Davidson further claims that elements of the statue’s face stemmed not from the original but from “certain facial features of his close female relatives.” Changes include a “fuller chin; a rounded jawline and neck; a softer and wider mouth in relation to the nose; lifted corners of the mouth to create a friendlier expression.” A full page of the eight-page complaint lays out in painstaking detail the differences between the Las Vegas newcomer and the New York original. 
 
 Such changes mean those elements of the sculpture are copyrighted and their use by the USPS entitles him to damages, Davidson argues. The government has asserted the differences are too subtle to warrant legal protection. 
 
 In his ruling last month, Judge Eric G. Bruggink of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which hears lawsuits brought against the Federal government, rejected Davidson’s motion to end the case in his favor before trial. Judge Bruggink cited “disputed issues of fact” including the alleged differences between the two statues and questions of if those differences were the result of artistic choice or of necessity. In the same ruling, Judge Bruggink also rejected the government’s motion to dismiss the case. The government asserted that the sculpture was a part of the casino’s architecture, but the judge noted in his opinion that the Las Vegas Statue of Liberty is a freestanding, non-functioning sculpture, as opposed to a design element part of the facade or the building’s architecture. 
 
 In September, the judge will weigh the facts to decide if the Las Vegas statue is indeed sultrier than the original. Put another way, it will have to decide whether facial elements of the Las Vegas statue are indeed different from the original, and if they are original enough to be copyrightable. 
 
 The government has argued that even if the Las Vegas statue is copyrightable, its use on the stamp is permitted through a fair use defense. Determining whether something qualifies as fair use is is also typically fact-based inquiry. The originality of the copyrighted work, in this case the Las Vegas statue, is an important factor in determining fair use. The less original the copyright piece, the thinner the protections it enjoys. 
 
 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.” 
 
 
 
 ||||| There’s a good chance you’ve seen the United States Postal Service Lady Liberty stamp. Perhaps you thought this was a picture of the Statue of Liberty. It turns out, however, it was actually a picture of a sculptor’s version of the Statue of Liberty. Because of this technicality, a judge just ruled that the USPS owes this sculptor millions of dollars. 
 
 First, a little background. Robert S. Davidson made a replica of the Statue of Liberty that lives in front of the New York-New York Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. When the USPS came out with a new stamp in 2011, some experts noticed that the image used seemed to be of Davidson’s hotel piece and not of the actual Statue of Liberty. The Post Office even owned up to the mistake. 
 
 Davidson subsequently sued the Post Office, claiming that his piece of art was unique and different from the original Statue of Liberty. And a judge agreed. “We are satisfied that plaintiff succeeded in making the statue his own creation, particularly the face,” the judge declared last week. “A comparison of the two faces unmistakably shows that they are different.” The ruling goes on, “Having determined that the face of plaintiff’s sculpture is distinct, original, and protected, we find that defendant’s use was infringing.” 
 
 In short, because the USPS mistakenly used an image of Davidson’s work and not the actual Statue of Liberty, the organization owes the artist royalties: $3,554,946.95 in royalties, plus interest, to be exact. 
 
 This is one way to become rich by being a replica artist, I suppose.
– The United States Postal Service's money woes just got $3.5 million worse, and the Statue of Liberty is to blame. A judge ruled last week that the agency did commit copyright infringement when it used an image of Robert S. Davidson's Statue of Liberty on a stamp it issued in 2011. The Lady Liberty that towers over New York Harbor was designed by French sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi; Davidson's replica stands before the New York-New York Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, reports Fast Company. The Washington Post (which has an image of the stamp) in December 2013 reported that the USPS had obtained the image from Getty Images but didn't also seek permission from Davidson, likely because the USPS assumed what it was using was in the public domain. Not so. A stamp collector had identified the mix-up in 2011, and the USPS was made aware—but then it printed another 1.13 billion of the stamps on top of the 3.5 billion it had already made, reported Artsy in 2017. As such, the suit claimed the infringement was knowingly committed. Identical copies of works in the public domain (which the statue is) aren't covered by copyright infringement protections. But Davidson argued in his suit that he wasn't trying to create a replica but rather to craft a fresher, more feminine version. Per the ruling, "he envisioned his mother-in-law as inspiration ... and viewed her picture every night during the construction of the face of the statue." The judge ruled the "plaintiff succeeded in making the statue his own creation, particularly the face." The amount owed: $3,554,946.95 in royalties, plus interest. (The USPS has announced a new kind of stamp.)