Why? I’m sure whoever added the information verified it. If you have information to the contrary, submit to the page with your evidence for consideration by the referee. Or add the evidence here for discussion first.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
Why? I’m sure whoever added the information verified it. If you have information to the contrary, submit to the page with your evidence for consideration by the referee. Or add the evidence here for discussion first.
Simply because I do not own both so just wanted to ask. Well, I wrote question in a normal manner, I did not claim the contrary. It is well documented here on numista, the page I linked with the discussion, with the legislations but not so well documented in catalogs, including local baltic ones. Also, since huguenin was not “up to standard” and Latvian government did cancel the further minting with them and no weights mentioned anywhere other than papers everything is possible.
Why? I’m sure whoever added the information verified it. If you have information to the contrary, submit to the page with your evidence for consideration by the referee. Or add the evidence here for discussion first.
Simply because I do not own both so just wanted to ask. Well, I wrote question in a normal manner, I did not claim the contrary. It is well documented here on numista, the page I linked with the discussion, with the legislations but not so well documented in catalogs, including local baltic ones. Also, since huguenin was not “up to standard” and Latvian government did cancel the further minting with them and no weights mentioned anywhere other than papers everything is possible.
Indeed, anything is possible.
You certainly didn’t say you had evidence to the contrary, which made me ask “why?“ as what you did ask was „Can someone please double check the weights for 1922 and 1924-1935 coins. Are the newer ones heavier indeed, as regulated by the law?“ this questioning implies you do not have faith in the evidence presented on the page, otherwise why ask.
Your further explanation explains much better the reason why, you could have easily included that information in the original question, negating the subsequent reason for someone to ask in a normal manner for more information in the short form of a question. i.e. Why?
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
You may be right as I'm not a lawyer either. How do you read this consideration?
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Surely, Numista is of a commercial nature.
SCWC copyright language:
All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a critical article or review to be printed in a magazine or newspaper, or electronically transmitted on radio, television, or the Internet.
I'm just asking the question, not trying to answer it either way. I'd like to know for future use, if allowed.
Item (1) is a consideration, but it doesn't say commercial use precludes fair use. There is case-law that says some commercial uses are fair use (and some non-commercial aren't). While (1) is slightly against fair use in this case the other factors are (in my opinion) strongly in favor of fair use in this case.
As far as the statement in the catalog itself, a copyright owner can expand legitimate free uses of content but they can't reduce the statutory fair use rights.
(More precisely, they can't reduce prevent fair use of a particular published work, but a creator/publisher can effect fair use rights in how the work is created, formatted, and published. This is part of item (2), “the nature of the copyrighted work”.)
So can we publish parts of SCWC on the coin pages? I think it's perfectly acceptable in forum posts but as part of the actual Numista catalog? Looking for a yes/no answer here from somebody.
So can we publish parts of SCWC on the coin pages? I think it's perfectly acceptable in forum posts but as part of the actual Numista catalog? Looking for a yes/no answer here from somebody.
My definitive answer is “Yes, as long as the total use inside Numista coin pages still falls inside the bounds of free use”.
In the use we have been discussing:
The excerpt isn't used primarily as an information source, the material is used to illustrate how the SCWC contributed to misinformation in the collecting community. If excerpts were used as information sources that would dramatically change the situation in respect to fair use item (1), “the purpose and character of the use”.
The use is limited. If we included excerpts more frequently that would change the balance in item (3), “the amount and substantiality of the portion used…”.
The answer is NO, Numista cannot use tables from the SCWC on the coin pages. Numista although free for the majority of users has a subscription or premium membership which generates money (commercial), even though we all know this is to help maintain the website for use and no one is making a profit from it.
The SCWC could if they wish ask Numista to remove such items, if the website refused, they could go through the courts and legally the website would then be required to remove them (as they are images from the catalog) not quoted snippets of the information.
However I do not believe the producers of the SCWC would do such a thing for one page, I am sure they would if every page used the same tactic.
The interpretation of copyright is often argued on fair use, however the producers of the catalog are well within their right to stop any use. They designed, collated and produced those tables in their catalog, which is defined as their intellectual property. Any permanent reproduction for the entire world is not considered fair use, direct copies from the catalog should be treated as images, and permission from the copyright owner should be sought.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
There are errors in this catalog. All 1 santīms coins from 1922–1935 are grouped together. In fact, to be correct, they should be divided into three groups:
1922 — weight 1.6 g, inscription Huguenin under the ribbon on the obverse with the coat of arms.
1924 — weight 1.8 g, inscription Huguenin under the ribbon on the obverse with the coat of arms.
1926–1935 — weight 1.8 g, no Huguenin inscription, since the coins began to be struck in Great Britain.
The year 1923 should be removed from the list altogether — these are pattern coins, and they do not belong to circulation issues. They appeared because the Ministry of Finance of Latvia, after the release of the first bronze coins, wanted the next issues to have a higher relief.
Pattern coins of 1923 with a denomination of 1 santīms exist in two variants: weighing 1.6 g and 1.8 g. Pattern coins of 2 and 5 santīms from 1923 are half a gram heavier than regular circulation coins.
The excerpts above are taken from the official government publication of that time — Valdības Vēstnesis. The first illustration refers to the initial coins of 1922: here one can see their specifications, as well as the permissible weight tolerance in percent. The second illustration concerns the second issue of the 1 santīms coin (1924), where, as can be seen, the weight was already changed to 1.8 g.
Letland • 1 Santims
