Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Wow! Reading this article blows my mind!
https://www.linns.com/news/postal-updates/2018/july/judge-orders-usps-to-pay-millions-lady-liberty.html
I'm not sure how I feel about that ruling or the "fairness" of the case.
But seems like somebody in this story is going to be very happy ($3.6 million)...
-- and --
somebody is going to be very sad ("...he would have never selected Davidson’s image via a stock photography website if he had known it was not of the original Statue of Liberty.").
Kind of crazy.
JR
Login to Like
this post
Yes, crazy. I suppose my comments might be a bit more critical than most. That's $3.6 million tax dollars going to an artist who did nothing to earn it, and suffered no harm from the use of his material. From all indications, there was an honest mistake and some sloppy research around the image. Why is the artist not thankful to have millions of images going around the world advertising his work--at no cost to him?
Some time ago, we might have come to a win-win solution, such as the USPS re-releasing the stamp with the artist's name engraved in the fine print. Talk about coming off as a serendipitous hero of sorts--the artist might have gained some positive esteem and notoriety. Instead, he kind of comes off as a money-grubbing opportunist.
But then, I've only been on the taxpayer side of the discussion, not the sculptor side of the discussion...
-Steve
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I think it is appropriate that the USPS pay the artist for using the image of his work, even though he was commissioned by the MGM Grand Company (they own Las Vegas) to design the statue in front of the New York, New York casino. I do wonder how the image ended up on a public web page where the USPS employee found it. That person should have researched it before submitting it for use on a stamp - he/she did not and this incident also illustrates the poor education our young people are getting - How can one not recognize the Statue of Liberty? It is just like the time USPS issued a Grand Canyon airmail stamp - they labeled its location as "Colorado" and printed the photo in reverse to boot. When their mistake was found, the stamps were destroyed and reprinted with the correct location (Arizona) but still printed backwards.
My point here is that if you hire poorly educated and prepared employees and managers, you are going to get shoddy work. So the USPS must pay for it's mistake.
Login to Like
this post
So someone makes a rendition of an publicly owned monument, why isn't he paying the US government?
Login to Like
this post
Hi Steve,
I agree with you!
I'm right there with you.
It's a shame!
JR
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
To explain Al, it is a rendition and not an exact copy. Artists are free to make renditions of other artwork as long as it is not an exact copy. The Statue of Liberty is public domain art so nobody can charge anyone for copying it, let alone making a rendition of it.
I will also point out that the statue was created by French artists for the French government who then gave it to the US.
I agree with Richard. If you have ever created a piece of art you will know that it is a very intimate expression of your own person and also greatly dear to you. The USPS stole this artwork and while it is unfortunate that we the people have to pay for the errors of our representatives, it is only fair that some compensation be made.
Login to Like
this post
I agree with the decision, the artist deserved remuneration. Whether or not the judgment was fair I cannot say; sometimes large judgments are meant to also send a message beyond the case it is based upon.
Don
Login to Like
this post
Everybody wants to file a lawsuit for every petty thing that comes up. BS BS BS BS
Login to Like
this post
one correction. it is the USPS and not taxpayers that are footing the bill.
USPS is not funded by tax dollars; it is funded by postage stamps
As to their liability, the USPS is just damn sloppy. These guys are supposed to be professionals who understand copyright, liability, and the like. The division that does this: that's what they do.
In the art world, copyright is kinda similar to revenue retention. Seems fair to me.
Login to Like
this post
I read most of the judgment and looked like the judge was more punitive on how the USPS handled the situation.
If someone took someone else's book and rewrote 50% (more derivative work than the statue), would they prevail in court side the person that rewrote 50% due to copyright infringement?
Login to Like
this post
never mind the comic irony that USPS issued a stamp of a statue that stands outside a casino! 
Login to Like
this post
"Why is the artist not thankful to have millions of images going around the world advertising his work--at no cost to him? "
Why do so many people think artists (visual arts and literary) should be satisfied to work for exposure? This is their work. They deserve compensation, like any other worker. People die of exposure.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"one correction. it is the USPS and not taxpayers that are footing the bill.
