List Created Using Scott: Copyright Issue Or Plagerism?

WOW, that looks great and is exactly how I'd want to do it. Thanks for the link

Fun post Sue! About your CZAM# - one caveat - if you were making a fortune off of this I have no doubt Scott would go after that as a copyright violation. Let's pretend the Scott numbers were C1, C2, C2a, C3, C6 (note the subletter and number skip). If you used CZAM1, CZAM2, CZAM2a, CZAM3, CZAM6, then it would be a clever attempt to infringe on their system and I would say look out. But if you used instead CZAM1, CZAM2, CZAM3, CZAM4, CZAM5 - I would think that would be just your own logical numbering system. I don't think Scott has the copyright on "1,2,3". In other words, the fact that you are still trying to use the exact Scott number seems to be protected.

Neat site SueStamps! I wonder if you were to spell out the numerals or use Roman Numerals if that would qualify as infringement?

EDIT: My bad I thought that was your site! lol sorry. Still a cool and informative thread though.

I think this would be a valid question if Scott's US numbering system was chronological, but it is not. Other catalogue publishers use different numbering systems for US stamps that do not come close to matching up with Scott.


In fact, I've asked the question here before ...

What would you (SCF members) do differently with Scott's numbering system?

In many ways, Scott's numbering system does NOT make sense, but appears to be a product of discovery + addition, or perhaps it is intentionally confusing with the goal of creating a copyright-able publication? How else can you explain #85?

Scott's numbering system is what it is. I've learned to accept it, if not embrace it ... I get irritated when I see ebay listings (US listings) for US stamps referencing catalogue numbers other than Scott.

Brian

This is true. However, a number sequence is not copyrightable as long as a similiar numbering sequence does not deviate identically. So if you do not follow where Scott uses suffixes or skips a number, you have a different numbering system.
Haing been a database administrator for years, I have my own numbering scheme - for airmail is shown here: this is not copyrighted - you may use it
AM00010 where the first 4 digits is a straight sequence number and digit 5 is used for any variety. Thus, for US airmail Scott #C3 and C3a, mine is AM00030 and AM00031 respectively. Where Scott leaves out a sequence number, I do not, so it is at that point where my numbering scheme starts to deviate from Scott. My spreadsheet, though has the cross-reference between the two.
As an aside - I could never quite figure out the logic of Scott's us of suffixes - sometimes lowercase letters, sometimes uppercase, sometimes two letters. For example, Scott US #s 3003, 3003a, 3003b, and 3003bv for the Madonna and Child Christmas stamp.

Hi ncbuckeye




I don't remember where but I read an explanation of why Scott numbers items as they do. It was before the Internet and before 6 volumes of catalog. Back then the numbering made sense. I do agree that the prefixes do not make sense, Air Mail = "C" and not "A" .

I do know that numbers are skipped because of poor information (I once asked Scott why). It seems the info they get (probably a postal administration) states that a set of stamps will contain N stamps over a period of days or months. Scott then lists the stamps and reserves a block of numbers for the remaining stamps, which are never issued. So, in order not to make waves, they leave the numbers as is. I remember they re-numbered a section of Colombia years ago and it ticked everybody off.

What ticks me off the most is not the numbering scheme, I can live with that, it is Scott is not consistent. What they do for one country they do not do for another. Even in the same country there is no consistency. Anyways that is my rant for the day.

I beleive Scott originated the numbering system, it did not just appear on the hill one day. They created it, they can copyright it. Simple as that.

yep - it's not that the individual elements can be copyrighted, but how the combination is put together - the end appearance. That is why Ford cannot stop you from making a car, but they can have a say if you made an exact copy of the Edsel.

All that aside, it is nice to see other people collecting Canal Zone.

You have chosen not to exercise your copyright, good for you! I applaud you!



Not quite. What you have done is added onto the Scott numbering system. You have still incorporated the basic copyrighted Scott numbering system. You can do that, but the deviation must exceed a certain percentage, depending on the type/format of the item copyrighted.

