Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
1–10 of 81 posts
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#2Wow. Such URL. Or: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes...
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#3Quite 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.
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#4It 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.
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#5I 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.
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#6Quite 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.
USPS is going to fold before I receive my package :(
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#7I don't get it... the USPS licensed the photo from Getty. Doesn't that license cover the use of the photo?
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#8> 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.
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#9I don't get it... the USPS licensed the photo from Getty. Doesn't that license cover the use of the photo?
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...
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#10Wow. Such URL. Or: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes...
I support this alternative address. Additionally, the url preview clarifies that Ars Technica is the source, as opposed to “ampproject”.