWING PUBLICATION. Unfortunately, checking this can only be done at the Library of Congress. I suspect that whoever owned Scott at that point (1968) had given up on the International Postage Stamp Album and did not so request, so none of the Brown volumes are covered. In any case, I believe the 1923 rule applies, and thus the pages and the design and layout of the pages are in the public domain, and usable by anyone. Also, given, for example, Apple's failure when they sued Microsoft about the 'look and feel' of Windows suggests that 'design and layout' are not copyrightable in the first place; only actual content is. There are also complications when a use is non-profit and the work is transformative, not merely a copy, which my pages are. So Scott has a very tenuous case at best. I am considering consulting a copyright lawyer about this. Scott/Amos may even have slandered me by falsely claiming copyright infringement to the APRL. Scott/Amos has something approaching a monopoly in the U.S. album/catalog market and yes, they are known for being aggressive and litigious.
Vintage reproductions is long since defunct; Subway claims to have permission from Scott to sell the pages (they said this when I offered my pages to them - they refused citing the limitation of needing Scott permission). Vintage never had a copyright, as far as I know - it does no appear on the pages or cover pages. I believe that none of Scott/Amos, Vintage, or Subway can copyright the pages anew as they're merely copies of previously published and copyrighted material. The law protects the original authors, but for a limited time (U.S. constitution) - you can't just renew a copyright on that same material indefinitely.
In any case, I AM offering free PDF files of my update pages WITHOUT SCOTT NUMBERS. Email me at philpritchard@mindspring.com if you'd like my introductory materials. I do have a copyleft agreement you must sign, promising not to sell the pages and to pass on this requirement to anyone you give the pages to for free. I have done 1700 pages now and expect to make somewhat less than 700 more pages. There are a LOT of missing stamps on the old pages!
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"you can't just renew a copyright on that same material indefinitely"
Actually, yes, there is a way that copyrights can be extended indefinitely through wills and estates, and commercial businesses that own proprietary rights to such products.
The issue one deals with with Scott (and other commercial businesses) is proprietary value, not just copyright.
It is nice to do all the research, but there have been several Supreme Court cases and decisions made, along with changes in the laws. The information you provided appears sound in many regards, but cannot be considered to be legal advice.
As Don stated last year (see below), Scott has big feet, and they do come stomping when they believe it is necessary to protect their proprietary interests. Note that to not do so, could cause their products to fall into the public domain. That is why so many companies take action over what many believe to be trivial matters. Do you remember the small day care center that used images of Disney characters? Disney came down on the center, and the center was forced to remove the characters or pay a royalty to Disney for their use. Had Disney not done that, the characters could have fallen into the public domain.
So, the risk is something that you seem willing to take in this regard. What Scott decides to do, if anything, is a matter that you would have to deal with, and I agree with your own comment that you should talk to a copyright lawyer to give you peace of mind or to see if you missed something that could come back to you.
Login to Like
this post
I split off my comments, because I have two different subject maters that I wanted to state.
Let's take a look at the reality of what you are offering here. The Scott International Brown albums were complete at the time of their publications. Scott added many varieties and other stamps that were given major catalog numbers in the years since. They continue to do so today.
Once stamps are issued and cataloged, there is only so much that can be done on the album side of things. Through the years there have been many stamp albums published by many business enterprises from the very basic to the very specialized.
There is only so much that can be done with album pages. So the question would be what is the product being offered, and how does it differ from those of the past? Is there a substantial difference, or is it basically a duplicate with just a few tweaks, such as taking a short story, changing the names of the main characters and then publishing it as an original work?
One could say that the newer Steiner pages are duplicates of existing albums pages, but without the stamp images. Of course, the pages do not contain catalog numbers.
The question here is, does the work being presented offer a substantial difference from the Scott Brown International Albums / Vintage Reproduction Albums (which are the same)? The Scott Specialized Albums are the successor to the Brown Internationals. Are the pages different from those? One has to be careful about that as well.
Still, Scott did go after Steiner, but over the catalog numbering issue, not the page layouts.
