6 ms·
Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
- tedunangst 8y agoWow. Such URL. Or: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes-3-5m-for-using-wrong-statue-of-liberty-on-a-stamp/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes...
- stochastic_monk 8y agoI support this alternative address. Additionally, the url preview clarifies that Ars Technica is the source, as opposed to “ampproject”.
- tambre 8y agoIt's worth noting that the AMP version supports IPv6, unlike arstechnica.com itself.
- hhh 8y agoQuite the interesting story, and a staggering surprise that 3.24% of bought but unused stamps is over $70,000,000 in revenue. Guy made out like a bandit. Good on 'em.
- leetbulb 8y agoUSPS is going to fold before I receive my package :(
- whatsstolat 8y agoBecause they lost just 3.5m of 70m in pure profit?
- sndean 8y agoIt appears to be a bit different now, but apparently you used to be able to send unsolicited stamp designs to USPS and they'd sometimes get selected. Now they want you to send a portfolio [1]. A family member had a Christmas-related stamp selected in the 80's. I'm guessing it was a bigger deal then. [1] https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/csac/artwork.htm https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/csac/artwork.htm
- runesoerensen 8y agoI remember reading about this mess shortly after moving to the U.S. (and visiting Vegas for the first time). One thing that struck me about Vegas was an immense and everpresent feeling of fakeness. Seeing that fakeness reproduced on official stamps felt somewhat telling, and I've since entertained quite a few people with the story due to the sheer ridiculousness of it. I had no idea that they'd continue to use and sell stamps with that design for years after discovering it was a picture of a fake Statue of Liberty. Learning that this embarrassing saga has now also resulted in a lawsuit awarding a ridiculously large sum for damages kinda feels like the whole thing has come full circle.
- briandear 8y agoHow is $3.5 million against a $70 million profit “ridiculous?”
- tehlike 8y agoProbably because if the original statue of liberty was used, it'd have made the same profit.
- joering2 8y agoUSPS does not make profit; they are bleeding for many years now (almost $6B in 2016 by GAAP standards) https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_069.htm https://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2017/pr17_069.... Not that it matters anyways; USPS is a private company.
- zenexer 8y agoNo, it's not a private company. It's not even a government-owned corporation. According to US law[1], it's a part of the executive branch of the US government. If you're in the US, USPS debt is your debt. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/39/201
- 8y ago
- mig39 8y agoI don't get it... the USPS licensed the photo from Getty. Doesn't that license cover the use of the photo?
- balls187 8y agoIANAL...and this is specific to US Copyright law. Yes, it does, but doesn't necessarily grant copyright for the content of the photograph. I can sell a photograph of that statue, and be protected from copyright claims IF my work meets the Fair Use standard. I can also give you permission to use my photograph commercially. However you may not use it yourself commercially without permission of the statues copyright owner. The copyright owner can restrict it's usage outside of those covered by the Fair Use doctrine. Two examples: If I take a picture of of a person, I own the copyright for that image. I can sell it to you, but what you can do with that image is limited. You can use it privately, but to publish it in say a magazine, you would need a model release form. You have the rights to use the image, but not to the subjects likeness. There are cases where no release is needed, such as the case for photojournalism, or when the figure's likeness is already in the public domain (i.e. a politician, or another type of celebrity). The lightshow & fireworks show at the Eiffel Tower in Paris is a copyrighted work. Pictures of it can be used for personal use, but commercial use is prohibited. In order to use a picture of the light show commercially, you must obtain permission (aka a license) from the Eiffel Tower Society. They have explicitly restricted the use of lightshow pictures. [1] As an aside, this is one of my beefs with Getty Images. It allows people to upload photographs to which they do not actually have all the rights to, and Getty then sells a license to use it. 1: https://alj.orangenius.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate-copyright/ https://alj.orangenius.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate...
- rplst8 8y agoThis is why copyright is so messed up. If I take an photograph of a building designed by someone else, can I sell my photo freely?
- balls187 8y agoIf the building is a work of art, then depends who owns it's copyright, and what restrictions they have placed on commercial use. But most likely it's not, so your image would almost meet the Fair Use standard. It's derivative.
