Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other dept.

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.

14 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. A copy of a copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:A copy of a copy by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:A copy of a copy by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:A copy of a copy by tkotz · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:A copy of a copy by grahamsz · · Score: 2

      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).

    5. Re:A copy of a copy by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  2. Re:Am i by known_coward_69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  3. Re:Countersue! by kiviQr · · Score: 2

    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)?

  4. The stamp does not contain the replica of the stat by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re: Countersue! by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  6. Derivative work [Re: Countersue!] by XXongo · · Score: 2
    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.

  7. This makes no sense by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  8. Re:More proof Trump is corrupt by snapsnap · · Score: 2

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

  9. Re:Am i by jrumney · · Score: 2

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