USPS is not funded by tax dollars; it is funded by postage stamps"
Not quite true. The US Postal Service has insufficient funds to pay its bills. It is kept afloat by taking out loans from the US Treasury. The USPS has no positive income, thus no means to pay back those loans.
"This is their work. They deserve compensation, like any other worker."
As an author/writer, I agree.
Login to Like
this post
they do have access to US Treasury funds, up to $15B, but that's not the same as, say, the money paid for a UH-60, which will never be repaid.
the interest rates on Treasury money is much less than what we'd have to pay, but far more than we'd realize on CDs
I don't know who holds the pre-funded retirement funds and whether those might be used by Treasury. anyone know that one?
Login to Like
this post
I have fought intellectual property battles for almost 20 years.
Yes, the artist is owed his due.
It's a pain to have someone with deep pockets steal your stuff, because they will almost certainly try to legally bully you, but if you just "let it go" or "consider it advertising", you risk losing your intellectual rights. The next infringer can claim that you did not adequately defend your claim and forfeited your rights to the public domain.
So yes, when you catch a big fish, you make the big fish pay (to help cover for all those little fish you spent countless hours and money fighting and likely won't see a dime out of) and to send a message to other big fish.
This is not a game. This is someone indifferently STEALING your livelihood. USPS didn't work out an agreement with the artist, they took the case all the way to trial.
The most important point is this: The amount of money discussed is NOT a settlement amount. This is the amount of the judgment, and most of that goes to lawyer fees, travel expenses, deposition fees, and a myriad of other expenses. USPS didn't look at this and realize they should settle. USPS took this all the way to trial. Most cases settle for a small fraction of what a potential judgment might be. It's possible that Plaintiff was the unreasonable party, but I've been in enough of these that I find it highly unlikely that a reasonable offer in the initial stages would have been rejected by the Plaintiff. Yes, there is the occasional cowboy lawyer trying to make a name for himself against Goliath, but that is not the norm. It's more likely USPS forced this to trial to intimidate the Plaintiff. And if USPS won, possibly by default, that would be a great precedent to protect them in future claims.
This is a (rare) victory for the little guy!
Lars
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Excellent, Lars.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
It says that the image was acquired from a stock photo website. It seems to me like the USPS is now in a good position to sue the stock photo company for selling images that hadn't been properly rights-cleared. That's one of the main jobs of stock photo agencies: making sure that images have proper copyright clearance and model releases on file. If the agency the USPS bought from didn't do that...
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
10:22:49am
If it were the other way around, someone took an image from the USPS and made millions of dollars off of it, the USPS would certainly sue them.
Login to Like
this post
MJK, I was thinking the same thing. I have a paid membership to one of these services and buy images from them for use in internal presentations and such for a large pharma company. These services contract with artists to represent their images and the artist receives part of the sales. So somebody contracted with the service and represented that they had the legal right for the image, possibly the same artist who was suing. Something tells me there’s a lot more to this case than reported.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"... Why is the artist not thankful to have millions of images going around the world advertising his work--at no cost to him? ..."
But it is precisely the point that the USPS not only did not credit the artist when they released the stamp, they then refused to credit the artist even after their error was pointed-out to them and, moreover, they then continued to disrespect the artist even after he made his claim.
You cannot be made whole by people seeing your work when there is no way for them to know that they are looking at your work.
"... It seems to me like the USPS is now in a good position to sue the stock photo company for selling images that hadn't been properly rights-cleared ..."
No, they are not. The USPS licensed the photo, not the content of the photo.
You can license a photo of a Mercedes Benz hood ornament, but that does not give you right to manufacture key rings in the style of a Mercedes Benz hood ornament.
And, the USPS paid U$D 1500 for one million impressions of the photo, and then made billions of impressions.
We can argue about the distance between the original photo and the final stamp design, but it was the court that found that the USPS went a step too far, not me.
"... If it were the other way around ..."
