
Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp - reynoldsbd
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes-3-5m-for-using-wrong-statue-of-liberty-on-a-stamp/
======
hirundo
Have you seen the two faces side by side?
[https://tribzap2it.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/lady-
liberty-...](https://tribzap2it.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/lady-liberty-
comp.jpg)

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
Yeah, how cheesy that the US (the US!) post office used a Vegas statue instead
of the one on Ellis Island. What were they thinking!?

~~~
joecool1029
The statue is on Liberty Island, not Ellis Island.

~~~
extra88
They didn’t say it was but you can see it on the way to Ellis Island.

------
runesoerensen
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.

~~~
briandear
How is $3.5 million against a $70 million profit “ridiculous?”

~~~
tehlike
Probably because if the original statue of liberty was used, it'd have made
the same profit.

~~~
joering2
USPS 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....](https://about.usps.com/news/national-
releases/2017/pr17_069.htm)

Not that it matters anyways; USPS is a private company.

~~~
runesoerensen
> USPS does not make profit;

That's besides the point with respect to the comment you're responding, which
is clearly about the profits from making and selling this stamp (rather than
the USPS as a whole) -- and importantly, how the substance of this discussion
(whether the stamp has a picture of the real or the fake Statue of Liberty)
influence profits. Which I agree with grandparent that it probably doesn't,
and why I think debating profits for the entire USPS isn't responsive to
grandparent's comment (and why I find the awarded damages ridiculous in the
first place).

In any case, for the sake of that argument, I think it's possible to discuss
potential profits/losses from a single business activity/product without
considering the gross profit for the entire company, organization or, in this
case, government agency. Which leads to

> USPS is a private company.

No, it's not. _" The United States Postal Service (USPS; also known as the
Post Office, U.S. Mail, or Postal Service) is an independent agency of the
United States federal government responsible for providing postal service in
the United States, including its insular areas and associated states. It is
one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States
Constitution."_
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service)

> Not that it matters anyways

Really? Just because a business is private doesn't mean that it doesn't matter
if it turns a profit or not. Sure from some extreme and strictly capitalist
(and even then, very narrow) viewpoint this might be the case.

Personally I think it matters quite a bit what companies make a profit (and
can continue to exist), whether they be private, public, government-owned, and
whether or not I own part of it. We live in a world dominated by capitalism
where the success or failure of companies influences societies tremendously. I
hope that the companies that conduct business in a way I support will turn a
profit, and I hope that companies doing the opposite will loose and die.

Equifax would be a perfect example of the latter: In the absence of some sort
of government action to administratively dissolve the corporation (which is
rare but in their case, as one of few I can think of, would be entirely
appropriate), Equifax is a company I sincerely hope will never again turn a
profit.

~~~
robbrown451
The profit they make by selling stamps that go unused, though, really can't be
separated from the rest of their activities. They make that particular profit
in a way other organizations can't really, but it helps balance out their
losses elsewhere. And they certainly aren't making the profit based on the
image on the stamp.

It's almost like talking about the profit that a grocery store's checkout line
makes, independent of the losses of their other business activities, such as
stocking the shelves with groceries.

~~~
runesoerensen
Sure, but it really sounds like we agree on the substance here - _" they
certainly aren't making the profit based on the image on the stamp"_, as also
pointed out by
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477124](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477124).

I agree, which is why I wrote that I think it's besides the point to discuss
USPS overall profits in response to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477257](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17477257).
This concerns a particular stamp, and we all pretty much agree that the image
is irrelevant to USPS profits. Considering that, the interesting aspect is
probably more related to the USPS' decision to use an image that didn't
actually depict the Statue of Liberty, as well as knowingly and intentionally
continue that after being made aware of it.

I guess it's somewhat like a postal service equivalent of turning a bug into a
feature, but they have to consider what the bug was in the first place as well
as what it signals when they make it a feature.

I've updated my comment in an attempt to make that a bit clearer, but realize
it's not perfectly worded -- it's getting late around here, approximately 4
miles from the _real_ Statue of Liberty :)

------
balls187
> 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
Doesn't imply that - in fact the opposite. It implies that the sculptor
retained rights to imagery of the work.

~~~
balls187
Good point.

I should have said--did the defense actually determine that the sculptor
retained their copyright, given the work was commissioned by a casino.

~~~
slavik81
That's normal for commissioned works. When you hire a contractor, by default
they retain copyright over whatever they create.

[https://copyright.uslegal.com/copyright-
ownership/commission...](https://copyright.uslegal.com/copyright-
ownership/commissioned-works/)

~~~
true_religion
What about “work for hire”?

~~~
slavik81
From the link:

> Work made for hire and commissioned work are different from one another
> because work made for hire involves an employee and commissioned work is
> executed by an independent contractor.

------
mig39
I don't get it... the USPS licensed the photo from Getty. Doesn't that license
cover the use of the photo?

~~~
balls187
IANAL...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...](https://alj.orangenius.com/night-photos-eiffel-tower-violate-
copyright/)

~~~
rplst8
This 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?

~~~
imbur
In the US buildings are covered under freedom of panorama and photographs of
buildings taken from public areas are not copyright infringement. Sculptures
are not covered under freedom of panorama in the US, and generally photographs
of sculptures or other works of art are derivative works.

Second there is a major distinction between commercial use and fine art.
Selling an image on a stock photo site to be used in an advertisement requires
a release from any models, or from the sculptures copyright owner in this
case. If they were selling a limited number of fine art prints they would not
need a release.

------
xtrapolate
> "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.

~~~
blfr
The original was built in the 19th century. Even with all the ridiculous
extensions, it surely isn't still covered by copyright.

~~~
jfoutz
And it’s totally original, not some derivative knock of designed to evoke
thoughts of some other creation.

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

~~~
Zarel
You 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."

:/

~~~
chrischen
So basically getty did not own the full equity to the image but tried to sell
it as if so anyways...

Seems like Getty caused damages to the scultpor. Why wasn’t getty sued for
profiting off the scultor’s work?

------
tbodt
Non-AMP version: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-
owes-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-
owes-3-5m-for-using-wrong-statue-of-liberty-on-a-stamp)

Mods, please update the link.

~~~
scriptproof
The one on the right seems tired to hold her torch.

------
sndean
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](https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/csac/artwork.htm)

------
hhh
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.

~~~
leetbulb
USPS is going to fold before I receive my package :(

~~~
whatsstolat
Because they lost just 3.5m of 70m in pure profit?

------
AdamTReineke
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War_Veterans_Memorial#United_States_postage_stamp_court_case)

------
throwaway2016a
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.

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

~~~
balls187
It's governed by the US National Park Service, and it's a derivative work.

~~~
omeid2
Is there any clear line on what is considered a derivative and what is a copy
without _substantial_ deviation?

~~~
balls187
As 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.

~~~
omeid2
That is ingenious. Considering that Mithras is a man, so a feminine version is
easy to argue as substantially different.

------
tenpies
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](https://i.imgur.com/5byF3NN.jpg)

------
pcrh
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?

~~~
mkl
The 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
I doubt an argument based on lack of profit would hold in other cases of
intellectual property infringement by a major corporation.

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

------
barking
Elvis inmpersonators everywhere, beware!

------
rocky1138
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.

------
tedunangst
Wow. Such URL. Or: [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-
owes...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-
owes-3-5m-for-using-wrong-statue-of-liberty-on-a-stamp/)

~~~
stochastic_monk
I support this alternative address. Additionally, the url preview clarifies
that Ars Technica is the source, as opposed to “ampproject”.