I am not making any declarative statements or judgments about this. I am only pointing out potential risks. Steiner is getting along just fine for many years with how he operates and creates pages. Is your process basically the same? If so, then my guess would be that you may not ruffle any feathers. However, I think the problem for you may be that Scott might have you in their sights from the article you wrote that pointed out deficiencies in Scott's position.
Login to Like
this post
Regrettably, under threat of legal action, Amos forced me to remove the free albums that used the Scott numbering system from my website.
I did suggest, that in return for being allowed to continue distributing these albums that I would happily place Amos advertising free on the web site or even directly in the AlbumEasy program. To which they responded that they "do not barter".
If I had any financial interest that warranted it, or deep enough pockets, I may not have taken it so meekly and considered a legal response instead.
Personally, I believe that Amos are shooting themselves in the foot - the numbers in an album are so much more useful with a catalogue to accompany it.
So far none of the other catalogue publishers have complained, that could be because they are not US-based and therefore less litigious or even more likely that they are not even aware of my site. I can only assume, therefore, that someone, for whatever reason decided to turn me in to Amos.
Clive
Login to Like
this post
Here is Michel's statement regarding their numbering system:
"The use of the MICHEL (sic) numbering system or of single MICHEL (sic) numbers in catalogues, albums and any other systematic philatelic tables is not permitted except for free price lists distributed by dealers."
Gibbons simply lumps its numbering system into its overall copyright statement that says that you cannot use the numbering system outside of the catalogues without permission on Gibbons.
Scott's statement is basically the same as Michel's.
Login to Like
this post
The rationale they use on licensing is contradictory but most usually tend to be about preventing uncontrolled use.
Mystic uses Scott numbers in their US albums and suspect they pay a royalty so there is control and revenue. Their logic is likely if they let Clive use it then any album created with Album Easy can use it. This is not controlled and no revenue. They do not need advertising - they want money.
The well known company I worked for was very big into IP. They had a team of lawyers looking for infringements to get them to license patents they may have used. For large companies, they usually were after a cross licensed on their IP. The goal was not to sue. It was all about getting revenue.
History of defending your IP can be an important point in a lawsuit.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
one comment on Phil P's review of copyright law.
1923 IS the year in which previous things are "assumed" to have lost copyright protection, ASSUMING that the owner, or its successors, no longer have an active interest in it. That year has been the same for at least a decade, so it's not moving.
But 1923 is not a magic number; it's only a guide. and it certainly wouldn't apply, at least as the basis for a copyright defense, if the plaintiff were actively seeking to protect said copyright.
Amos isn't delicate, or discrete, in its defense, but, as Michael points out, to leave even minor infringements alone is to risk loss.
I've watched others take similarly aggressive assaults over similar things.
David
Login to Like
this post
Does this mean that we are all breaking the copyright rules by even putting the numbers in a stockbook / envelope or writing it by our stamps in an album? 
Login to Like
this post
I would say that technically, yes, it is a violation of their copyright. However, at least in the USA, there is the matter of "Fair Use". You can use the catalog numbering system for your own use any way you want, so long as you do not give it away or sell it to anyone else.
For example, I have data files that contain every single Scott catalog number, plus many Gibbons and Michel numbers, for which I maintain my collection inventory. I can create those data files and use the catalog numbers without permission of the catalog publishers. However, I cannot give those data files away, nor can I sell them to permit others to maintain inventories of their collections.
Login to Like
this post
To expand on Sheepshanks comment about identifying stamps by Scott number in our albums or stockbooks- How about when we identify stamps by Scott # in our approval books and auction sales. Here we are using the Scott # to promote a sale for our profit or gain. Maybe the fair use laws shield us but I would think on a strictly legal basis we may be in violation and subject to sharing our profits or paying a users fee. Conversations like this give me a headache!
Login to Like
this post
Scott/Amos clearly wants them to be used for commerce. That is its value that drives sales of catalogs and albums. We see clearly the areas that Scott/Amos is being protective. There is little to worry about if you realize their intent.