The court described the royalties the USPS collects for the use of its stamps.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post
Hi all,
Wow! Reading this article blows my mind!
https://www.linns.com/news/postal-updates/2018/july/judge-orders-usps-to-pay-millions-lady-liberty.html
I'm not sure how I feel about that ruling or the "fairness" of the case.
But seems like somebody in this story is going to be very happy ($3.6 million)...
-- and --
somebody is going to be very sad ("...he would have never selected Davidson’s image via a stock photography website if he had known it was not of the original Statue of Liberty.").
Kind of crazy.
JR
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
Yes, crazy. I suppose my comments might be a bit more critical than most. That's $3.6 million tax dollars going to an artist who did nothing to earn it, and suffered no harm from the use of his material. From all indications, there was an honest mistake and some sloppy research around the image. Why is the artist not thankful to have millions of images going around the world advertising his work--at no cost to him?
Some time ago, we might have come to a win-win solution, such as the USPS re-releasing the stamp with the artist's name engraved in the fine print. Talk about coming off as a serendipitous hero of sorts--the artist might have gained some positive esteem and notoriety. Instead, he kind of comes off as a money-grubbing opportunist.
But then, I've only been on the taxpayer side of the discussion, not the sculptor side of the discussion...
-Steve
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
I think it is appropriate that the USPS pay the artist for using the image of his work, even though he was commissioned by the MGM Grand Company (they own Las Vegas) to design the statue in front of the New York, New York casino. I do wonder how the image ended up on a public web page where the USPS employee found it. That person should have researched it before submitting it for use on a stamp - he/she did not and this incident also illustrates the poor education our young people are getting - How can one not recognize the Statue of Liberty? It is just like the time USPS issued a Grand Canyon airmail stamp - they labeled its location as "Colorado" and printed the photo in reverse to boot. When their mistake was found, the stamps were destroyed and reprinted with the correct location (Arizona) but still printed backwards.
My point here is that if you hire poorly educated and prepared employees and managers, you are going to get shoddy work. So the USPS must pay for it's mistake.
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
So someone makes a rendition of an publicly owned monument, why isn't he paying the US government?
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
Hi Steve,
I agree with you!
I'm right there with you.
It's a shame!
JR
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
To explain Al, it is a rendition and not an exact copy. Artists are free to make renditions of other artwork as long as it is not an exact copy. The Statue of Liberty is public domain art so nobody can charge anyone for copying it, let alone making a rendition of it.
I will also point out that the statue was created by French artists for the French government who then gave it to the US.
I agree with Richard. If you have ever created a piece of art you will know that it is a very intimate expression of your own person and also greatly dear to you. The USPS stole this artwork and while it is unfortunate that we the people have to pay for the errors of our representatives, it is only fair that some compensation be made.
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
I agree with the decision, the artist deserved remuneration. Whether or not the judgment was fair I cannot say; sometimes large judgments are meant to also send a message beyond the case it is based upon.
Don
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
Everybody wants to file a lawsuit for every petty thing that comes up. BS BS BS BS
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
one correction. it is the USPS and not taxpayers that are footing the bill.
USPS is not funded by tax dollars; it is funded by postage stamps
As to their liability, the USPS is just damn sloppy. These guys are supposed to be professionals who understand copyright, liability, and the like. The division that does this: that's what they do.
In the art world, copyright is kinda similar to revenue retention. Seems fair to me.
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
I read most of the judgment and looked like the judge was more punitive on how the USPS handled the situation.
If someone took someone else's book and rewrote 50% (more derivative work than the statue), would they prevail in court side the person that rewrote 50% due to copyright infringement?
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
never mind the comic irony that USPS issued a stamp of a statue that stands outside a casino!
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
"Why is the artist not thankful to have millions of images going around the world advertising his work--at no cost to him? "
Why do so many people think artists (visual arts and literary) should be satisfied to work for exposure? This is their work. They deserve compensation, like any other worker. People die of exposure.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
08:59:08am
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
"one correction. it is the USPS and not taxpayers that are footing the bill.
