from Hacker News

Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp

by reynoldsbd on 7/7/18, 3:01 AM with 73 comments

  • by hirundo on 7/7/18, 4:53 AM

    Have you seen the two faces side by side? 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.

  • by runesoerensen on 7/7/18, 4:09 AM

    I 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.

  • by balls187 on 7/7/18, 4:17 AM

    > 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.

  • by mig39 on 7/7/18, 4:16 AM

    I don't get it... the USPS licensed the photo from Getty. Doesn't that license cover the use of the photo?

  • by xtrapolate on 7/7/18, 5:17 AM

    > "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.

  • by chrischen on 7/7/18, 4:30 AM

    So what do you exactly pay for when you license an image from Getty?

  • by tbodt on 7/7/18, 6:13 AM

    Non-AMP version: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes-...

    Mods, please update the link.

  • by sndean on 7/7/18, 4:09 AM

    It 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

  • by hhh on 7/7/18, 4:07 AM

    Quite 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.

  • by AdamTReineke on 7/7/18, 5:47 AM

    This 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#U...

  • by throwaway2016a on 7/7/18, 12:27 PM

    It'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.

  • by anonu on 7/7/18, 4:35 AM

    NYC owns the Statue of Liberty - maybe they should sue the sculptor for copyright claims... a virtuous circle.

  • by tenpies on 7/7/18, 11:06 AM

    When 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

  • by pcrh on 7/7/18, 6:04 AM

    Why was the royalty payable only on unused stamps? Surely if a royalty was due, it should be on all stamps that used the image?

  • by andrewstuart on 7/7/18, 7:41 AM

    They'd easily make that money back by selling the erroneous stamps to collectors.

  • by barking on 7/7/18, 6:26 AM

    Elvis inmpersonators everywhere, beware!

  • by rocky1138 on 7/7/18, 5:36 AM

    This 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.

  • by tedunangst on 7/7/18, 3:58 AM