Copyright: Re: Wanted: A Scott Specialized Page Printer

This is a comment on the following topic, about which I can't post directly because I'm still at <50 posts.
https://www.stampcommunity.org/topi...37535#342752




I disagree. In my personal opinion, at least in the US, the scope of copyright in album pages is far narrower than the page publishers would have you believe, and they rely on intimidation in the form of greater financial resources, rather than legal basis, to suppress competition. In other words, the publishers probably do not have enforceable rights, but few competitors are positioned to finance a "test case" in the courts.

Looking at a typical Scott Specialty Series album page, the level of creative authorship necessary to support a copyright claim (a) probably exists in the border design, especially the corners, (b) possibly exists in the selection, ordering and arrangement of the rectangles indicating stamp positions, although this is debatable, and (c) almost certainly does not exist in the numbering system. (Cf. http://web.archive.org/web/20120210035330/http://www.stamps.net/opinion6.htm) In fact I have always wondered why Steiner pages do not include Scott numbers because the printing of Scott numbers on a page of different design is virtually certain not to support a copyright infringement claim under current law, and I have stopped buying Steiner pages for that reason; I want them numbered. Moreover, if the selection, ordering and arrangement of the rectangles also cannot support a claim, then anyone could make an image capture of a Scott page or a Steiner page without the border, and print it on blank Scott Specialty paper with borders, free of a claim.

Of course, anyone planning to do this for profit should seek independent counsel about their personal situation and this post is not intended as legal advice on which anyone should rely.

the page design is not the issue, it is the usage of SCOTT numbers, which are copyrighted.

https://goscf.com/t/25906

Actually they are trademarked.

I understand that Scott makes that assertion. However, IMO, they are wrong on the law and would lose any lawsuit contending that commercial distribution of album pages, with different borders and different rectangle locations for stamp positions, but including Scott numbers, infringes any valid copyright. There have been numerous copyright cases brought, and lost, by parties over the years throughout the US contending that various numbering systems are copyrighted. The courts agree that this does not constitute enough creative authorship to qualify for a remedy.

Trademark law protects signs, symbols, names and the like that are used as brands to identify the source of goods or services. SCOTT is a trademark. The numbering system per se is ineligible for trademark protection. But perhaps you're suggesting that Scott (or really Amos) would contend that displaying the designation "Scott No. 404" (or similar) within a rectangle for a stamp on pages commercially produced by another would infringe the Scott mark. I would disagree because consumers would not see that designation as suggesting that the source of the pages is Scott, which is the function of a trademark. Instead, they would see it as a reference to a catalog entry, and this is recognized in many jurisdictions as "nominative fair use." In the same way that I can sell auto parts as "for BMW 330i" without infringing the BMW mark, because I am suggesting compatibility, I can sell WIDGET brand album pages that say "put your Scott number 404 stamp here", in space locations that I create and with page borders of my design, without infringing the Amos trademark or any other Amos IP.

Food for thought, at least. My point really is that these publishers' IP rights are narrower than they would have you believe, but it takes a wad of cash to prove it.

The terms Scott, Scott Catalogue Numbering System, Scott Catalogue Number, and Scott Number are all trademarked. I am unsure how you would reference anything without also mentioning one of these terms in conjunction with the digit itself. But you could certainly simply say '2' and let people speculate what it meant without using any of those trademarked terms.

Not correct. Amos does not have US trademark registrations for Scott Catalogue Numbering System, Scott Catalogue Number, and Scott Number. To the extent it has accrued unregistered rights at common law in "Scott Number", those rights would not be infringed in the example I gave, because the designation "Scott No. 404" in my hypothetical album page is not trademark use. I am not using it as a brand for my pages, I am using it to name an item that should be mounted in the indicated space. This is classic nominative fair use.

I would also contend that Amos never uses "Scott Number" in a way that functions as a trademark. It is not used to indicate the source of particular goods or services. Numbers are not something you can sell in commerce. Catalogs are.

Let me give another example. I am also active in model making. There, it is very common for one commercial vendor to sell a kit with printed instructions that say, "Paint this part with Alpha Brand No. 9 Depot Orange," where Alpha Brand is the trademark (registered or not) of a different company. And there is nothing wrong with this, because it is naming something, not using the mark in a brand sense. Album page publishers can do the same.

It is not clear to me what you are saying. Please explain this:

Are you saying that they are lying? Bluffing? What are they saying if NOT that they "have US trademark registrations" as claimed?

They are asserting that they have unregistered, common law rights. Notice that they say say "trademarks," not "registered trademarks," and do not attempt to use the circle-R (marca registrada) symbol, the use of which is permitted only when a registration exists. They are putting the public on notice of their contentions, rather than stating what they own in terms of registered rights. Yes, it's a form of bluffing.

Just because you say you have IP rights, as in this notice, does not mean that you actually have registered rights, or any rights that the courts will enforce. It is common practice for well-financed companies to over-state their IP positions. It is not wrong to make a claim of rights in this manner, and clearly it has intimidation effect. But it is not authoritative.