USPS is not funded by tax dollars; it is funded by postage stamps"
Not quite true. The US Postal Service has insufficient funds to pay its bills. It is kept afloat by taking out loans from the US Treasury. The USPS has no positive income, thus no means to pay back those loans.
"This is their work. They deserve compensation, like any other worker."
As an author/writer, I agree.
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
they do have access to US Treasury funds, up to $15B, but that's not the same as, say, the money paid for a UH-60, which will never be repaid.
the interest rates on Treasury money is much less than what we'd have to pay, but far more than we'd realize on CDs
I don't know who holds the pre-funded retirement funds and whether those might be used by Treasury. anyone know that one?
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
I have fought intellectual property battles for almost 20 years.
Yes, the artist is owed his due.
It's a pain to have someone with deep pockets steal your stuff, because they will almost certainly try to legally bully you, but if you just "let it go" or "consider it advertising", you risk losing your intellectual rights. The next infringer can claim that you did not adequately defend your claim and forfeited your rights to the public domain.
So yes, when you catch a big fish, you make the big fish pay (to help cover for all those little fish you spent countless hours and money fighting and likely won't see a dime out of) and to send a message to other big fish.
This is not a game. This is someone indifferently STEALING your livelihood. USPS didn't work out an agreement with the artist, they took the case all the way to trial.
The most important point is this: The amount of money discussed is NOT a settlement amount. This is the amount of the judgment, and most of that goes to lawyer fees, travel expenses, deposition fees, and a myriad of other expenses. USPS didn't look at this and realize they should settle. USPS took this all the way to trial. Most cases settle for a small fraction of what a potential judgment might be. It's possible that Plaintiff was the unreasonable party, but I've been in enough of these that I find it highly unlikely that a reasonable offer in the initial stages would have been rejected by the Plaintiff. Yes, there is the occasional cowboy lawyer trying to make a name for himself against Goliath, but that is not the norm. It's more likely USPS forced this to trial to intimidate the Plaintiff. And if USPS won, possibly by default, that would be a great precedent to protect them in future claims.
This is a (rare) victory for the little guy!
Lars
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
Excellent, Lars.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
08:56:12am
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
It says that the image was acquired from a stock photo website. It seems to me like the USPS is now in a good position to sue the stock photo company for selling images that hadn't been properly rights-cleared. That's one of the main jobs of stock photo agencies: making sure that images have proper copyright clearance and model releases on file. If the agency the USPS bought from didn't do that...
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
Immediate Past President - West Essex Philatelic Society www.wepsonline.org
18 Jul 2018
10:22:49am
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
If it were the other way around, someone took an image from the USPS and made millions of dollars off of it, the USPS would certainly sue them.
Login to Like
this post
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
MJK, I was thinking the same thing. I have a paid membership to one of these services and buy images from them for use in internal presentations and such for a large pharma company. These services contract with artists to represent their images and the artist receives part of the sales. So somebody contracted with the service and represented that they had the legal right for the image, possibly the same artist who was suing. Something tells me there’s a lot more to this case than reported.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: New Statue of Liberty Stamp
"... Why is the artist not thankful to have millions of images going around the world advertising his work--at no cost to him? ..."
But it is precisely the point that the USPS not only did not credit the artist when they released the stamp, they then refused to credit the artist even after their error was pointed-out to them and, moreover, they then continued to disrespect the artist even after he made his claim.
You cannot be made whole by people seeing your work when there is no way for them to know that they are looking at your work.
"... It seems to me like the USPS is now in a good position to sue the stock photo company for selling images that hadn't been properly rights-cleared ..."
No, they are not. The USPS licensed the photo, not the content of the photo.
You can license a photo of a Mercedes Benz hood ornament, but that does not give you right to manufacture key rings in the style of a Mercedes Benz hood ornament.
And, the USPS paid U$D 1500 for one million impressions of the photo, and then made billions of impressions.
We can argue about the distance between the original photo and the final stamp design, but it was the court that found that the USPS went a step too far, not me.
"... If it were the other way around ..."
The court described the royalties the USPS collects for the use of its stamps.
Cheers,
/s/ ikeyPikey
Login to Like
this post