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.
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.
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.
I should have said--did the defense actually determine that the sculptor retained their copyright, given the work was commissioned by a casino.
The USPS have to bear the responsibility first - the sculptor shouldn't have to dig into all of the USPS' business dealings before filing a lawsuit.
However the USPS have a contract with Getty in which either Getty misrepresented what they were selling, or the USPS did not read the contract correctly. In the former case USPS should be able to recover some of the loss from Getty, but it looks more like the latter.
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...
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.
Orthogonal, though can't help but wonder whether Davidson got Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi's approval before re-creating an almost identical statue.
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."
:/
Seems like Getty caused damages to the scultpor. Why wasn’t getty sued for profiting off the scultor’s work?
Terms of licensing are super clear when you buy stock work. What makes no sense is why the post office would even bother — there are plenty of public domain photos of the statue. Or they could have just had a mailman go shoot one and pay him $1000.
This is just incompetence, there wasn’t any ambiguity to what they were doing. They admit they used an image for commercial gain without knowing they were infringing — that’s negligence. They used that image because they knew it would sell more stamps. Even a basic legal review would have caught this — this sort of clearance/rights due dilligence is standard stuff. This wasn’t editorial and thus “fair use” would’t apply — this was used specifically to sell stamps. They can’t argue parody, satire or any of the numerous cases that might constitute fair use.
The post office made $70 million in pure profit from their misappropriation, the original art that led to that profit ought to be compensated accordingly. Had even a baby lawyer been consulted, they could have avoided this mess. Being a government agency doesn’t exempt you from the law.
Mods, please update the link.
A family member had a Christmas-related stamp selected in the 80's. I'm guessing it was a bigger deal then.
[1] https://mag.orangenius.com/how-mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-c...
---