- balls187 8y ago> 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 US Postal Service (USPS) accidentally used a photo of his statue Wouldn't that imply that the copyright owner is actually the Casino, and not the sculptor? And if the USPS purchased a license to use a photograph, and Getty sold them the rights to use the photograph, wouldn't Getty bare some responsibility? EDIT: From Getty EULA, you are responsible: Unless specifically warranted above, Getty Images does not grant any right or make any warranty with regard to the use of names, people, trademarks, trade dress, logos, registered, unregistered or copyrighted audio, designs, works of art or architecture depicted or contained in the content. In such cases, you are solely responsible for determining whether release(s) is/are required in connection with your proposed use of the content, and you are solely responsible for obtaining such release(s). You acknowledge that no releases are generally obtained for content identified as “editorial,” and that some jurisdictions provide legal protection against a person’s image, likeness or property being used for commercial purposes when they have not provided a release. You are also solely responsible for payment of any amounts that may be due under, and compliance with any other terms of, any applicable collective bargaining agreements as a result of your use of the licensed content.
- colordrops 8y agoDoesn't imply that - in fact the opposite. It implies that the sculptor retained rights to imagery of the work.
- balls187 8y agoGood point. I should have said--did the defense actually determine that the sculptor retained their copyright, given the work was commissioned by a casino.
- briandear 8y agoWell if the casino did own the copyright, the Post Office still had to pay up under the same exact law. A casino passing up $3.5 million? You bet they would have sued hard and probably would have won more.
- chrischen 8y agoSo what do you exactly pay for when you license an image from Getty?
- kempbellt 8y agoPart of someone's soul. Which is why they charge so much
- paulcole 8y agoTheir license is surprisingly readable: https://www.gettyimages.com/eula https://www.gettyimages.com/eula
- briandear 8y agoThe right to use that image. Not the right to create derivative from it. Also licensing depends on end-use and can vary depending on the degree of use — a small print run of 500 copies of an ad using an image often has a different license cost than using that same image for a national ad campaign. Terms of licensing are super clear when you buy stock work. What makes no sense is why the post office would even bother — there are plenty of public domain photos of the statue. Or they could have just had a mailman go shoot one and pay him $1000. This is just incompetence, there wasn’t any ambiguity to what they were doing. They admit they used an image for commercial gain without knowing they were infringing — that’s negligence. They used that image because they knew it would sell more stamps. Even a basic legal review would have caught this — this sort of clearance/rights due dilligence is standard stuff. This wasn’t editorial and thus “fair use” would’t apply — this was used specifically to sell stamps. They can’t argue parody, satire or any of the numerous cases that might constitute fair use. The post office made $70 million in pure profit from their misappropriation, the original art that led to that profit ought to be compensated accordingly. Had even a baby lawyer been consulted, they could have avoided this mess. Being a government agency doesn’t exempt you from the law.
- Zarel 8y agoYou get permission from Getty to use the image. Copyright of derivative works is additive: If you want to use an interesting photo of a sculpture, you need permission from both the photographer and from the sculptor. In this case, Getty represents the photographer, but you still need permission from the sculptor. Getty's license claims "Who owns the content? All of the licensed content is owned by either Getty Images or its content suppliers." That line is wrong, of course, but every license comes with a limitation of liability so you can't sue them for being wrong: "Limitation of Liability. GETTY IMAGES WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR OTHER SIMILAR DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, EVEN IF GETTY IMAGES HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, COSTS OR LOSSES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT PERMIT THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR LIABILITY." :/
- anonu 8y agoNYC owns the Statue of Liberty - maybe they should sue the sculptor for copyright claims... a virtuous circle.
- balls187 8y agoIt's governed by the US National Park Service, and it's a derivative work.
- omeid2 8y agoIs there any clear line on what is considered a derivative and what is a copy without substantial deviation?
- balls187 8y agoAs far as I know, no. It's usually up to a Judge to determine. Per this specific case, the USPS tried to argue something along those lines, but the plaintiff successfully claimed that because the statues face was feminized, it was not a copy, but a derivative.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- omeid2 8y agoThat is ingenious. Considering that Mithras is a man, so a feminine version is easy to argue as substantially different.
