Post Office Owes $3.5 Million For Using Wrong Statue of Liberty On a Stamp (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A sculptor who created a replica of the Statue of Liberty for a Las Vegas casino was awarded $3.5 million in damages last week after the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) accidentally used a photo of his statue -- rather than a photo of the original statue in New York harbor -- on one of its most common stamps. If you bought a "forever" stamp between 2011 and 2014, there's a good chance that it showed the face of the Statue of Liberty replica that sculptor Robert Davidson constructed for the New York-New York Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. The Post Office licensed a photo of Davidson's statue from the image service Getty for $1,500, initially believing it was a photograph of the original statue. (The license only covered the rights to Getty's photograph of the statue -- not the statue itself.)

The stamp with the resulting image was released to the public in December 2010; it took four months before anyone pointed out the mistake to the Post Office. In March 2011, a spokesperson said that the USPS "still loves the stamp design and would have selected this photograph anyway." The Post Office continued using the photo for almost three years before retiring it in January 2014. The court reportedly awarded Davidson a five percent royalty for $70 million worth of unused stamps; it also awarded him $5,000 in damages for the nearly $5 billion worth of stamps that were used to pay postage. The total damages amounted to $3.55 million.

Comments

A copy of a copy

[Anonymous Coward]

A copy (stamp) of a copy (photo) of a copy (lv statue) of a copy (ny statue) of the orginal in france. Getty should be paying the people of France not the usps paying the lv statue artist.

Re:A copy of a copy

[gerald.edward.butler]

Actually, the one in France is a copy that was made because the French "missed" it once the original was finished, disassembled and shipped to the U.S. The one in France, like the "replica" in Vegas, is smaller as well.

Re:A copy of a copy

[OzPeter]

A copy (stamp) of a copy (photo) of a copy (lv statue) of a copy (ny statue) of the orginal in france. Getty should be paying the people of France not the usps paying the lv statue artist.

Original in France? What original in France?

Re:A copy of a copy

[mysidia]

Getty should be refunding the $1500, because apparently the photographer didn't have the right to sell the rights that getty presumed to have offered the USPS.

Finally... they should negotiate a REASONABLE royalty. 5% Of the postage is not a reasonable royalty, because the stamp was not sold for the picture but a SERVICE ---- the value of the picture on the stamp is decorative; So a few pennies worth of the stamp's price can be attributed to its aesthetic value, and then 5% of that few pennies' worth per stamp is a reasonable royalty: not 5% of the total postage.

Re:A copy of a copy

[Obfuscant]

Getty should be refunding the $1500,

Getty should be paying the entire judgement, since they falsely represented that they had the rights to sell, and the US Government accepted that claim in good faith. But...

because the stamp was not sold for the picture but a SERVICE

We just saw the story on a Virginia court that ruled that a for-profit group (a Virginia Film Festival) could use a photographer's image as part of its advertising ("come to our festival and you can also do these local things...") under "fair use" exemptions. The Post Office is not a for-profit corporation, and the picture of the statue is not what was being purchased, as you point out. Neither the owner of the photograph nor the owner of the statue were fiscally injured in this process, so they deserve no punitive damages, nor do they deserve royalties from the USPS.

Re:A copy of a copy

[tkotz]

A few pennies(say 3) on 50 cents is more than 5%.

The decision said it was only 5% of breakage (stamps that were not redeemed for postal service). A large portion of breakage is assumed to be collecting for which the aesthetics is a key part of the value.

Re:A copy of a copy

[grahamsz]

The photographer & getty sold the image with the caveat of "No release, but release may not be required" - here's their popup of what that means:

https://www.gettyimages.com/as...

If you weren't paying attention and thought you were buying an image of the original statue of liberty then you'd reasonably assume that it wasn't copyrighted because it's been built too long ago. However the photograph was clearly marked as being taken in Las Vegas and as being a photo of a replica.

From what I can tell, the photographer did their job and Getty did their job. Could they have handheld the USPS through the intricacies of federal copyright law better? Sure. Did they have a responsibility to? Probably not.

Fun fact - you need a property release to use a photo of the Eiffel Tower at night, but not during the day (the lights are copyrighted).

Re:A copy of a copy

[OrangeTide]

because the stamp was not sold for the picture but a SERVICE

Some of the stamps the USPS has made are promotional designs for collectors. Ultimately the USPS is operating a side business of selling images.