What you have done is the equivalent of taking a movie, included a frame around the screen, removed a couple of scenes, and then added in a few alternate scenes of your own. The problem is that everybody is acknowledging that you are basing your system from ONE catalog system. Construct a new system based on info culled from several catalog systems, and you are less likely to run into problems.

Again, for your own personal use, it is not a copyright infringement. It is when you publish/distribute it (non-educational) that results in the violation.

I think it is great that you and the others are making great personal use of the Scott numbering system. I'm all for customizing things to suit each collector's needs and specialties!

Rather than keep quoting from the various posts above, please note:

The Scott numbering system is NOT a chronological sequence, so the claim that they cannot copyright it is invalid. Neither is it intuitive -- there are plenty of people who disagree with Scott number assignments. Also, the very fact that Scott/Michel/Y&T/SG do NOT have the same catalog number assignments shows that it is not intuitive. The many gaps in the numbering system also show it is constantly changing over the decades, and hence, not intuitive.

Regardless of how you and I feel (I personally agree you all should be able to use it in the manner you have posted), the fact is Scott has a valid copyright (nobody has successfully challenged it over a 100 year period), and they have chosen to protect its copyright.

I read a lot of posts claiming nobody can copyright a numbering system such as Scott's, including references to statements from lawyers. I read the statements, and it's clear the lawyers have misunderstood the Scott numbering system -- they are not collectors and have just assumed the Scott numbering system is a simple 1,2,3 numbering. When I see a lawyer successfully challenge this (not just in philately, but also in science, mathematics, manufacturing...) I will believe it. There is a reason why no lawyers are pro-actively challenging these numbering systems -- they wouldn't win.

Don't get me wrong. While I can understand why Scott vigorously protects its copyright and agree that they have the legal right to do so, I think Scott is shooting themselves in the foot. Especially in the age of the internet, it is a losing battle. Instead, Scott should be embracing public use, as there are many potential financial benefits to Amos. My opinion. However, they have decided to follow a different business model. Their business, their choice.

One of the shortest posts in this thread sums it up best:

Is this copyright infringment? Probably. Will they do anything about it? Nope.

Having worked at an Intellectual Property law firm as a paralegal for several years, I can say that as long as you aren't making any money on your website than you are probably ok--even if there is blatant copyright infringement. I have worked cases where teenagers and making music videos of a famous rock stars songs and it is getting millions of hits a day; but who wants to be the jerk who ruins some kids life or some hobbyists hobby? It is bad PR and expensive to go through a many year long legal battle.

Scott/Amos would have to pay someone to sue you and derivative work (you site IMO meets the requirements to classified as such)is an enormous pain in the butt to prosecute. At worst you'll get a letter from someone like me in letterhead and legal jargon telling you to cease and desist. Of that happens, take down the website or see a lawyer. That's where 90 percent of CR cases end, and firms count on that.

I think that the tone of the rest of the copyright notice is generous to collectors; they also know they are the standard in identification numbers and there is an expectation that the copyright is valid but very impractical to enforce on hobbiest (can you imagine Kleenex suing everyone who said Kleenex and tissue?) Also, if you can find any evidence of Scott NOT suing over someone using their numbering system, you are pretty free--it is an all or nothing thing. This is, incidentally, why Marvel and DC comics are such jerks about their material--they HAVE sued kids who post their drawings online to show their due diligence in re: comprehensive prosecution minimums.

That said, even if you aren't making any money you should also be sure that you aren't costing Scott any money either. If more then 5,000 separate people go to you website every month you might attract unwanted attention from the powers that be.

I would consider adding a disclaimer that you are't affiliated with Scott and you make no money off of your site, it's only for personal use and have a link to their website so people can buy the catalog. Derivative and transformal works on the internet are not a settled matter in IP law and there are many many attnys who won't touch these issues with a 10 foot poll because even the Supreme Court has turned the issue down over and over.

Ugh, ignore my typos until I figure out how to edit a post, please.

Also, I am 90 percent certain that Scott has lost at least one major suit due to their incon. with granting licencing and copyright permissions. I don't have WestLaw on my home comp but I'll look into it at work on Mon.