Seen This News? "Statue Of Liberty Stamp Mistake To Cost Postal Service $3.5 Million"

Whoever sold the image to the post office was wrong and did not have permission to sell it. Thus why not liable as well?
Also, since they are now paying for copyright use, could they not print millions of stamps with the image again to recoup this loss?
I do not understand this given that the artist copied someone else's work the statue of liberty and the usps copied the artist who copied the statute. Can someone go and copy the mona lisa and then claim that someone else copied his copied mona lisa? How was this artist's statue of liberty copy not a copy of the original? Could not the original owner of the statue of liberty make a claim against this artist too? This guy who is getting millions did not invent the statue of liberty, it is not his to copy in the first place is it? If he claims he did something different than the original, could not someone claim that he has somehow distorted it?

1. The USPS violated the terms under which it purchased the image from Getty Images. Getty Images is not at fault.

2. Losing the lawsuit does not mean they are now "paying for copyright use."

3. The sculptor's work was a derivative work, but "substantially different" re: facial aspects from the original Statue of Liberty and scale. It's not "a copy". If I make a caricature of the Mona Lisa, or repaint it in different colors, it is not "a copy". I would then own the rights to the version I created. If someone wanted to us my rendition in a commercial product, they would have to come to an agreement with me, not Leonardo da Vinci.

Determining what is an outright copy and what isn't can be quite nebulous. It's not a simple area.

Could he still call it the statue of liberty given it is not exactly the same as the original? Could this cause confusion between the real one and the one that is not? In other words, did Getty Images describe this different image as the statue of liberty? If it isn't really the statue of liberty then why should it still be confusingly described as such?

Sellers are responsible for the misuse of what they sell? Tell it to the NRA.

There is no reason to think that Getty sold a photograph that they had no right to sell.

There is no reason to think that Getty thought that they were selling the rights to the content of the image.




Paying last week's speeding ticket does not give you the right to drive as fast as you like from now on.

As to your other questions, both the Statue of Liberty and the Mona Lisa are long out of copyright.

Derivatives of either are not.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

Perhaps the USPS should have acquired a Good Woman with a Torch from the NRA ...

Please refrain from politics, it always ends badly.
Don

Of the many goodies in the judge's opinion, one that jumped right out at me was that the USPS paid Getty U$D 1500 for one million uses of the photograph.

They then went and printed billions of Lady Liberty stamps.

Q/ Is Getty Images due a few million dollars, too?

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey

Wow! 3.5 Million is a lot. I guess in the end the customers have to pay for the judgement.

For the USPS, $3.5 Mil is not that much but maybe it is time for some special limited edition souvenir sheets with high face value.

I just think of much the USPS spends to take a block of 4 stamp and put it in the plastic bag and stiffener. It must cost more than the stamps themselves.

There is always someone hoping to cash in on somebody's ignorance:




https://www.ebay.com/itm/FOREVER-ST...AOSwR0hbQNK2

Well, THAT was quick!

What a deal? They were found in an unsearched vault.

Not just blocks of 4 :)

Wow! The sculptor gets a depiction of his work on a U.S. postage stamp and 3.5 million bucks? Sounds like a pretty good deal.

I would suspect that we all agree that the sculptor would not have asked for U$D 3.5m, and that the USPS would not have paid it.

The problem before the court is that the sculptor was not given an opportunity to ask and, moreover, after the USPS oversight was pointed-out to them, they did nothing to correct it (eg, credit the artist).

Playing hardball, eh?

So the judge did a sauce-for-the-goose-is-sauce-for-the-gander number. The USPS was estimated (mostly their own numbers, plus some outside testimony) to have sold U$D 70m worth of Lady Liberty stamps that would never be used (pure profit). The USPS charges a running royalty of 8% or 10% to use their stamps. The judge gave the USPS a break, and applied a royalty of only 5%. And Bob's your uncle.

Cheers,

/s/ ikeyPikey