- xeromal 8y agoIn the article, the sculptor claims that he made the statue more feminine.
- wesnerm2 8y agoGovernment works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under US law and are in the public domain.
- hirundo 8y agoHave you seen the two faces side by side? https://tribzap2it.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/lady-liberty-comp.jpg https://tribzap2it.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/lady-liberty-... I quite prefer the original myself. The post office made an aesthetic as well as legal mistake. The older Lady Liberty is not as pretty, but she's more handsome. She's less symmetrical, more craggy. Her face has seen more pain and made more hard choices. I get an impression of character that I don't get from Vegas Liberty. My grandfather immigrated through Ellis Island around 1905. I imagine he passed that grand sculpture on the way, and saw a stronger, more concerned and committed face than Vegas Liberty's.
- efa 8y agoYeah, how cheesy that the US (the US!) post office used a Vegas statue instead of the one on Ellis Island. What were they thinking!?
- Johnny555 8y agoProbably "This looks like the statue of liberty". Unless I saw the photos side by side, I doubt I'd notice that the Vegas one was not legit or that it looked any different from the real one.
- DonHopkins 8y agoGood thing the US Postal Office didn't make the same mistake and use a picture of a Las Vegas Elvis impersonator on their Elvis Presley Forever stamp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley_Forever_stamp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley_Forever_stamp https://www.lasvegas-entertainment-guide.com/las-vegas-impersonators.html https://www.lasvegas-entertainment-guide.com/las-vegas-imper...
- lostlogin 8y agoAmerican made versus a foreign import?
- 8y ago
- xtrapolate 8y ago> "Davidson sued, arguing that he was owed royalties for unauthorized use of an image of his statue" Orthogonal, though can't help but wonder whether Davidson got Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi's approval before re-creating an almost identical statue.
- rocky1138 8y agoThis is the most American story I've read in a while. So many wasted resources were spent on identifying each actor's responsibility in court when it's just such a trivial and pointless issue. Completely rent-seeking on all sides.
- AdamTReineke 8y agoThis wasn't the first time either: they were sued by the artist of the Korean War Memorial for using a photo of that without proper permission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War_Veterans_Memorial#United_States_postage_stamp_court_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War_Veterans_Memorial#U...
- pcrh 8y agoWhy was the royalty payable only on unused stamps? Surely if a royalty was due, it should be on all stamps that used the image?
- jhall1468 8y agoSeems the court accepted the fair use argument for the stamps that were sold and used, but the "pure profit" stamps that weren't didn't pass the muster.
- mkl 8y agoThe stamps that were used were used as payment for mail transport and delivery. There was presumably no profit there (it's not a company trying to make money), so no net benefit to the USPS from the use of the photo.
- pcrh 8y agoI doubt an argument based on lack of profit would hold in other cases of intellectual property infringement by a major corporation.
- tbodt 8y agoNon-AMP version: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes-3-5m-for-using-wrong-statue-of-liberty-on-a-stamp http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes-... Mods, please update the link.
- scriptproof 8y agoThe one on the right seems tired to hold her torch.
- barking 8y agoElvis inmpersonators everywhere, beware!
- andrewstuart 8y agoThey'd easily make that money back by selling the erroneous stamps to collectors.
- tenpies 8y agoWhen I first read the title, I thought that they had mistakenly used the Statue of Liberty from the Man in the High Castle [1]. Now that would've been embarrassing. --- [1] https://i.imgur.com/5byF3NN.jpg https://i.imgur.com/5byF3NN.jpg
- throwaway2016a 8y agoIt's interesting that these are "Forever" stamps and don't expire so how can they possibly say all of those unused stamps are profit? They don't expire and due to the nature of stamps it is not unrealistic people will still be using them for a decade+ and USPS will still need to deliver those letters.
- chriscappuccio 8y agoThis is seriously confusing. Now I can get in trouble for selling my own picture of someone's statue? Or did they use an already copyrighted photograph?