Login to Like
this post
Al is absolutely correct. Scott's numbers are being utilized for the purpose intended: information between parties. Without that, there is NO reason for Scott's numbers at all.
As to writing Scott's numbers in your note books, that's private use.
It is the distribution aspects that trigger copyright protection. In addition, Michael's comment on fair use applies. Writing Scott 537 to ID the US Victory stamp is fair use, whether in an article or part of a sales offering. Writing ALL the Scott numbers in a set of pages, even given for free, is not.
David
Login to Like
this post
Mr. Pritchard i enjoyed your post on expanding on the Big Brown albums..but then our legal department seemed to take over, the only albums that i am familiar with that include Scott numbers are the Scott U.S and Specialized country albums. I have not seen a Big Brown recently so i do no know about them.
Login to Like
this post
Phil, I have a set of "Brownies". They are like the Scott Specialized pages. The stamp spaces in the "Brownies" do not contain catalog numbers.
I have compared some of the pages that Mr. Pritchard has developed to the pages in the Brown Internationals. It is completely my non-legal opinion that he has created something substantially different from what the Brown international pages offer.
Login to Like
this post
I use Scott/Amos large 3 ring binders. 25 so far, but I keep adding pages...
Login to Like
this post
As noted, I distribute my pages without Scott numbers, so that issue is not an issue.
Scott/Amos complained to the APRL about "design and layout." They did not object to this when I asked for a license to use their numbers (although the response was brief enough that one could be unclear about it. They had sample pages, so they knew what they looked like.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
This quite clearly says "limited Times" - a copyright cannot be extended forever. Yes, it can be in a trust and inherited, but this does not extend its time limit.
Is "design and layout" even a "Writing" in the first place?
Login to Like
this post
I doubt any philatelic organization will go against Amos/Scott wishes.
Login to Like
this post
On the binders i have been buying Staples 2 inch binders with the fabric type appearance, they cost around $13.00 and i can color code them. Speaking of trusts...i should include my stamps in the family trust...but they would probably only go into a 13 foot dumpster.
Login to Like
this post
Phil, the pages are full size as the Scott Specialty pages. If you print pages 8 1/2 x 11, these pages will not print correctly.
Login to Like
this post
I collect using a set of the Scott/Vintage/Subway "Big Brown Internationals." Last updated in 1942, they are very out-of-date, and I have been making update pages for them. I have made about 1000 so far.
Here's a sample page:
Moderator's Note: The Big Brown International albums are produced under license from Scott Publications by Vintage Reproductions, and marketed by Subway Stamp Shop.
You can make the changes that you want for your own personal use, but you cannot give them away or sell them without license from Scott and Vintage Reproductions, and possibly also Subway Stamp Shop. (See also comments posted by others below.) Due to legalities, the original post has been appropriately edited.
(Modified by Moderator on 2018-07-23 17:27:49)
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
Hi Phil,
That is a kind offer but be aware that by offering them to others you are violating the Scott copyright by using their catalog numbers. (They consider even giving the pages away as a violation.)
You can probably get away with it for a little while but Amos does aggressively go after people and do not be surprised if you are contacted by their lawyer with a ‘cease and desist’ letter. Unfortunately I have a fair amount of experience with this issue.
Don
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Big Brown Internationals
Doug,
"Do you have permission from Scott to use there numbering"
copyright law includes a "fair use" clause, which allows folks to use their numbers in discussions.
David
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
‘Fair use’ is open for interpretation but the legal game here is simple, ‘he with the deepest pockets wins’. If someone decides to bring legal action against you, are you willing to dig into your pockets and spend 5 or 6 figures in legal fees to fight for ‘fair use’? Whether or not something is ‘legal’, ‘ethical’, or ‘right or wrong’ has little to do with a civil action brought against you if you are a person with less wealth. It is more about financial attrition and tolerance; the party who is willing to spend the most generally wins.
Don
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Big Brown Internationals
Don,
I agree with you on your summation of the attrition strategy of those pursuing civil actions. That applies in any legal arena. I have myself settled for less than it would have cost to have won a suit, which I likely would have done. Sometimes, it is about the money.
