FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

And then we bitch when the price of stamps goes up...

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, since it was public money that paid for the thing in the first place, I would have thought that the Feds would have secured some sort of license to use the statue and any images or representations of it, in perpetuity, for public purposes. And, if so, is a stamp a public use?

It's just odd that public money was used to buy the thing, and now quasi-public money is used to pay for the possible copyright violation.

I have no problem with the sculptor getting paid for his work, but I have to wonder - surely this isn't the first stamp ever published of a 'public' work. Does the PO pay royalties when they use other images on their stamps?

melismus Loc: Chesapeake Bay Country

But the USPS is not paying the $685,000. It is coming out of your pocket and mine.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have to agree. Does the artist own the work after he sells it? Did he sell the sculpture? Was he paid? The government is displaying the sculpture in public, so why not on a stamp?

Think of all the stamps that have had monuments and statues on them. Is the gov't liable to lawsuits for all of them?

I think the court was right to throw this out first time around. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

Perhaps the real mistake here was the USPS using the photo the other guy took, without checking with their legal eagles. Dumb.

ygelman Loc: new -- North of Poughkeepsie!

The problem regarding the photographer is that he sold the photograph. I'm sure that selling a photograph of a copyrighted art work is the same as stealing the art work. The Post Office then went out and sold stolen goods.

Taking a photograph (or a screen grab) of a two dimensional work of art is more problematic, to me. In such a case, if you want a copy of the image, buy the reproduction and let the artist have the royalty.

Taking a photograph of a statue involves a creative act itself, deciding where to stand, the lighting, etc. But selling that photograph still seems to be stealing.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Apparently it is now. Wonder how many cases will be coming to court now. LOL

cthahn

When you want to use it for commercial purposes, and that means making money, that is absolutely correct.

UtahBob Loc: Southern NJ

There is a large volume of data out on the net on this including:

http://www.guidethroughthelegaljungleblog.com/2010/02/gaylord-v-us-part-one-korean-war-veterans-memorial-on-stamp-is-not-fair-use.html

As this is not a national security item, I wonder if the contract can be obtained but from what I see the sculpture's contract may have been with a private entity so that may be impossible.

UtahBob Loc: Southern NJ

Bill, have you heard of Freedom of Panorama?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama

Perhaps that is the out? (not that wiki is a good source)

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

Only if the creator of what you are photographing has it copyrighted. I think that the wording in the copyright would state whether or not the image of the piece can or cannot be reproduced. But these days, judges are as set in their views as the rest of us and can interpret a law to suit their particular prejudices. And that's why we have corporations being labeled 'persons'. Will the idiocy ever cease?

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

jerryc41 raises a good point.Apparently it has taken the artist 5 years to get this far. The appeal process could double or even triple that.
I think the point here is that the powers that think they are greater than the little guy need to have their pee-pees slapped from time to time to remind them of their more earthly existence. The fact they we as taxpayers are footing the award and all of the appeals that may follow, is disgusting. I am happy that he was awarded the 685K. I will pay the extra 2 cents to mail the next letter, if/when I ever do.

Ka2azman Loc: Tucson, Az

I have been to this memorial and taken pictures of it. Oh my! I'm gonna get sued.
Also while there I took pictures of "the Wall" of which is close to it, WWII Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, Grants Tomb, Air Force Memorial, the Marine Memorial, Pentagon, Capitol building including the statue on top of the building and many of the statues inside the Capitol building. 8th and I area including the 15 star flag. I am soooo bad!

Were these statues rented? Just who owns the statues that were commissioned for public display on public grounds and paid with public money. Just how many times was this memorial displayed in photos in magazines and had other public displays such as on TV's evening news. I recall see it on TV a couple of times. Were these paid for?

This is no different than someone going to a furniture store purchasing furniture, placing it in a home, then selling the home and the deciding factor was the pictures taken of the place with the furniture. So now the furniture store can sue for ownership of the furniture that they sold because of the picture was the deciding factor and there was monetary factor involved.

This might make me rich. I worked for an employer and made many items. If they sell them I can sue the new owners if they make money off my items because I am the artist that made it.

Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas

FYI - a little history on the post office:
1971 - United States Postal Service® began operations (no longer a government department)
1971 - Labor contract negotiated through collective bargaining, a federal government "first"
1982 - Last year Postal Service™ accepted public service subsidy (ie tax money)

The unique status of the USPS is they are regulated by the govt and all financials must be approved by the politicians...

So you would think that someone in D.C. would have had the common sense to complete a due diligence on the use of the sculpture since it was bought by a govt entity and using the pictures of the sculptures would have involved an expense...

ygelman Loc: new -- North of Poughkeepsie!

Please think about the differences between intellectual property rights and the rights to a piece of furniture. Also think about the difference between a news story and selling a publication that specifically displays art.

As for your creations as an employee, intellectual rights depend on the contract between you and your employer -- either agreeing or not as to who (if any) would have those rights.

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

Thanx for the link - I read the blog posts cited here (by a lawyer) and things are clearer now. I appears that the USPS fell down on the job here, more than anyone else.

The contractor for the memorial (a private firm hired by the Gov't) didn't get a clear contract from Gaylord (the sculptor) regarding copyrights, or if they did, it wasn't complete. After much legal wrangling, Gaylord has been acknowledged as the copyright owner of the sculptures.

The photographer didn't get a release or other authorization from Gaylord to sell the picture to the USPS. This event has now been settled as well.

The USPS didn't do their due diligence when they bought the image to make sure the photographer had the rights to sell the image (which he did not, at the time).

So that's what the crux of the matter is - the USPS, and to a lesser extent, the photographer, made a commercial use of the copyright owned by Gaylord. The USPS made several million dollars out of the stamps and other commemorative items of the photo.

Bottom line : Take all the photos you want of "public" statues, artwork, buildings, etc etc etc. Just don't SELL the images for commercial gain, unless you have obtained a copyright/release from the copyright owner. And make sure they OWN the rights. Just because you BUILT something (the contractor) doesn't necessarily mean you OWN all copyrights to what a third party may put there (the sculpture). That was one of the main points of the decision - the contractor DID NOT own the rights in the first place, to sell or transfer to the photographer or USPS.