Artist sues USPS over Statue of Liberty stamp

prwhite

prwhite

Administrator
Staff member
Stamp collectors and history fans may remember the USPS issued a “Forever” stamp, in late 2010, depicting the Statue of Liberty, claiming it was the original in New York Harbor.

However, it was not Lady Liberty, the statue that has welcomed immigrants in lower Manhattan, but a modern replica in front of a New York City-themed hotel casino on the Las Vegas Strip. The error was discovered by a stamp collector who noticed some distinct differences between the 2 statues.

The sculptor who made the Las Vegas Lady Liberty is now suing the agency in U.S. Federal Court for copyright infringement. The USPS chose the image from an online photography service, Getty Images. But, it did not acquire the rights to duplicate it from the artist, Robert S. Davidson, perhaps because postal officials assumed they were issuing a stamp with a famous, public domain image.

The sculptor’s lawyers take pains to distinguish the replica as a piece of art with many differences from the original, from a “softer, more feminine and realistic silhouette” to a “fuller chin, a friendlier expression & pronounced cupid’s bow shape of the upper lip”, on the Las Vegas statue. The lawsuit claims the USPS knowingly committed copyright infringement by continuing to print billions of stamps depicting the Las Vegas statue without seeking the rights to print it.

In a similar copyright infringement suit over a Korean War Memorial stamp, the artist was awarded $635,00 in damages. Although damages have not been made public in Davidson’s suit, he awaits his day in Federal court.
 
I would have thought that the problem sits with Getty Images. The USPS would have licenced the image for a specific usage which is the basis for the royalty usage fees that Getty charges. If the image was not intended to be used then why was it in Getty's library? If this use was not authorized then again it's an issue between Getty and the photographer not the USPS.
 
If I may hazard a guess here, I think it may be that the "photographer" who was on vacation in vegas shot the photo and then uploaded it to Getty who then thought they had the rights to the photo since it was probably represented as the "Statue of Liberty" by the photog . . .. note that the original artist is the one with his panties in a bunch not the photographer . . . I'd call it a nuisance suite aiming at the deep pockets of the government and or Getty . . . It would be interesting to sit in on that trial and hear the arguements . . . .
 
dabob said:
If I may hazard a guess here, I think it may be that the "photographer" who was on vacation in vegas shot the photo and then uploaded it to Getty who then thought they had the rights to the photo since it was probably represented as the "Statue of Liberty" by the photog . . .. note that the original artist is the one with his panties in a bunch not the photographer . . . I'd call it a nuisance suite aiming at the deep pockets of the government and or Getty . . . It would be interesting to sit in on that trial and hear the arguements . . . .
Click to expand...

From: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip_photography.pdf

"Taking photos of copyright works in public places In some countries, you don’t need permission to photograph certain artistic works that are permanently displayed in a public place (for example, in a park or on the street). You can also publish and commercialize the photograph without infringing copyright. However, this exception applies only: - To certain types of works: usually, only to three-dimensional works, such as sculptures and craft."

IMHO, if the sculptor has an issue then it is with the photographer - not the USPS.
 
I agree with Gordo. This issue is between the photographer, the sculptor, and Getty. Once Getty added the photograph to their portfolio, all licenses and royalties for general use by the public would have been settled. All entities licensing that photo from Getty for an agreed upon amount, would have to expect that Getty had the rights to offer it. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.
 
I tried reading that pdf that Gordo linked and after the first few pages I realized that it was written by lawyers in language that only another lawyer could understand . . . But I do know of "photographers" who take snapshots during vacations and then upload them to places like Getty and hope somebody buys them . . . without really knowing the business . . . and how would one know if a sculpture was copyrighted . . . would there be a copyright mark on the actual sculpture??????
 
I just realized that we all have missed an important detail here:

While we have all been assessing the validity of a copyright infringement suit, and, pretty much agree that the artist has no valid case against the USPS. The US Government MAY have a valid case against the USPS. (The government could end up filing suit on itself). Let me explain:

Let's say I'm a stamp collector, and, I bought a bunch of these stamps as an investment because the USPS called them "Statue Of Liberty" stamps. Then I find out later that the photo is not the actual Statue Of Liberty, but of some artists work in Las Vegas. I'm pretty sure that is called "fraud" or "fraudulent advertising". The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) spends millions of dollars every year protecting consumers from similar frauds (i.e. if you go to a restaurant and order Grouper off the menu, but, it's really not Grouper -- you can't call it "Grouper" on the menu). If not the FTC, then the Attorney General's Office of each State usually heads their states' "Consumer Protection Agency". Each of those States could file a class action fraudulent advertising suit against the USPS. Not saying they would, but, they could. It could happen.
 
Guru . .. you should have been a lawyer . . . they specialize in "Straining at gnats and swallowing camels" . . . and throwing common sense under the bus.
 
dabob said:
Guru . .. you should have been a lawyer . . . they specialize in "Straining at gnats and swallowing camels" . . . and throwing common sense under the bus.
Click to expand...

"Your Honor, I object!. It's common knowledge that the Law never has, nor never will, have any correlation to common sense"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

PressWise

A 30-day Fix for Managed Chaos

As any print professional knows, printing can be managed chaos. Software that solves multiple problems and provides measurable and monetizable value has a direct impact on the bottom-line.

“We reduced order entry costs by about 40%.” Significant savings in a shop that turns about 500 jobs a month.

Learn how…….

   
Back
Top