So what do you exactly pay for when you license an image from Getty?
Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
11–20 of 81 posts
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#12NYC owns the Statue of Liberty - maybe they should sue the sculptor for copyright claims... a virtuous circle.
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#13NYC owns the Statue of Liberty - maybe they should sue the sculptor for copyright claims... a virtuous circle.
It's governed by the US National Park Service, and it's a derivative work.
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#14So what do you exactly pay for when you license an image from Getty?
Part of someone's soul. Which is why they charge so much
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#15NYC owns the Statue of Liberty - maybe they should sue the sculptor for copyright claims... a virtuous circle.
It's governed by the US National Park Service, and it's a derivative work.
Is there any clear line on what is considered a derivative and what is a copy without substantial deviation?
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#16> 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…
Doesn't imply that - in fact the opposite. It implies that the sculptor retained rights to imagery of the work.
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's governed by the US National Park Service, and it's a derivative work.
Is there any clear line on what is considered a derivative and what is a copy without substantial deviation?
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.
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#18So what do you exactly pay for when you license an image from Getty?
Their license is surprisingly readable:
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#19> 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…
Doesn't imply that - in fact the opposite. It implies that the sculptor retained rights to imagery of the work.
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.
Re: Post Office owes $3.5M for using wrong Statue of Liberty on a stamp
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any clear line on what is considered a derivative and what is a copy without substantial deviation?
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.
[deleted]