Re:A copy of a copy

[tlhIngan]

The decision said it was only 5% of breakage (stamps that were not redeemed for postal service). A large portion of breakage is assumed to be collecting for which the aesthetics is a key part of the value.

Which may be a bad assumption. I buy forever stamps because I send so few letters. I don't track what the postage rate (they're "forever" - good for one first class letter regardless of the current postage rate and when you bought it).

I'm sure a lot of them are simply sitting in the stamp roll of homes and I know Costco sold them in rolls of 100. Plus, since the value of those stamps goes up over time (when has postage every decreased?) I use the regular stamps first, so I probably have a good chunk of new in package stamps

Re: A copy of a copy

[grahamsz]

From what I understand it's fair game at all times
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/...

Plus the renovation to the light is mostly just to the type of bulb. The Eiffel towers light display is a bit more involved

Re:A copy of a copy

[RandomFactor]

the value of the picture on the stamp is decorative; So a few pennies worth of the stamp's price can be attributed to its aesthetic value, and then 5% of that few pennies' worth per stamp is a reasonable royalty: not 5% of the total postage.

Even a few pennies is vastly overstated.

Approximately ZERO percent of the value of the stamp, ignoring the statistically insignificant philatelist community, is the picture on it.

As a rule, nobody buys the stamp for the picture, or even looks at it before purchasing a book. At the most, if there are multiple options they might chose one over the other, but not a single additional sale would be made or not made regardless.

Re:A copy of a copy

[q_e_t]

Getty should be paying the entire judgement, since they falsely represented that they had the rights to sell, and the US Government accepted that claim in good faith. But...

I can't see how Getty could be liable for anything after the initial error was noted, as the USPS should have been aware that the sculptor would have rights over his creation.

Re:A copy of a copy

[q_e_t]

the value of the picture on the stamp is decorative; So a few pennies worth of the stamp's price can be attributed to its aesthetic value, and then 5% of that few pennies' worth per stamp is a reasonable royalty: not 5% of the total postage.

Even a few pennies is vastly overstated.

Approximately ZERO percent of the value of the stamp, ignoring the statistically insignificant philatelist community, is the picture on it.

As a rule, nobody buys the stamp for the picture, or even looks at it before purchasing a book. At the most, if there are multiple options they might chose one over the other, but not a single additional sale would be made or not made regardless.

Except these were stamps primarily intended for collectors to have, and look at. I have a collection of ones from Princess Diana's wedding in 1981 in a presentation book. I expect only a small proportion ended up on letters.

Re:A copy of a copy

[mlyle]

> Approximately ZERO percent of the value of the stamp, ignoring the statistically insignificant philatelist community, is the picture on it.

They gave him 5% of the "breakage"-- the stamps that were purchased and not used. A big chunk of these end up with people holding onto them because they like them-- whether they're "super stamp nerd" or they've bought a few issues of stamps they like--- here aesthetic value is important. Some are lost, some are waiting in a drawer for later use, and some are collected.

Re:A copy of a copy

[gnasher719]

You didn't read the article properly. It's 5% for unused stamps (for example stamps in the hands of stamp collectors, where copyright penalties are quite reasonable), plus a total of $5,000 for the huge majority of stamps that were used for postage.

Re:A copy of a copy

[torkus]

Getty should be refunding the $1500, because apparently the photographer didn't have the right to sell the rights that getty presumed to have offered the USPS.

Finally... they should negotiate a REASONABLE royalty. 5% Of the postage is not a reasonable royalty, because the stamp was not sold for the picture but a SERVICE ---- the value of the picture on the stamp is decorative; So a few pennies worth of the stamp's price can be attributed to its aesthetic value, and then 5% of that few pennies' worth per stamp is a reasonable royalty: not 5% of the total postage.

This is one of those times where it helps to RTFA or at least RTS carefully. To that end, there's a portion of stamps that are kept as collectors items - i.e. they are never used thus represent pure profit. Also, the sculpture was not simply a copy, but the artists interpretation, noticeably and purposefully different, and those differences were what resulted in the images selection for the stamp.
  The judgment is based almost entirely on that portion:

* USPS never pays more than $5,000 for stamp artwork. The court awarded $5,000 in respect to the USED stamps.
* The portion of 'breakage' or un-redeemed stamps was about $70mm (of pure profit) and the 5% royalty rate was charged ONLY on that portion. (70 * 5% = 3.5). These stamps do not represent a service but instead are very much collectors items retained for their aesthetic.

