| Author |
 Replies: 39 / Views: 4,382 |
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
USA
2504 Posts |
|
|
I would argue that the earlier numbers established under older copyright laws are now in the public domain and no longer the exclusive property of Scott and Amos. They can probably be successfully challenged on that basis. Would they want to risk it, and lose exclusivity for certain? |
Send note to Staff 
|
|
|
|
Forum Dad
USA
2055 Posts |
|
|
They've been continuously published, would not in public domain until at least 70 years from the most recent publication. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but they are protecting Their investment, just as I would, and I guaranty you that all the emails in the world won't change Their mind. If they did college professors would be using it as an example of stoopid business decisions for years to come.  |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1721 Posts |
|
|
Quote:
Effect of 1976 Act on Length of Subsisting Copyrights
The 1976 Copyright Act carried over the system in the
1909 Copyright Act for computing copyright duration for
works protected by federal statute before January 1, 1978,
with one major change: the length of the renewal term was
increased to 47 years. The 1998 Copyright Term Extension
Act increased the renewal term another 20 years to 67
years. Thus the maximum total term of copyright protection
for works already protected by January 1, 1978, has
been increased from 56 years (a first term of 28 years plus a
renewal term of 28 years) to 95 years (a first term of 28 years
plus a renewal term of 67 years). Applying these standards, all
works published in the United States before January 1, 1923,
are in the public domain. From U.S. Copyright Office Publication 15a, "Duration of copyright" {Taking into account the original Copyright was prior to 1909 the act of 1909 would govern.} Based on this Any stamps using the Scott numbering system listed before January 1, 1923 should be in the public domain. The exception to this would be any #'s for major or minor verities added after 1976. I will confirm this with my Patent Atty.(AKA, My Brother) |
|
Send note to Staff
|
| Edited by revstampman - 08/20/2010 10:38 pm |
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Finland
753 Posts |
|
|
A bit off-topic from recent copyright/legislation related comments, but I think this is still worth highlighting too. It truly doesn't take a brainiac to Google any edition of Scott's (or any other catalog for that matter) as illegal pdf's from download websites. Maybe this is something Amos should be working on instead of chasing websites that promote collecting and extend the information found on catalogs...But I fear they also acknowledge how little they can do outside US grounds... So they've simply picked the "easy" route. I just hope that catalog publishers would step to this century, and update their practices to allow more open data usage (especially in digital formats). Quote:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but they are protecting Their investment, just as I would, and I guaranty you that all the emails in the world won't change Their mind. If they did college professors would be using it as an example of stoopid business decisions for years to come If a large number of existing / potential customers protest (cancel subscriptions, boycott products, make feedback, create negative advertising), then any business will have to listen and change - or die. It's business 101, IMHO. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
|
Forum Dad
USA
2055 Posts |
|
|
Quote:
Based on this Any stamps using the Scott numbering system listed before January 1, 1923 should be in the public domain. It's an ongoing project and it's still being published. The entire thing you quoted is irrelevant since the timeout hasn't even started yet. Quote:
If a large number of existing / potential customers protest (cancel subscriptions, boycott products, make feedback, create negative advertising), then any business will have to listen and change - or die. It's business 101, IMHO. Your asking the company to give away it's product for free. Not going to happen. Scott numbers are a recording of number assignments to stamps. That is the product... you guys/gals are mad because they don't want others to plagiarize it, then give it away for free. No real business gives away Their product for free to anyone that takes it. Among the first rules of business 101 is make money and protect your product/brand. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
Finland
753 Posts |
|
|
Bobby, I'm not suggesting giving away anything free... But a more open copyright policy must happen at some point, IMHO.
For example I have quite a large digital archive of items in my w/w-collection. And yes, the images contain references (using IPTC) to catalog numbers and values (as they are a part of my inventory system too)... If I were to place it all publicly online some day, I'd be going in deep trouble with Scott's current copyright policy interpretation...
Or let's take creating and distributing cross-references between catalogs... Way back these were easily available in many catalogs. These days collectors must trade these behind the scenes as their existance is a "copyright no-no".
And what about folks creating DIY album pages... If the pages contain references to catalog numbers, then distributing them publicly is a big no-no too...
And [an endless rant]...
In the end, I don't think none of the business Amos does would suffer a bit if they allowed free usage to catalog numbers in non-commercial (collecting) usage... Heck, their business might even start blossoming as collectors would not have to "hide" the fact they use a specific catalog/numbering system for items in their collections... Even the marketing at Amos/Scott must know their major selling point, as they promote new catalogs with "Which of these went up" ads, not with "see once again all the same Scott (tm) Numbers you did in last years catalog... LOL.
Again, just my 2 cents worth... |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1721 Posts |
|
|
I would recommend reading "RE: Temporary Loss of a Philatelic Resource" I have consulted a Patent Atty. and a synopsis of the legality is there. I thought I would put the Legal stuff separate from this main Topic. |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
2480 Posts |
|
|
In case you weren't aware, Bob Allen has brought 1847USA back online. He's still working through some issues but it is good to see that he didn't let Amos put an end to a great reference source. Here is Bob's explanation of what he is doing to comply with the Amos request. Quote:
Amos Press, Inc. has asked 1847usa.com to discontinue the use of Scott numbers. This has prompted the development of a public domain numbering system. This "new" numbering system makes every effort to use the same numbers that auction catalogues, dealer's inventories and reference works use and have used for nearly a century. Initial calculations suggest that over 99% of the legacy numbers (published prior to 1923) match the ones used currently. In addition to these numbers, a letter suffix is sometimes used to describe a variety and in most cases, 1847usa.com can not use these suffixes. This should present no problem since the number and a short description is a common alternative. It will require ending the numbering at 1923, however. Later issues will be described without number, but again this should not present a problem, since most of the numbers that are actually used by collectors describe pre-1930 stamps. The sudden nature of the Amos' request and the subsequent removal of the 1847USA content, albeit temporary, has caused problems with search engines, including the search functions on this site, which use the Google engine. This should correct itself in time, hopefully well before the end of the year. The reader's patience is appreciated.
|
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Pillar Of The Community
United States
1721 Posts |
|
|
It's about time! Amos Press never responded to my email about this. I had a feeling they would use Scott's up to 1923. (See my last post on 8/20) |
|
Send note to Staff
|
|
|
Replies: 39 / Views: 4,382 |
|
Posted 08/20/2010 9:29 pm
