[quote=FredB]You should be free to take a picture of it - for personal use. The pitfalls come in when you convert that image to commercial use. See my previous comment - take all the pix you want, just don't SELL them.

Correct, absolutely. There's almost never any issue about taking a photo. The issues arise when using it for commercial purposes (which is much broader than just selling it).

And speaking of Postal Service money-wasting...or insider dishonesty, here's a whopper:

The USPS made a deal with FedEx to have FedEx planes carry mail for the USPS. FedEx has a huge fleet of jets and they ALWAYS HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF UNUSED CAPACITY. Knowing that the USPS mail would be pure profit for FedEx, the USPS COULD have driven a hard bargain and gotten a bargain rate. Instead, the USPS made a deal with FedEx in which the USPS is paying THREE TIMES the going commercial rate.

Great deal, verging on larceny for FedEx. Lousy deal for the USPS and taxpayers.

Here's something that hasn't been discussed.

The government spent $750,000 of our tax dollars to have the sculptor create the memorial. Why in hell didn't they insist that the deal included not only the statues, BUT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS as well?

It is imbecilic to spend so much and not insist on buying the rights as well as the hardware.

On the subject of imbecilic, the USPS has a huge and overpaid legal department. Well-run companies such as movie productions routinely clear rights including property rights. Apparently the USPS, in its imbecility and/or arrogance, doesn't even have any checklist or any routine procedure to make sure that they are not ripping people off when using intellectual property as part of stamps or other activities.

I have a web presence on another photo site where I display some of my photos. I have a number of photos from different shoots where the girls are dressed (and undressed) in a particular ethnic costume.

I got a message out of the blue from a guy who wants to buy copies of the original digital photos of these theme from several shoots. The total number of images would be around 100 images and the original images are very high-resolution JPGs.

He specifically says they would be for his enjoyment only and not be shared or used for web content, etc.

I've never had a request for original files...and large numbers of them...like this.

I have no idea of what to charge or how to react to this request. Any comments on pricing or anything else would be welcomed.

The FBI has an entire office devoted to dealing with various scams like this, which mainly originate from Nigeria. According to some studies, about a third of Nigeria's GNP is derived from running scams like this.

The best advice on dealing with spam solicitations is to delete them. Getting in contact with the scammers, even to try to make fools of them, leads to more problems including in some cases physical threats.

The USPS has an odd status as a quasi-private agency. The significant question is whether the sculptor retained copyright, and obviously he did. If he didn't, the case would have thrown out of court at the beginning. No articles mentioned any relationship to politicians. Possibly there was crookedness in deciding what sculptor got the gig; there is often crookedness in awarding such juicy contracts.

It is not clear from the articles, but normally the thief in a piracy case like this has to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees. So if not included in the $685,000 there's likely another $100,000 or so that the Postal Service will cough up. The fees will be considerable because the case was hard-fought for several years and included an appeal after the trial court got it wrong and [idiotically] ruled that the theft was "fair use."

If the statue's copyright is in the public domain you can do whatever you want with an image of it.

If the statue is within copyright, a commercial user of the statue should get a copyright license from the rights owner.

It's somewhat analogous to Right of Publicity, but would take much too long to explain the nuances.

The USPS knew or should have known that it's actions were infringing the rights in the statue. It made many millions of dollars from its infringement, and either never bothered to try to get the rights, or else figured it could get away with its piracy.

Other articles indicated that the sculptor was amenable to settling cheap but the USPS did not negotiate in good faith and figured it could "bury him in paper."

NOTES:

There is copyright in 3-dimensional items like sculptors, as well as in 2-dimensional items like photographs. This matter involves the Post Office, through a combination of slovenliness, stupidity, and arrogance, infringing the sculptor's rights to his sculptor. The USPS' claim of "fair use" is 100% bogus and should have resulted in fines by the court for advancing such a specious defense.

I post this because it reminds all us creators of our rights. And also reminds us that the government, which increasingly sees itself as our masters, has no right to pirate our work. (Presumably this case may make federal agencies less inclined to steal).

The USPS spends gazillions of your tax dollars and has a huge legal department at its headquarters at 475 L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC. Apparently the USPS has never heard of a "property release" or else the bureaucrats are too lazy or arrogant to bother getting permission. The USPS has over the years engaged in many patterns of waste and occasionally crime; it's nice to see that they get nailed for thievery. It would be even nicer to see the bureaucrats involved get criminally charged. But I don't expect that to happen: there is one set of laws for productive citizens and quite another for overpaid arrogant bureaucrats. There is also another set of rules for employment: executives in a private firm who behaved in such an idiotic and dishonest manner would probably be fired or demoted; but for federal bureaucrats? No punishment at all.

=======================================

BURLINGTON, Vt. -- A Vermont sculptor who sued the U.S. Postal Service for copyright infringement, has won a historic settlement of nearly $685,000.

The case involved the printing of stamps with an image of the soldiers Frank Gaylord, of Barre, Vt., sculpted for the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.

The Postal Service said Friday it "respectfully disagrees" with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims' damages decision and that, together with the Department of Justice, it is considering whether to appeal.

The largest settlement the Postal Service previously paid for any image on a stamp was $5,000.

The Postal Service originally did not offer Gaylord any compensation, and in 2008 the Court of Federal Claims ruled in the Postal Service's favor, saying its use of a photograph taken of the memorial during winter by a retired Marine fell under the doctrine of "fair use," exempting it from copyright protection.

In 2010, Gaylord's attorney Heidi Harvey of the Boston law firm Fish & Richardson won a reversal of that decision in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On Friday, the Court of Federal Claims — directed by the Court of Appeals to "determine the proper amount of damages due Plaintiff Frank Gaylord" — settled on $684,844.