It's actually interesting to see the court side with USPS on the $5k stamp-art licensing. Willful copyright violation allows much higher penalties, even if you assumed the whole printing run to be one 'incident' of copyright violation. Typically copyright law does not take into account what anyone 'normally' pays. They threw the USPS a bone on that if you ask me.

Re:A copy of a copy

[torkus]

The decision said it was only 5% of breakage (stamps that were not redeemed for postal service). A large portion of breakage is assumed to be collecting for which the aesthetics is a key part of the value.

Which may be a bad assumption. I buy forever stamps because I send so few letters. I don't track what the postage rate (they're "forever" - good for one first class letter regardless of the current postage rate and when you bought it).

I'm sure a lot of them are simply sitting in the stamp roll of homes and I know Costco sold them in rolls of 100. Plus, since the value of those stamps goes up over time (when has postage every decreased?) I use the regular stamps first, so I probably have a good chunk of new in package stamps

USPS sells many billions of dollars in stamps. They're somewhat of an authority on how many are used...and yes, this still includes the half-roll you have stuck in the cabinet for 5 years. They used USPS's own breakage rate to get the $70mm

Re:A copy of a copy

[mysidia]

A big chunk of these end up with people holding onto them because they like them

So how come not handle this fairly, and say 5% of the 10% of the breakage that represents what people are holding onto?

Doubtful that collector volume is significant.... First of all, many people radically overbuy their postage, and as a result have it sitting around for years, because people don't like to go to the post office often. These were among the early forever stamps, so the vast majority of "breakage" were likely buyers tricked by the tagline into thinking it would be a good deal to bulk-buy them and lock in the $0.46 postage rate, since up to that time postage tended to be increasing annually, surely by 2018 it would be like $1.00 to mail a first class letter, But eventually the stamps are likely to be redeemed for the service ---- There were many of these printed, and they don't have much collector value.

Stamp collecting/card collecting as hobbies have waned dramatically, so they're not likely to be deliberately kept around long solely for their aesthetics ----- value to collectors is primarily based on rarity and condition; I suppose the relevance regarding the picture is that it hasn't been destroyed, whereas stamps that have been postmarked are effectively already destroyed, thus also destroying the copyrighted image.

Perhaps the post office could offer a program where you can trade in your forever stamp for a new one and receive some kind of additional award for clearing up their copyright issues, so the USPS can destroy the remaining breakage.

Re:A copy of a copy

[mlyle]

:) You're determined to think that stamp collecting isn't significant, but the reason why the USPS does commemorative issues is that it drives this--- people buy them and then keep them. It tends to get people who aren't even stamp collectors--- I've got a bunch of centennial of flight stamps because I'm an airplane nerd (not really a stamp nerd).

About 3.5% of all stamps are breakage: they will likely never be used based on past trends. For many boring stamps, it's 1-2%. More desirable commemorative issues with a broad interest it's 5-10%. To me, this suggests about half the breakage is because of people liking art on some issues and keepin' em.

Countersue!

[XXongo]

It's a pity that the US can't countersue that sculptor Robert Davidson, since it's clear that HE was the one that did the copying.

Unfortunately the Statue of Liberty is long out of copyright. (Although there are those in the U.S. Congress, paid off by Disney, who want to change copyright to "pretty much forever".)

Re:Countersue!

[kiviQr]

I am lost: Bernardo Bellotto painted Warsaw; after WWII Warsaw was rebuild from his paintings. Should he pay copy-rights to Warsaw for painting landmarks or should city pay him for using his art to rebuild city (copy rights)?

Re:Countersue!

[bpetty]

Why, so they would lose more money in legal fees?
There is no copyright on the Statue of Liberty, but an artist's rendition of the statue is copyrightable.
I wish more people took the time to understand how copyright law worked.

The saddest part of this entire thing is that our tax dollars are going to pay for this mistake.

Re: Countersue!

[Nidi62]

He based the face on a photo of his mother in law, not the actual statue. The court ruled that as original work and the stamp focused on the face of the statue. Therefore most of the stamp was of his original work and not derivative work.