That is different than obeying the law, which is fairly clear on copyright, at least in this instance.
David
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
I have "permission" from Scott/Amos to put Scott numbers on the pages for my own use. "Permission" is in quotes because their response to me was that they recognize that I have the right to do so, i.e., I don't need their permission. Do you feel that you have to ask their permission to write Scott numbers in your numberless Brown International pages?
I submitted a license request form to Scott/Amos. I said I expected to have about 100 users of my pages, and was not going to charge for the PDF images of them. Their response was what I reported above. They denied me the right to use Scott numbers, so I took them off the pages I am supplying to (so far) only 4 users. They have since expanded their demands (see following).
I then sent an article on my project to the Philatelic Literature Review, which included the fact that Scott numbers were NOT on the pages for distribution. The APRL split my article in two (published in the first two 2019 issues) but censored the second part of my article where I offered my pages. They said they were worried about copyright issues and that this had been raised by Scott/Amos when they saw the first part of my article. The APRL said Scott/Amos had complained about Scott number (which I specifically said in my version of the article that I was NOT using in the distributed version) and about "design and layout." Scott did not complain to me, nor have they sued me. They saw my sample pages and introductory material when I applied for a license and mentioned nothing about "design and layout" at that time.
I have done some research on copyright recently in response. It appears that all works copyrighted in the United States before 1923 were declared in the public domain by one of the more recent copyright laws (it appears that each year, another past year will go into the public domain, i.e., 1924 in 2020). Also, the first International Postage Stamp Albums were copyrighted by J. Walter Scott. He died in 1919. Copyriighted material by a singular author (as opposed to that by a company) expires 70 years after his death, but this applies only to works copyrighted long after the Browns. In addition, the last Brown was published in 1942, and subsequent copyright coverage laws allowed up to 95 years of coverage, BUT ONLY IF SUCH COVERAGE WAS REQUESTED IN THE 28TH YEAR FOLLOWING PUBLICATION. Unfortunately, checking this can only be done at the Library of Congress. I suspect that whoever owned Scott at that point (1968) had given up on the International Postage Stamp Album and did not so request, so none of the Brown volumes are covered. In any case, I believe the 1923 rule applies, and thus the pages and the design and layout of the pages are in the public domain, and usable by anyone. Also, given, for example, Apple's failure when they sued Microsoft about the 'look and feel' of Windows suggests that 'design and layout' are not copyrightable in the first place; only actual content is. There are also complications when a use is non-profit and the work is transformative, not merely a copy, which my pages are. So Scott has a very tenuous case at best. I am considering consulting a copyright lawyer about this. Scott/Amos may even have slandered me by falsely claiming copyright infringement to the APRL. Scott/Amos has something approaching a monopoly in the U.S. album/catalog market and yes, they are known for being aggressive and litigious.
Vintage reproductions is long since defunct; Subway claims to have permission from Scott to sell the pages (they said this when I offered my pages to them - they refused citing the limitation of needing Scott permission). Vintage never had a copyright, as far as I know - it does no appear on the pages or cover pages. I believe that none of Scott/Amos, Vintage, or Subway can copyright the pages anew as they're merely copies of previously published and copyrighted material. The law protects the original authors, but for a limited time (U.S. constitution) - you can't just renew a copyright on that same material indefinitely.
In any case, I AM offering free PDF files of my update pages WITHOUT SCOTT NUMBERS. Email me at philpritchard@mindspring.com if you'd like my introductory materials. I do have a copyleft agreement you must sign, promising not to sell the pages and to pass on this requirement to anyone you give the pages to for free. I have done 1700 pages now and expect to make somewhat less than 700 more pages. There are a LOT of missing stamps on the old pages!
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Big Brown Internationals
"you can't just renew a copyright on that same material indefinitely"
Actually, yes, there is a way that copyrights can be extended indefinitely through wills and estates, and commercial businesses that own proprietary rights to such products.
The issue one deals with with Scott (and other commercial businesses) is proprietary value, not just copyright.
