My Quixotic New Project Over At Wikipedia - The World Stamp Catalog Wikibook

Either I am dedicated, crazy, or a masochist, but I've decided to revive the World Stamp Catalogue Wikibook project over at Wikipedia.

For now just focusing on data entry, with the goal of providing a solid cross-reference stamp identification resource among various general and specialized catologues (but not valuations).

At this point not posting images, due to Wikipedia's often arcane and labor-intensive requirements to ensure images follow relevant national copyright laws. But for me the more valuable contribution of my project is to provide a single resource where collectors can go and find out what Scott # X is equivalent to in Gibbons, Michel or a nation's relevant specialized catalogue.

Completed my first postal administraion - the French Post Office in Morocco issues of 1891-1912 before the creation of the French protectorate. Check it out, it gives a nice idea of what I am trying to accomplish taking on this project.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/World...e_In_Morocco

And of course if anyone is interested in cooperating in this Quixotic crusade of mine, please feel free to drop me a note and we can talk

Doesn`t Amos litigate against people using their Scott number system in this way?

Hi DJCMHOH,

You suggest we drop you a line but your profile states, "This Member does not wish to receive e-mail.." when you click on the e-mail link.

KGB as far as I know they do not litigate since the purpose is for educational use only and no attempt to profit from their use is being made. There are literally hundreds of philatelic research websites that make use of stamp identification data in similar ways that have been operational for years without any known litigation that I am aware of. Should I be informed otherwise then I will of course comply but such action would definitely create issues for many other websites around the world.

Nigel I will check my settings I thought I had it activated.

D, I hope you`re correct.

For an interesting discussion of the issue--and more--please see: https://goscf.com/t/41814

KGB thank you for that thread link. If needed I could make a request to Scott similar to what jkjblue has done for his 1840-1940 big blue website. Interestingly the template to include cat number info already existed in the Wikibok setup and had been used by previous editors, so it may be the issue has been dealt with.

Well, I think the windmills have won this battle. Doing more reading and thinking over night and I think now in this case that there would probably be too much overlap between a wikibook project for comfort for a published catalog to reference the use of established number systems, even as data points. Just a visual guide-type catalog on wikibooks might be a good tool though. So I am not pulling the plug on the entire project, but the catalog number references are going to go.

At some point though, the philatelic marketplace is going to need to rethink some the infrastructure regarding catalogs, so that consumers have a common global reference that will remove potential barriers in the marketplace because of different reference systems.

Good idea, but the use of catalog numbers will always pose a problem. Some publishers are better than others. Michel doesn't appear to care -- the German Wikipedia has extensive stamp listings, all with Michel numbers. See here, for example.

Hi

A while back Scott (Amos Publishing) shut down 1847USA because they were using Scott numbers. The site Scott numbering got restored after permissions were gained. StampWorld, for instance, uses their own numbering system.

I remember that on one of these boards there was a discussion of this and the "rules". If I remember correctly, if you sell stamps you can use the Scott numbers in your offering list. Otherwise, written permission was required.

If you are making a cross reference, you may also have to get permissions from all the other catalog publishers to use their catalog numbers.

For my friend's store I created some tables to help in identifying stamps for stock. I have been asked to publish them but cannot do so as there are multiple catalogs involved. To publish, I would have to write to each catalog publisher, and any individuals, to get written permission to use their numbers, or document. I would also have to give written credit to everyone somewhere in the document.

Jerry B

There's really no legal basis for Scott's position, but no one's been willing to put time and money into fully litigating the issue.

I struggle to see the range of catalogues and numbering systems as a genuine problem. Most catalogues have currency within a particular geographical area, and most collectors within that area will use their "local" catalogue. If collectors are particularly interested in a detailed examination of stamps from an individual country, they can buy a specialist catalogue. In my acse, I'm interested in France and Colonies, and have Yvert and Maury as well as Gibbons. But why would I care what numbers Michel or Scott give French stamps?

Well, it would be handy to know the Gibbons numbers if I want to shop British sellers, for example. Michel is the standard catalog for Germany, but most US sellers list by Scott. We live in a global era and not knowing the Gibbons/Michel/Yvert numbers etc means it would be difficult to purchase from sellers in those areas.

This was my main motivation for including catalog ID information, it would greatly help grow the internationalization of the philatelic marketplace, in lieu of a single universally accepted cataloguing system, to have a reference that was easy to access for collectors.

Alas that is not to be because of the claims of copyright that Scott maintains.

If you have an image of the stamp, you can generally match it to your own catalogue, I think. Of course, for the complex and, to my mind, irretrievably dull, series such as Machins or Washington/Franklins, you need more, but in those cases, you probably care enough to have a more detailed GB or US reference to hand.

Fully can be mean forever. From what I seen Scott has either prevailed or negotiated enough so they have not given up their family jewels. Krause Publishing was the last big case I know about when Krause tried to do a cross reference.

I tend to favor Scott's position (much invested) to give it all away for free.

Al

Scott/Amos' past claims have been based in part on trademark law, rather than copyright law. The wording SCOTT is a registered trademark (at least in the US) for certain stamp-related products, and the theory is that the use of SCOTT to designate services that don't come from Amos could be confusing to consumers or dilute the distinctiveness of the brand. Or, the use of "Scott No." as a column heading for numbers could be seen to imply sponsorship or association. These claims are more favorable, to Amos, than copyright claims, as there is considerable doubt about whether the selection of numbers alone is enough "creative authorship" to qualify for protection under US copyright law, an issue underscored by the fact that Amos has never obtained a US copyright registration for the numbering system per se.

Based on this, a possible workaround for the Wikibooks project is to delete "Mi/Sc/Gi" from the existing "Cat. No." column and just list numbers. That is, determine on your own what catalogs you wish to cross reference, and the order in which their numbers will be presented (Michel first or last, for example), without disclosing the order. Then, include the numbers alone, like "4, 4, 6" for a particular stamp. Yes, the reader is left to guess which catalog number is "4" and which is "6," but you have narrowed it down considerably and no matter what catalog they have in hand, the identification process will be simpler. And you are not using any trademark of anyone.

Your scheme will be revealed, of course, when you reach special kinds of issues such as US Parcel Post, and list "X, Y, Q8" for example (where Q8 is one of the numbers the Scott catalogs use). Does selection of "Q1," "Q2," etc. or "C3," "C3a," etc. constitute enough creative authorship to support a copyright infringement claim? We do not know until a judge decides, and that would be the principal risk area.

Because of the difficulty of establishing a copyright claim based solely on a series of numbers, without any branding, this approach may reduce risk.

Ultimately, the lowest-risk approach always will be adoption of a unique and unenforced numbering system. An example is a monotonically increasing number series that follows strict chron order by date of issue of the stamps. I believe this the approach that stampworld.com uses. Of course, it would be years before it is widely adopted, and would require concerted publicity to induce dealers and other media to start quoting Wikicat numbers.



The foregoing is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship with anyone or constitute legal advice to any specific individual. (If this was legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.) For individual advice on which you can rely, consult an attorney separately and in a confidential manner.