Re: Countersue!

[Anonymous Coward]

So if one rewrote a book changing a few words that was out of copyright, would that still be okay to claim a copyright on plagiariszed work?

How sound are your morals?

Re: Countersue!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Disney already did that. I think
Snow White is based on a fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm published 100 years earlier with a few minor changes. Disney fiercely protects their copyright on their derivative work.

Re:Countersue!

[q_e_t]

Unfortunately the Statue of Liberty is long out of copyright.

I would have said it is fortunate. Such an important cultural and politicalicon of that age should be out of copyright to allow people to freely use it in cultural and political ways.

Getty Needs To Be Scuttled

[Anonymous Coward]

Getty are a bunch of crooks.

Claiming ownership of pictures that they have zero rights to...

Over selling rights, such as this case...

Extortionist tactics against those they decree to be "violators"...

Getty needs to be scuttled.

P.S. The Post Office needs to appeal this bullshit as well as sue Getty.

Re:Am i

[known_coward_69]

someone was paid to make a copy of the statue of liberty
they retained the rights to their work
the USPS used an image of that statue instead of the original and refused to pay up
the artist sued and won a lot of money

lesson - the US government has to follow it's laws

The stamp does not contain the replica of the stat

[MobyDisk]

The license only covered the rights to Getty's photograph of the statue -- not the statue itself.

The stamp only contained the photograph of the statue -- not the statue itself.

No, they won't.

[gerald.edward.butler]

The USPS is not the U.S. Government. It is a corporation that has government oversight. The payments for this lawsuit come out of the revenue that was generated selling the stamps that were never used (collected). Try reading the article a little more carefully. Also, learn some basic facts and critical thinking. There is too much of that lacking these days.

Re:No, they won't.

[Obfuscant]

The payments for this lawsuit come out of the revenue that was generated selling the stamps that were never used (collected).

There is no reasonable way to identify how many of those stamps were never used. They are "forever" stamps -- they could be used tomorrow or in a week or in a year or in ten years. You MIGHT be able to count how many HAVE been used, but you can't just subtract to get how many will not be used. I can't imagine that the USPS actually tries to count which stamps are being used, but perhaps it is part of the postmarking system.

Second, the revenue for those stamps was not paying for an image. The USPS is not profiting from the sale of the image. The revenue is paying for the service of sending the email. This service has nothing to do with the image on the stamp. When I buy stamps, I say "give me a package of stamps", and I don't care what the images are. Do I have some of the SOL forevers still unused? Certainly -- I know I have lost at least one package of stamps, and it very well could be that version. Should the USPS be fined 5% of the money I paid for them? Don't be ridiculous.

Re:No, they won't.

[bpetty]

Hopefully this helps you think more critically:
http://www.politifact.com/geor...

Why on unused stamps? Isn't this Getty's problem?

[Xylantiel]

This seems, based on the quote, like the USPS figured a reasonable licensing fee could be worked out, which makes sense. So did the artist try to gouge them? Why would they need to pay royalties on stamps that were never sold? Can't they just destroy them and call it even? Also it sure seems like Getty should be on the hook for a lot of this, otherwise what is the point of paying them for photos at all if they don't actually hold the rights to sell usage of them. You could buy rights to a photo from Getty only to find out later that photo is of something specific that you thought was generic and be on the hook for millions. That breaks the whole model of them acting as a broker for stock-ish photos.

Derivative work [Re: Countersue!]

[XXongo]

The fact that it took four months before anybody actually NOTICED that it was the Davidson statue, not the original statue, is a powerful argument that the Davidson statue was so like the original that people don't notice.

This was not his original work, this was Davidson's copy of the Statue of Liberty. Yes, absolutely it is a derivative work.

Re:Derivative work [Re: Countersue!]

[Anonymous Coward]

Stamp collectors noticed, but nobody listens to us. It took four months for someone the USPS couldn't ignore to 'notify' them.

As a stamp collector, here's a tip: your country isn't fully totalitarian until current politicians start showing up on the stamps and/or money. Once that happens, get the fuck out at any cost. (You won't listen. No one ever does.)

Re:Derivative work [Re: Countersue!]

[LinuxIsGarbage]

here's a tip: your country isn't fully totalitarian until current politicians start showing up on the stamps and/or money. Once that happens, get the fuck out at any cost. (You won't listen. No one ever does.)

