Is it substantive enough a change from the statue itself (which image is public domain) to make it a "new work" for which Davidson can enjoy copyright benefits? I can't tell from the article if the judge has ruled on that aspect yet.
1: Yeah, I kept waiting for at least a third party quote about that issue.
Also, ISTM that the stock photo company may get wrapped up in this.
The face is pretty different -- different enough that I think if I'd looked at the stamp and was primed to think hard about it, but without knowing what the deal was, I would have thought that it was a sort of slightly stylized painting of the real statue rather than a photo of anything.
Now Davidson's lawyers have the hilarious task of proving that his statue was chosen over the original statue because the Post Office thought his statue was superior, and the Post Office has the hilarious task of proving that actually they just fucked up and didn't notice.
The only copyright story better than this one is the one about how an intensely annoying anti-piracy video actually used pirated music.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/01/29/3678851.htm
I am puzzled by what I would describe as the "scienter" aspect of this. Why does it matter how the postal service feels about the artist's work, or whether the image was used by mistake. IANAIPL, but if you acknowledge the unauthorized use of a legitimately copyrighted image (which this may not be), isn't the only remaining argument over the amount of the damages?
6: Doesn't it speak partially to the novelty question? If USPS can prove that they honestly believed this was the original, that is more evidence for it being more like a copy than a new work, though not a slam-dunk.
I'm not sure they've acknowledged it was unauthorized use of copyright. They kept using it after they knew the claim was being made, but maybe the claim is invalid.
Another article on the story.
Though the complaint doesn't specify a request for damages, the Washington Post reported that a previous case brought against the USPS by the sculptor for the Korean War Memorial resulted in $685,000 in damages after the sculptures were used without permission for a stamp. The court also found the artist was entitled to 10% of sales of the stamps to collectors.
Lawyers and observers looking to discern some greater meaning from this case might look to the words of former New York mayor Ed Koch, who said of the USPS decision to print the stamp even after learning of their mixup: "It simply means the post office is doing a stupid thing."
"Like stamp collectors," he didn't add.
Copyright in art and architecture is weird. Like you might think you can do whatever with a photo of something that appears in public view for all to see, but maybe not! Surely someone has knowledge that does not constitute legal advice about this.
I think there was a case at the University of Virginia where a sign told people not to take pictures of a piece of art installed outdoors on campus, so of course people did.
I learned from a TV commercial that you can't copyright a scent.
There goes the Smell-o-vision market.
6-7 it's primarily if not entirely about damages. And that's the last substantive comment I'll make about this, because litigating cases I'm not involved in for free is actually not fun at all. Happy to talk about the Rohingyas.
9. My grandfather collected stamps, I think many from his professional correspondence as a virologist. Lots from the developing world in the mid-sixties, before 1968. The albums are a way to remember him.
Stamps were an outlet for talented artists in many places in the sixties and seventies I think.
13 So then, no comment about the Grumpy cat copyright victory?
That would only be interesting if it were the cat suing its owners for selling its image without consent.
I know Grumpy Cat's lawyer pretty well. Apparently they brought Grumpy Cat himself, ie the actual cat, to the trial to be on display for the jurors.
16: And what makes YOU so sure you know the cat's preferred pronouns, huh??
English doesn't yet have cat pronouns. If they make it into the OED I'll concede, but not before.
Tell Grumpy Cat's publicity people they did a fine job at the difficult task of obscuring that the owners named the cat "Tard" and convincing us the real name was "Tardar Sauce".
JFC, Grumpy Cat, you just won a giant payout, can't you just smile a little?
Oh, right. Sorry.
18: The linked article uses the pronoun "her" to refer to Tardar Sauce (although a photo caption uses "it"), and I assume they probably fact-checked that, since they talk about the owners.
18: The linked article uses the pronoun "her" to refer to Tardar Sauce (although a photo caption uses "it"), and I assume they probably fact-checked that, since they talk about the owners.
Followed the link for Grumpy Cat and noticed this headline.
Botoxed camels banned from beauty contest