Re: Temporary Loss Of A Philatelic Resource

For background info on this discussion please refer to original topic of "Temporary Loss of a Philatelic Resource".

I have discussed this Issue with My Patent Atty. The following is a brief synopsis.

1) The Fact that Scott's has been continually published is of NO bearing. The Copyright for that edition ONLY covers the NEW or UPDATED information.
2) The MAXIMUM Copyright term for ANY work is now 120 years.
3) The numbering of the Stamps in Scott is NOT subject to Copyright. The Format that they use is.
4) The Use of Scott #'s DOES fall under "Fair Use" as long as no valuation from Scott is given and you are referred back to Scott for further details.
5) Statement of Issue order (ex. 1st stamp, stamp # 1, etc) is not Copyrightable. They are statement of fact therefore "Public Domain".
5) Any details such as statement of Perf., Printing qty., Size, etc. are statement of fact therefore "Public Domain".

I will be happy to relay any other questions regarding this, and get a correct answer.

I left out that there is also a good argument that the Copyright on their numbering system has expired. But it would far easier to just do a dance around their Copyright, and this is not that difficult!

Interesting (as European I know very little of US copyright legislation, so this is a good lesson :) )




And with format you mean division E=Special delivery, J = postage dues, L=local etc.?




What if they are not a statement fact? For example perforations stated by Scott are not very accurate in some cases (compared to say Michel and several other catalogs) which provide 1/4 or better accuracy.

Among other things, yes that is correct. If you made a catalog and numbered them 1, 2, 3, 4,... you are stating fact that is in the public domain as that is the order in which they were issued.




This information is provided by the issuer or from other sources, you could also measure them yourselves. Your own observation. Not, covered by their Copyright!

Thanks for a great summary of the issue!

Great info, revstampman! However, I do have some questions...


Aren't the copyrights that haven't expired of older editions still valid? Copyright of a new edition doesn't negate any copyrights of older editions, does it?



Good to know. I assume that does not apply to copyrights obtained BEFORE it was extended, right? For instance, I'm assuming a copyright on a 1905 catalog has already expired, even though it hasn't been 120 years (i.e., the new copyright terms are NOT retroactive?).



Scott does claim this, however. Whether it can be copyright or not, I'll let the lawyers battle it out.



On their copyright notice page, Scott does grant you the right to cite catalog prices if you are selling the stamp (along with a few other restrictions).



Scott does not catalog in order of issue date, although it may appear that way as a long-term trend. Scott assigns catalog numbers based on set grouping and whatever they feel like. For example, C1 is NOT the first airmail stamp; C3 is actually the first airmail stamp, as C2 and C1 were issued later. When you are quoting a Scott number, you are not quoting an ID directly corresponding to sequential dates of issue. There are numerous examples in Scott where items and even sets are not listed in order of issue.

Obviously, I'm not a patent attorney. I just think Amos is being stupid again.

Thanks for the info, revstampman!

Revstampman,

Thanks for providing legal support for the public domain argument I first made at the "Temporary Loss of a Philatelic Resource" thread.

Yes, The New information is what is under Copyright in the new edition.



No it does not. But, it does not extend the older information either.



Incorrect, it is retroactive.



Copyrights by a commercial enterprise or corporation, NOT a person or persons are 120 years.



You can claim whatever you want. Defending the claim is another story!



Yes they do. But, what I am referring to is the use as in an online Catalog or web page.



Yes, this is correct. It is another reason why a straight numbering system would be completely defendable in court.

I hope this helps.

This appears to contradict the information from U.S. Copyright Office Publication 15a, "Duration of copyright" quoted on the "Temporary Loss of a Philatelic Resource" thread which states:

From what I know about laws or rules that have been amended anything before a date where the new amendment has gone into effect anything before that date is "grandfathered" The new amendment does not apply.

You can thank Walt Disney (among others) for that extension.

The original quote was INCORRECT. That applies when their are 2 or less authors. When it is "For Hire" the following applies(also from 15a) and their are other stipulations as well. Their is another document that explains it in more detail. However you need to be an Atty. to figure it out! I guess that is why My Brother gets paid what he does!




I was told the "Corp. For Hire" 120 year clause is what applies in this case. Along with several others. I can't figure it out even with the 45 min. explanation I was given!

By the way the following is from form FL-102.




Note the word SYSTEM. So, here is another contradiction. And when questioned I was told other clauses apply as well! (Question asked) When does another clause NOT apply? Answer, NOT OFTEN! OH, WILL IT NEVER END! I'm getting a headache!

Yes, it's been said that everytime the copyright on Mickey Mouse is to expire, Congress extends it with a new copyright act.

What's more natural than Congress looking out for the interests of the banksters and corporations that pay them off while the nation goes to hell?

In Copyright and Patent Law with each change comes the extensions.




Congratulations Collin, YOU get the gold star!
The latest extension was courtesy of Disney Studios. Mickey's Copyright was about to expire. They were able to push through the change to 120 years!

So a work that was copyrighted in the name of the publisher rather than in the name of the author has a longer copyright 'life.' Interesting.

Basically, Yes. If it was a "Work for Hire".