"God Bless America," Harvey said simply in an email responding to the judgment.

Harvey added that she was "very pleased" that Gaylord had been "vindicated in his request for just compensation for the Postal Service's infringement."

Gaylord spent five years sculpting the 19 soldiers known as The Column. The result was a war memorial that many feel is the most compelling on the National Mall. He was paid $775,000 by the government for the statues but only netted about $200,000 after expenses, according to court testimony.

Gaylord, 88, has waited a long time for this week's settlement, filing his lawsuit against the Postal Service seven years ago. Gaylord also sued the former Marine, John Alli, who took the photo that the Postal Service used on its stamp in 2003, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the war. Alli was paid $1,500 by the Postal Service for the use of his photo.

Gaylord settled quickly and amicably with Alli, who agreed to pay Gaylord a 10 percent royalty on any further sales of the image.

The Court of Federal Claims used the same 10 percent "running royalty" to determine the fair market value of Gaylord's copyright at nearly $685,000. The bulk of Gaylord's award came from the court's determination that the Postal Service collected an estimated $5.4 million for stamps purchased by collectors, entitling Gaylord to $540,000.

Heidi Harvey said the royalty on sales of stamps to collectors was "entirely consistent" with Gaylord's licensing practices.

"We feel the Postal Service should have been, through this entire dispute, willing and able to share a small percentage of those sales with Mr. Gaylord," Harvey said.

The balance of Gaylord's award came from royalties on merchandise sales and prejudgment interest.

A little insight: It is a RIGHT, not a privilege, to patronize a store which is open to the general public. Such as a Starbucks. That is why a Starbucks cannot legally bar gay couples, people of certain races, people with assistance animals, etc. One could argue that it has no right to bar people who are legally carrying.

A somewhat analogous ruling has been made in several cases where wedding photographers refused to shoot weddings of homosexual marriages because of their religious beliefs. The courts ruled that they were forced to take such gigs.

But back to the infamous restaurant of overpriced coffee and junk food: the only advantage to open carry is a marginally faster draw. However, as street cops would point out, the open carry customer would be the first target of an alert holdup dude.

If it's fraud the fraud follows a pattern of sleazy and occasionally marginally legal behavior.

One scheme Starbucks followed was to deliberately destroy independent neighborhood coffee shops. One tactic was to approach the landlord of such shops and offer the landlord sharply higher rent so he would throw out the independent shops and rent to Starbucks instead. Starbucks tried to saturate areas with Starbucks as well, even when there were so many Starbucks that some of the Starbucks stores actually lost money. The concept was a scorched earth policy of destroying the competition.

Interestingly, Starbucks briefly had a presence in Israel, in which open carry by civilians and by soldiers on leave is common. Starbucks closed it's Israeli stores a decade or so ago, amid widespread accusations that it was surrendering to pressure from Arab/Muslim Mideast countries, who push for boycott/divestment from Israel. The comments below give a different possible reason. I've traveled in Israel and yes, the Israelis love coffee. But maybe not Starbucks' coffee. I grin when I think how the Israelis, pragmatic to the core, would have reacted if Starbucks was idiotic enough to ban firearms in Israel-based stores.

Here's the article:

Ahh! That’s good coffee.

Why Israelis Didn’t Like Starbucks or Why Americans Like Bad Coffee
Ten years have passed since Starbucks closed their six branches in Israel.
They had been open two years. Delek Group, the Israeli corporation, managed (mismanaged?) the branches, not individual branch managers.
However, Starbucks failed in the “Start-Up Nation” because of its “You don’t like the coffee? You’ll get used to it” attitude. Israelis love coffee. Starbucks, unlike MacDonald’s who changed their menu to fit Israeli taste and succeeded big-time, did not “go with the flow.”
The average Israeli consumer loves the strong, Italian-style latte or cappuccino. The watery beverage that passes for a strong brew just does not cut it here.
Not only is the Israeli style coffee big bucks (or shekels) here, Aroma, the biggest coffee giant in Israel with more than 125 branches, has opened branches in New York City.
Other honorable mentions in Israel are: Cup O ’Joe has 105 and and so does Café Café. Arcafe and Greg are galloping at full steam to cash in on the insatiable thirst for the brown ambrosia. All of the cafes have varied menus. The food is generally very good with generous portions and reasonable prices. They are found in many large cities to the smallest towns in the country.
My little town of Afula boasts 2 Aroma cafes, 2 Greg cafes, two Café Café’s. Roladin, a relative newcomer, just opened a branch, not to mention the local cafes here. And this is in a town with about forty-two thousand inhabitants. We love our coffee!
Why not Starbucks? Basically, the coffee at Starbucks, for me, has no kick. It just doesn’t do it for me. All the others do.
So when you come to Israel, prepare to have great coffee, great food, great times and a trip of your lifetime.
With froth, of course!

The images also remind me of something I've heard from many Europeans who did driving tours of the USA. They are struck by the size and openness of the country, especially in the vast expanses of the Southwest. I have heard this comment and similar comments many times.

It surprises me that so few people see the clear fact that being "anti-gun" is also anti-woman. Women are invariably physically smaller and less powerful than would-be attackers, and generally lack the attackers' vicious attitude as well. A firearm is the equalizer. As a wise man once said: "God created man and woman, but Samuel Colt* made them equals."

*"Colt" as in Colt brand pistols

I like both shots. The second is particularly evocative ... too bad the car went so dark.

1. Make a black background. Velveteen or similar attached to a piece of cardboard works. Anything flat black works if underexposed a stop or two.

2. Light the flower with flash. If you're doing a closeup and the background foliage is underexposed a couple of stops it'll probably be close to black.

3. Choose a flower in sunlight with a background in shade.