Am I The Only One Who Prints Their Own Pages.

Drew,

For sure that's a lot to consider. If one has the funds and doesn't want to go through all the hassles of finding the "right" paper in the "right" size and "right" binders and buying a wide-bed printer, etc., you can also buy Palo albums, which are Steiner pages with illustrations printed on large thick paper. Their binders are pretty nice as well.

Of course that goes against the "spirit" of the thread, but I thought I'd mention it

A late follow up on this discussion... Some stamp albums are now in the public domain. They are available for download through Google Books or you can order reprints through Amazon. I've actually thought about purchasing a reprint of an early album and using it to fill with duplicates from the classic era. The DVD in question, however, appears to have stamps so they do not appear to be from Google Books...

Here is a link to an early Scott Album on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=5...lbum&f=false

I really liked my page printing software. So I just spent a significant amount of time on copyright expiration, laws, qualifications for a copyright and on and on and on. A lot of time I will never get back. In my estimation the product I was, past tense, using is in violation of law. Life of owner plus 70 years. And copyright carries over to subsequent legal ownership.
Now to really open up Pandora's box. It also appears, based on reading, that many of the posts on this site and 100s of others that have scans, pictures etc. (not of stamps) are also in violation of the law. So at what point is the line of ethics crossed? Individually it is a personal line however where is the line for public sites? I really wish I could have continued to use the page printing software and not felt guilty! I also wonder why with such blatant disregard for the law the proper owner has not pursued legal challenge to the offender. Perhaps even they do not have proper copyright ownership?

Also depends on where the material is being produced/sold from. The appropriateness of copyright law - including the relatively recent extensions in protection - is often a matter for debate, including the inability of anybody to benefit if a work is protected under copyright, but not reprinted.

Much of what has been posted does not duplicate works that qualify for copyright protection, or otherwise passes the four prong test for fair use.

I'd be interested in knowing which specific prior post shows something that you think violates copyright.

This is showing pages of an album.
"The Stamps of Ghana : On Album Pages"
And you used the correct "think" as I am certainly not a copyright expert. Can you please explain the four prong test?
Thanks

In this case, Rod is using very little of Steiner's work, and cannot be damaging Steiner's business - if anything, he's enhancing it. And some of the pages aren't Steiner's.

I guess another question is how does Google Books legally reproduce their vast library?

GeoffHA - I am really NOT trying to be a wise guy. Your response sounds like it is legal to use just a little of a copyrighted product but not a lot. That means "little" is part of that line that I spoke to earlier. If part of the four prong test is, "is it damaging to the copyright holders business" then is it legal to use copies of pages that the legal holder of the copyright holder no longer has available for purchase. IE: year sets of pages from any of the classic era? I do not want to pursue this to the point of angering any participants, these are honest questions/concerns.

To clarify my position.
I use (and am a HUGE fan) of William Steiner's work.
I paid full price, and have receipts for the Album Pages.

I mount the stamps on the Album Page, and post on a web page.
I have full authority to do so.

If John Doe steals my work and publishes it for reward, then that be a case to answer.

I have emailed Mr. Steiner with these posts, to seek clarification.

PS: I also emailed him some time ago, to seek his opinion, on whether I could on-sell my old Album Pages, when I purchase a new updated set of Pages.
He replied he prefer that I should not.
I have honoured that request.

It is my opinion these Album Pages are an absolute bargain, esp for the Worldwide collector, and would urge any collectors to consider purchase.

Apologies to Rod. Not singling out his post it was just the first example found in a matter of a minutes.

Posts like Rod's showing one's collection mounted on pages aren't a violation of US copyright law.

Are Steiner and StampAlbums.com one in the same?

Wheelman

Don't worry, I wasn't suggesting anything! And I can hardly claim expertise in US copyright law. My rough view - moral, and certainly not legal - is that, if material is sitting there with the copyright-owner doing nothing with it, it benefits no-one. A parallel would be many of the blues reissue LPs that came out in the 60s, on US, Austrian and English labels. Bootlegs? Yes. Making a few cents for Columbia or RCA? No. Doing something to help revive interest in artists who had usually been shafted years before by record companies? Yes, often.

Geoff

No offence taken.

Thanks to Postmaster for clarification.