Post Office Owes $3.5 Million For Using Wrong Statue of Liberty On a Stamp (arstechnica.com) 133
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, it feels like Getty should be liable here. Is the USPS going to go after them now? I feel like they should.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
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 (Score:5, 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
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
A copy of a copy (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.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, 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.
Re:A copy of a copy (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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... [gettyimages.com]
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 pho
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand it's fair game at all times
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/... [adobe.com]
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 (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
> 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 colle
Re: (Score:2)
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 li
Re: (Score:2)
:) 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 issu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 art
Countersue! (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
No, they won't. (Score:1, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 pr
Re: (Score:1)
Hopefully this helps you think more critically:
http://www.politifact.com/geor... [politifact.com]
Re: Countersue! (Score:1)
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! (Score:1)
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! (Score:3)
Derivative work [Re: Countersue!] (Score:3)
This was not his original work, this was Davidson's copy of the Statue of Liberty. Yes, absolutely it is a derivative work.
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That's because Britain invented stamps. Britain invented most things, of course. Pretty much everything apart from aircraft.
And the acqueducts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Profit! [Re:Countersue!] (Score:2)
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!
Getty Needs To Be Scuttled (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Sue Getty (Score:2)
Hi Kids! Today's legal term is: Fraudulent misrepresentation.
The stamp does not contain the replica of the stat (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why on unused stamps? Isn't this Getty's problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
The US doesn't recognize copyright for works made prior to the formation of Disney.
Re: (Score:2)
And France would own the copyright if one existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This makes no sense (Score:5, 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...
Re: (Score:2)
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 w
Absolutely retarded (Score:1)
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?
The statue of liberty (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
We also don't what what liberty looks like either.
Post Office owes $3.5 million to Robert Davidson (Score:2)
Robert Davidson will be paid the equivalent value in forever stamps.
Getty images strikes again! (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)