Queen Elizabeth, head of state for several countries, is frequently found on stamps, coins, and bills. However I'd much rather live in those countries than in the USA.

Re:Derivative work [Re: Countersue!]

[Xolotl]

Queen Elizabeth is not a politician, and her image is on the stamps in the same way and for the same reasons as it appears on coins and banknotes, as a symbol of the State. for the same reason decorative UK stamps do not have the country name (unlike stamps from other countries) just a small profile of the Queen.

Re:Derivative work [Re: Countersue!]

[q_e_t]

Queen Elizabeth is not a politician, and her image is on the stamps in the same way and for the same reasons as it appears on coins and banknotes, as a symbol of the State. for the same reason decorative UK stamps do not have the country name (unlike stamps from other countries) just a small profile of the Queen.

That's because Britain invented stamps. Britain invented most things, of course. Pretty much everything apart from aircraft.

:)

Re:Derivative work [Re: Countersue!]

[jrumney]

That's because Britain invented stamps. Britain invented most things, of course. Pretty much everything apart from aircraft.

And the acqueducts?

Re:Derivative work [Re: Countersue!]

[q_e_t]

No, that was the Romans.

Re:Am i

[SumDog]

Yea, it feels like Getty should be liable here. Is the USPS going to go after them now? I feel like they should.

This makes no sense

[Ecuador]

This makes no sense, you pay a big agency like Getty's for the rights of an image and you have to hunt down yourself potential right owners of whatever the images show because it's your fault if others come after you? Is everyone in copyright law, including judges, completely bonkers?
Rhetorical question it seems, we do have an answer...

Re:This makes no sense

[grahamsz]

In their defense, Getty made it clear that they didn't have a property release.

They offer an additional service where they'll do the research for you to answer whether or not a property release is needed in a particular case and they even further will, for an additional fee, assume responsibility if they are wrong.

I'm assuming whomever chose that image didn't realize it was the Las Vegas version of the statue and it never occurred to them to even consider the rights issue. However most photos that come up when you search for "Statue of Liberty" are of the NY version, so the argument that they chose that one because it was more aesthetically pleasing does carry some weight (even if it wasn't deliberate).

Absolutely retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the point of paying getty for a licence if it doesn't allow you to actually use the piece of shit without getting sued?

Re:So let me get this straight

[Knuckles]

Guy didnt sculpt and most likely in no way contributes to the statue of liberty; he took a picture of it and then gets money for a pic? lol wat

Copyright in america is broken to all hell

You should try to read the article

Re:Am i

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the sculptor allowed to make a copy of the statue of liberty, but the USPS is not allowed to make a copy of a picture of that statue?
Sounds like bullshit to me.
Also, how exactly is this stamp replacing the use of that statue?
Seems like an absolutely retarded ruling.

Re:More proof Trump is corrupt

[snapsnap]

So this thing that happened under Obama is somehow Trump's fault?

The statue of liberty

[Anonymous Coward]

Stand for freedom. Apparently this isn't the land of the free if you can't even take a picture of a picture of a copy of a picture of the very symbol of liberty without paying. Yeah yeah legal jargon, blah blah, any rational person can see that no justice was given in our justice system in this case.

We don't even know what she looks like

[OrangeTide]

We also don't what what liberty looks like either.

Sue Getty

[OrangeTide]

Hi Kids! Today's legal term is: Fraudulent misrepresentation.

Post Office owes $3.5 million to Robert Davidson

[DontBeAMoran]

Robert Davidson will be paid the equivalent value in forever stamps.

Getty images strikes again!

[Fly Swatter]

Getty should be at fault for licensing a photo of property that they did not have the rights to. They should be the one paying damages.

Taking this further, it looks like if you photograph property that is not your own, then you have no rights to license said photo. This kind of kills Getty's business model, as well as photography in general. The law is broken, but lawyers don't care.

Re:The stamp does not contain the replica of the s

[Fly Swatter]

Yea the law stinks. Or Getty is a fraud.

Re:Why on unused stamps? Isn't this Getty's proble

[Xolotl]

The unused stamps were sold but have not (yet) been used, they are 'forever' stamps which do not lose their value so could be used at any time in the future. Getty's terms of use explicitly state that licensing responsibility lies with the user (which is IMHO rather shady, but they do state it up front).