Amos has spend decades building their brand and investing in the hobby. When I approached them and asked if I could use their numbering system for a non-commercial online database, they responded quickly and in a very professional way. Since it was an online database, I was uncertain that they would be as accommodating as they were; but they only asked that I include their copyright notice and asked that I linked their website. No fees, no push back; I thought it was very reasonable and greatly appreciated.

If I were to make a commercial product, why would I want to take advantage of them? Why not simply partner with them and license it? If I am making money and the product value increases by the use of their numbering system, why would I not be obligated to give them a piece of the action? Seems only right and is probably less expensive than needing a lawyer to defend just using it without their cooperation.

It could be that they just toss the trademark verbiage out there or there is a way to work-around it. But having 'a right' does not always mean it the right thing to do. Just my opinion.

Okay, I think I understand. They are "trademarks" but not "registered trademarks."

Interesting discussion. FWIW, I pulled a volume of Mellone's Specialized Catalog of First Day Covers off the shelf knowing that they use the Scott numbers. Here is what it says:


That's curious. It is a copyright claim, not a trademark claim. So then I started looking at some more recent publications, and find this commonly:


No reference here specifically to the Scott "Number" nor is there a claim to be using the Scott Number under a "license" of any kind. The statement itself is kind of confusing, to me. It does not appear to me that simply referring to a "Scott No." is the same thing as "reprinting from a copyrighted publication of Amos Press."

This is in my 2014 Harris US/BNA catalog. Doesn't look like they licensed the right to use the "Scott NUMBER," though they use them. Seems to me you would have to copy not just the number but some of the description before you could be accused of "reprinting from a copyrighted publication of Amos Press." But in checking, I see this in so many recent publications it is almost like Amos has said "put this in and you are good to go" somewhere.

You can search US trademarks here: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov

I've found Scott, ScottOnline etc, but no registered trademarks referring to their numbering system. Since it is a simple numerical system referring to stamps produced chronologically for the most part, I would guess you could develop your own similar numbering system, as long as you stay away from their prefix and variety conventions. This seems to be the case of Unitrade's system.

Because it would be more economically efficient, and preserve freedom of action, not to deal with them. You're not taking advantage of them if you elect not to pay for something that they aren't entitled to protect. All licenses reduce commercial freedom to at least some extent; many include quality control provisions benefiting the licensor, or involve an admission that the licensor has IP rights, where there actually are none. Of course, by dealing with them, you may be "buying peace" cheaply--and that may well be the most rational decision for a particular business. It just comes at the non-cash cost of admitting rights where there may be none.

Regarding the comments of blcjr, you're correct that these notices are intended, in part, to confuse by asserting a claim of rights where in fact no enforceable rights may exist. The party giving the notice may be hoping for a change in the law at the time a dispute arises, or may simply seek to deter others by giving an official-looking notice.

Another example of a commercial publication that appears to use Scott numbers without license or fee is the recently published book by Chris West, "A History of America in Thirty-Six Postage Stamps." Each chapter begins with a chapter title, a stamp image, identification of the stamp, and the statement "Scott catalog no. N." There is no indication in the book that any license was obtained, and none was needed. This is nominative or descriptive use. Album pages commercially produced by others can do the same.

I see this issue a lot like the nurse in Maine and her desire to make a case of her rights. I'll say it again. Having the right to do something is does not mean that it is right to do it. It was like when they wanted to build a mosque near ground zero in NYC. Again, they had the right to do so but is it the right thing to do?
Have you interfaced with Amos and asked to see what their terms and conditions are to use their numbering system/name? Do you have a product in development or are you just making the case for civil disobedience? Are you a lawyer? If so and if someone takes your advice and develops a product using Scott numbers will you be there to defended at no cost? Have you ever had someone else take your work and make money for it without giving you any credit?

Amos freely allows non-commercial use of the numbering system, I guess I just don't understand why you would be advocating something like this.

License, schmicense... design your own, go to Kinkos
and make all you want (for your personal use) to your
heart's content...

Off-topic

Regarding the comment" I will not use Steiner pages because they do not include Scott numbers"........

Simply open your Scott catalogue and the corresponding Steiner page and the numbers and spaces are sequential well over 90 per cent of the time.

Easier than pie.

I agree.


No, because I don't want to have to agree to any terms that they may have.


Neither. Someone asked whether using Scott numbers would implicate copyright, and I am answering that question.


Yes.


Of course not. Professionals don't work for free, in any profession, but it's immaterial because I have not given advice to anyone. I've expressed general personal opinions and said, at the outset, that anyone seeking to do this commercially should get personalized advice.


Yes. Copy and paste, followed by an invoice, happens every day in the legal profession. When the work copied is something I don't have a right to protect, I don't have any problem with that.


Because I want to pay less for commercially produced, professionally printed and appearing album pages with Scott numbers on them than I currently am required to do.