It is nice to do all the research, but there have been several Supreme Court cases and decisions made, along with changes in the laws. The information you provided appears sound in many regards, but cannot be considered to be legal advice.
As Don stated last year (see below), Scott has big feet, and they do come stomping when they believe it is necessary to protect their proprietary interests. Note that to not do so, could cause their products to fall into the public domain. That is why so many companies take action over what many believe to be trivial matters. Do you remember the small day care center that used images of Disney characters? Disney came down on the center, and the center was forced to remove the characters or pay a royalty to Disney for their use. Had Disney not done that, the characters could have fallen into the public domain.
So, the risk is something that you seem willing to take in this regard. What Scott decides to do, if anything, is a matter that you would have to deal with, and I agree with your own comment that you should talk to a copyright lawyer to give you peace of mind or to see if you missed something that could come back to you.
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
I split off my comments, because I have two different subject maters that I wanted to state.
Let's take a look at the reality of what you are offering here. The Scott International Brown albums were complete at the time of their publications. Scott added many varieties and other stamps that were given major catalog numbers in the years since. They continue to do so today.
Once stamps are issued and cataloged, there is only so much that can be done on the album side of things. Through the years there have been many stamp albums published by many business enterprises from the very basic to the very specialized.
There is only so much that can be done with album pages. So the question would be what is the product being offered, and how does it differ from those of the past? Is there a substantial difference, or is it basically a duplicate with just a few tweaks, such as taking a short story, changing the names of the main characters and then publishing it as an original work?
One could say that the newer Steiner pages are duplicates of existing albums pages, but without the stamp images. Of course, the pages do not contain catalog numbers.
The question here is, does the work being presented offer a substantial difference from the Scott Brown International Albums / Vintage Reproduction Albums (which are the same)? The Scott Specialized Albums are the successor to the Brown Internationals. Are the pages different from those? One has to be careful about that as well.
Still, Scott did go after Steiner, but over the catalog numbering issue, not the page layouts.
I am not making any declarative statements or judgments about this. I am only pointing out potential risks. Steiner is getting along just fine for many years with how he operates and creates pages. Is your process basically the same? If so, then my guess would be that you may not ruffle any feathers. However, I think the problem for you may be that Scott might have you in their sights from the article you wrote that pointed out deficiencies in Scott's position.
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
Regrettably, under threat of legal action, Amos forced me to remove the free albums that used the Scott numbering system from my website.
I did suggest, that in return for being allowed to continue distributing these albums that I would happily place Amos advertising free on the web site or even directly in the AlbumEasy program. To which they responded that they "do not barter".
If I had any financial interest that warranted it, or deep enough pockets, I may not have taken it so meekly and considered a legal response instead.
Personally, I believe that Amos are shooting themselves in the foot - the numbers in an album are so much more useful with a catalogue to accompany it.
So far none of the other catalogue publishers have complained, that could be because they are not US-based and therefore less litigious or even more likely that they are not even aware of my site. I can only assume, therefore, that someone, for whatever reason decided to turn me in to Amos.
Clive
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
Here is Michel's statement regarding their numbering system:
"The use of the MICHEL (sic) numbering system or of single MICHEL (sic) numbers in catalogues, albums and any other systematic philatelic tables is not permitted except for free price lists distributed by dealers."
Gibbons simply lumps its numbering system into its overall copyright statement that says that you cannot use the numbering system outside of the catalogues without permission on Gibbons.
Scott's statement is basically the same as Michel's.
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
The rationale they use on licensing is contradictory but most usually tend to be about preventing uncontrolled use.
Mystic uses Scott numbers in their US albums and suspect they pay a royalty so there is control and revenue. Their logic is likely if they let Clive use it then any album created with Album Easy can use it. This is not controlled and no revenue. They do not need advertising - they want money.
The well known company I worked for was very big into IP. They had a team of lawyers looking for infringements to get them to license patents they may have used. For large companies, they usually were after a cross licensed on their IP. The goal was not to sue. It was all about getting revenue.
