Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 81 posts

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

#51

Post by jedberg »

efa wrote: post #37
hirundo wrote: post #24

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 Vega…

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!?

In another article I read they quoted the person in charge of the decision, who said that he found it on a stock photo site and just like that "newer take on Lady Liberty". Maybe he just thought it was from a different angle or was photoshopped to have softer features?

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

#53

Post by robbrown451 »

runesoerensen wrote: post #48
joering2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> 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 wh…

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.

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

#54

Post by imbur »

rplst8 wrote: post #26
balls187 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 own…

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?

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.

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

#55

Post by jhall1468 »

pcrh wrote: post #46

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?

Seems the court accepted the fair use argument for the stamps that were sold and used, but the "pure profit" stamps that weren't didn't pass the muster.

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

#56

Post by mkl »

pcrh wrote: post #46

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?

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.

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

#57

Post by imbur »

mig39 wrote: post #7

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

Normally Getty and other stock image sites require a photo release or other relevant releases before selling images for commercial use. Other images will be for editorial use only, or more commonly they will not accept them on the site at all.

Getty made a mistake, and notified USPS a few years before the lawsuit. This was four months after the image was licensed. USPS continued to use the image from 2011 through 2014 knowing that there was no property release and that one was needed.

What is interesting about this case is the artist was not aware of the infringement, did not register the copyright and did not file suit until 2013, and the court is still considering a royalty for unused stamps from before the copyright registration. The court case is far from over though, given the size of the settlement it will be appealed.

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

#58

Post by Maybestring »

briandear wrote: post #30
runesoerensen wrote: post #5

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 se…

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

There is the assumption that those stamps won't be used. I have a few, I'm not collecting them, I just don't go through stamps very fast.

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

#60

Post by runesoerensen »

robbrown451 wrote: post #53
runesoerensen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wh…

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, independ…

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.

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. 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 :)

Post reply on HN