Re:The stamp does not contain the replica of the s

[Calydor]

Yes.

Re:More proof Trump is corrupt

[tsqr]

Stealing from poor artists is about the lowest of the low. Trump hates art so he constantly destroys the lives of artists.

The image appears on stamps sold between 2011 and 2014, do I guess it was Obama stealing from the poor artist.

Re:Am i

[Khyber]

The sculptor added his own desired features to the statue - a slightly younger, more rounded face, which was prominently displayed on the stamp. This addition of features creates a transformative work and is thus protected under copyright, at least under this ruling.

Re:Am i

[michelcolman]

I can't help but wonder what the "damage" was, though. I know, artists should be paid for their work, blah, blah, but in this case it was an honest mistake and no harm was done, so the word "damages" doesn't seem entirely appropriate.Sounds more like a lucky windfall or money grab to me, especially since it's hard to argue that the statue is entirely an original idea of the artist not based on any prior art whatsoever. Oh well, good for him I suppose.

Re: Am i

[michelcolman]

What exactly is the significant difference, then? Other than "the artist did a poor job of copying the statue so it doesn't look quite the same"? Did he really mean to add anything to it?

Re:Am i

[q_e_t]

So what am I misunderstanding?

That after the error being pointed out the USPS continued to use the image. I don't see that Getty could be on the hook for anything after the error was pointed out.

Re:Am i

[q_e_t]

Why is the sculptor allowed to make a copy of the statue of liberty, but the USPS is not allowed to make a copy of a picture of that statue?

Because his version is different, and the original is no longer under any form of copyright.

Re:Am i

[q_e_t]

But USPS continued to use the image after the error was discovered. Getty can't reasonably be held responsible for anything after that point.

Re:Am i

[hcs_$reboot]

lesson - the US government has to follow it's laws

Something is missing from your tale: "but nobody in the US government cares, because it's not their money, and they won't be fired anyway".

Re:Am i

[jrumney]

Exactly. Getty sold them a license to an image which apparently they didn't have the rights for.

Re:Am i

[jrumney]

Continuing to use the image after the error was discovered is not the same thing as continuing to use the image after finding out that a litagious copycat thinks he has a right to copies of photos of the copy he made.

Re:The stamp does not contain the replica of the s

[omnichad]

The photo is a derivative work. It's the photographer who is really at fault for selling the photo without rights, but the photographer doesn't have deep enough pockets to bother suing. Though the entity eligible to sue the photographer is the USPS and they are happy to pay the settlement and keep the profits on the stamps they sold.

Re:This son of a bitch

[omnichad]

The US doesn't recognize copyright for works made prior to the formation of Disney.

Re:This son of a bitch

[omnichad]

And France would own the copyright if one existed.

Re:Am i

[q_e_t]

Continuing to use the image after the error was discovered is not the same thing as continuing to use the image after finding out that a litagious copycat thinks he has a right to copies of photos of the copy he made.

The artist does have a right to representations of his artwork used for commercial purposes, though. Let's say you recorded a version of Robert Johnson's Crossroads (He's long dead, it's not under copyright now). If someone used that recording to advertise liquor, you would probably be annoyed if you were not paid the required mechanical royalties on the recording, not the songwriting. And your recording of Crossroads would be a cover version, so not completely original. The statue was a 'cover version' of the Statue of Liberty.

Re:Am i

[q_e_t]

P.S. Saying that he can't control the use of images of his work is like saying that an advertiser could use your recording as long as they got someone to tape it off the radio for them.

Re:I'm not sure what's worse...

[Jarik C-Bol]

The worst part is probably that they even used Getty images at all, its not like there are NO USPS employees in NYC that could have been sent to take a picture of the statue. Hell, even if they had given someone a paid day off to go charter a ride out and get a good picture, it probably would have been cheeper than the initial licensing of the Getty pic, and orders of magnitude cheeper than this settlement.

Profit! [Re:Countersue!]

[XXongo]

Unfortunately the Statue of Liberty is long out of copyright.

I would have said it is fortunate. Such an important cultural and politicalicon of that age should be out of copyright to allow people to freely use it in cultural and political ways.

Yes, indeed; it's the American way!
(1) Statue of Liberty goes out of copyright
(2) Plagiarize it
(3) take photo of plagiarized statue
(4) Profit!