History of defending your IP can be an important point in a lawsuit.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Auctions
re: Big Brown Internationals
one comment on Phil P's review of copyright law.
1923 IS the year in which previous things are "assumed" to have lost copyright protection, ASSUMING that the owner, or its successors, no longer have an active interest in it. That year has been the same for at least a decade, so it's not moving.
But 1923 is not a magic number; it's only a guide. and it certainly wouldn't apply, at least as the basis for a copyright defense, if the plaintiff were actively seeking to protect said copyright.
Amos isn't delicate, or discrete, in its defense, but, as Michael points out, to leave even minor infringements alone is to risk loss.
I've watched others take similarly aggressive assaults over similar things.
David
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
Does this mean that we are all breaking the copyright rules by even putting the numbers in a stockbook / envelope or writing it by our stamps in an album?
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
I would say that technically, yes, it is a violation of their copyright. However, at least in the USA, there is the matter of "Fair Use". You can use the catalog numbering system for your own use any way you want, so long as you do not give it away or sell it to anyone else.
For example, I have data files that contain every single Scott catalog number, plus many Gibbons and Michel numbers, for which I maintain my collection inventory. I can create those data files and use the catalog numbers without permission of the catalog publishers. However, I cannot give those data files away, nor can I sell them to permit others to maintain inventories of their collections.
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
To expand on Sheepshanks comment about identifying stamps by Scott number in our albums or stockbooks- How about when we identify stamps by Scott # in our approval books and auction sales. Here we are using the Scott # to promote a sale for our profit or gain. Maybe the fair use laws shield us but I would think on a strictly legal basis we may be in violation and subject to sharing our profits or paying a users fee. Conversations like this give me a headache!
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
Scott/Amos clearly wants them to be used for commerce. That is its value that drives sales of catalogs and albums. We see clearly the areas that Scott/Amos is being protective. There is little to worry about if you realize their intent.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Big Brown Internationals
Al is absolutely correct. Scott's numbers are being utilized for the purpose intended: information between parties. Without that, there is NO reason for Scott's numbers at all.
As to writing Scott's numbers in your note books, that's private use.
It is the distribution aspects that trigger copyright protection. In addition, Michael's comment on fair use applies. Writing Scott 537 to ID the US Victory stamp is fair use, whether in an article or part of a sales offering. Writing ALL the Scott numbers in a set of pages, even given for free, is not.
David
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Big Brown Internationals
Mr. Pritchard i enjoyed your post on expanding on the Big Brown albums..but then our legal department seemed to take over, the only albums that i am familiar with that include Scott numbers are the Scott U.S and Specialized country albums. I have not seen a Big Brown recently so i do no know about them.
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
Phil, I have a set of "Brownies". They are like the Scott Specialized pages. The stamp spaces in the "Brownies" do not contain catalog numbers.
I have compared some of the pages that Mr. Pritchard has developed to the pages in the Brown Internationals. It is completely my non-legal opinion that he has created something substantially different from what the Brown international pages offer.
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
I use Scott/Amos large 3 ring binders. 25 so far, but I keep adding pages...
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
As noted, I distribute my pages without Scott numbers, so that issue is not an issue.
Scott/Amos complained to the APRL about "design and layout." They did not object to this when I asked for a license to use their numbers (although the response was brief enough that one could be unclear about it. They had sample pages, so they knew what they looked like.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
This quite clearly says "limited Times" - a copyright cannot be extended forever. Yes, it can be in a trust and inherited, but this does not extend its time limit.
Is "design and layout" even a "Writing" in the first place?
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
I doubt any philatelic organization will go against Amos/Scott wishes.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions
re: Big Brown Internationals
On the binders i have been buying Staples 2 inch binders with the fabric type appearance, they cost around $13.00 and i can color code them. Speaking of trusts...i should include my stamps in the family trust...but they would probably only go into a 13 foot dumpster.
Login to Like
this post
re: Big Brown Internationals
Phil, the pages are full size as the Scott Specialty pages. If you print pages 8 1/2 x 11, these pages will not print correctly.
Login to Like
this post