What Does This Mean For The Ata?

So I've been waiting about 6 months for check lists for Pierre gandon and Martin Mörck. Then I see this ad recently in the APS mag, of if I remember correctly,




I'm now told by the ATA that they can't publish the Mörck list bc Scott has licensed it and apologized for not being able to provide one, even though they e been working on it for many months apparently- or least I was told. They had updated me awhile back that they had hoped to have it available to me by GASS.

All that waiting for null and apparently all their work for null! Additionally, if Scott is getting into the check list business, how does this effect ATA & its members?

The Scott checklists were originally national (e.g., Sweden) or subsets of national (e.g., U.S. essays and proofs, or US Duck Stamps).
A little bit different presentation with a bunch of check boxes to help them monetize their data. Getting a bit more revenue would presumably help Amos out and perhaps keep catalogue prices from continuing into the stratosphere.

But that was 2021/22.
The checklist you show is a bit different from a national checklist, though.
So you ask a very good question.

Will Scott start to take over major topical categories and leave the most minor to the ATA?
What happens to existing ATA work - by member volunteers including myself?

I hope the ATA addresses this for us. I didn't see anything in the last Topical Time and the website seems to still claim the IP for the lists are held as ATA property.

It's news to me too. I' e been waiting and waiting for this list and one for Pierre gandon. And now all of sudden I was told ATA would have to pay Amos a license fee. I wonder if Mörck will see any benefit from this and might it affect other engravers if Scott does more of these checklists. I haven't checked yet - maybe they do have more lists as a separate line of lists for artists/ engravers?

Edit: just looked and I see only Mörck. Not a small undertaking. I have to wonder if someone from ATA jumped ship or something to Amos and took the list?!? Sees like a mess.

Linn's Weekly recently had an advert for newly released Mörck checklist by Scott. I then sent a letter to the editor re: same and my reply I had received from the ATA. They were surprised as they'd not heard anything from them( ATA ). Seems like the Mörck list is a one-off so they say.

Is this all about Scott catalog numbers being used as a way to tie-up someone else's project?

Scott paid money to the creator and licensing entity. If anger is to be directed, it goes not to Scoot, but the licensing entity who collected the money.




No. Someone's project found a way to get paid upfront.

I'm not sure what it is - but - have to wonder how many more projects the ATA is working on that they might not be able to provide? All my waiting and their wasting their time and money for nothing…

If it was in fact an ATA project, they are the ones who sold the license. Thus ATA made money on the project following the investment of time and money.

I am puzzled why Scott chose to use their staff time for such a niche product?

Trying to understand this.




The ATA put resources into building a checklist for a particular topic. Now they say that they cannot publish the checklist because Scott licensed it. Did the ATA license it to Scott? If so, why would they go public about a product only to turn around and sell it to Scott. This really makes no sense to me.

What am I missing?

We are playing the "telephone game" because all the information here is being relayed indirectly so errors are almost inevitable. I see two possibilities but we won't have an accurate story unless an ATA leader posts here to straighten us out. The first possibility is, as PPG suggests, ATA authored the work, then elected to license it to Amos to publish it under the Scott brand, rather than publishing it itself. This is what the original post appears to say. The second is that ATA wanted to use the term "Scott Catalog No." in referring to catalog numbers, and Amos declined a license. That's more speculative. Obviously these possibilities are two completely different forays into the world of licensing.

yes , it would be nice for Scott or ATA to chime in. I've gotten emails from Linns & ATA re: the list. All I know is that many months ago I swapped emails with ATA re: list for M#333;rck ( for which they said they had had many requests over the years ) and Pierre Gandon. I was told that they were working on a list for morck and hoped to have it by GASS. I followed up again just recently and was told this by ATA:





Linns told me something a little different.

Im not going to post emails, etc. My point was / is - how does this affect ATA if they have this going on and how did they not know until many months after they said they were working on it, that they could not produce it?

Ok, NOW it makes more sense. ATA has to pay to use Scott numbers if they publish the list and obviously Amos does not. Bingo!

Don Denman would be infuriated by this. He would contend that ATA doesn't have to pay a license fee because it could use the notation "Cat. No. 1234," rather than "Scott 1234," "Scott Cat. No. 1234," or "Scott No. 1234." This is because "Scott" is a registered trademark for a source of philatelic publications, and Amos can enforce it, but numbering systems alone are not protected under any currently recognized US IP law regime. Amos has never won a contested legal case concerning use of numbering alone without the brand "Scott" included and Congress has left numbering schemes as an area of unprotected creation.

The chilling effect caused by people over-construing Amos' rights is maddening.

More weirdness. Something a little fish here. I have at least one checklist, probably more if I look, where the column header for the stamps ID'd reads, " Scott ".

In spite of what I wrote above, now it seems there is wide confusion here as to these points:


What is the licensed property (e.g. The newly created list of information or the Scott numbers used to identify within the list of information)
Who is the licensor
Who is the licensee