Trademarks are my passion, but when cool stuff happens in copyright, I just have to write about it. 
Robert Davidson is the creator of the Lady Liberty statue at the New York-New York Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas.
In 2010 the United States Postal Service inadvertently selected a photograph of Davidson’s statue to use on its Forever® stamp. The Postal Service thought it was a picture of the actual Statue of Liberty.
Davidson sued the Postal Service for infringing his copyright.
Everyone agreed that the image on the postage stamp was of Davidson’s statue but the Postal Service argued its use wasn’t infringing because:
- Davidson’s statue isn’t entitled to copyright protection; and
- The Postal Service’s use was “fair use” under the Copyright Act. 
The Statue is Entitled to Copyright Protection
The Copyright Act protects sculptural work derived from another work as long as its original and contains “nontrivial expressive variation.”  Davidson testified at length about how he had given the statue’s face a fresh look, modeling it on his mother-in-law.
The court found that the Postal Service used the image of Davidson’s statute specifically because of the differences Davidson made to the statue’s face.
The Postal Service’s Use is Not Fair Use
The Postal Service’s “use of the image on its . . . workhorse stamp, printing billions of copies and selling them to the public as part of a business enterprise . . . so overwhelmingly favors a finding of infringement that no fair use can be found.”
This little mistake cost the Postal Service $3,554,946.95 + interest + legal fees.
Bottom line: Using someone else’s intellectual property is a really big no-no.
 Trademark rights protect your brand. Copyright protects original works of authorship.
 Judge Eric G. Bruggink of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims described the selection process like this: Terry McCaffrey, the manager of stamp development at the time, “initially narrowed his selection to . . . three images . . ., one of which was of plaintiff’s statue, a photograph of the [statue’s] face taken by Raimund Linke. Mr. McCaffrey . . . did the subsequent culling by himself over the course of a single afternoon. He then . . . obtain[ed] digital image files that he could work with to make his final selection. The photograph of plaintiff’s sculpture came from Getty Images (“Getty”). Mr. McCaffrey did not realize that it was not of the New York statue. The other two pictures, from other vendors, were of the original statue.” Opinion of the U.S. Court of Federal Claim, Case No. 13-942C at page 10 (July 29, 2018).
 17 USC §107. Here’s a great way to understand “fair use”: Everyone always thinks their use is fair use but it almost never is. Literally, not once has it been fair use when one of my clients has used copyrighted materials thinking it was “fair use.”
 17 USC §102(a)(5). Shrock v. Learning Curve Int’l, Inc., 586 F.3d 513, 521 (7th Cir. 2009).
 Here are the reasons the court gave for finding that the Postal Service’s use was not “fair use.”
- The “purpose and character” of the Post Office’s use was commercial.
- The “nature” of the copyrighted work as a “replica” favors neither party.
- The “portion used” was only the face of the entire statue but that was the part that was most original.
- The “effect of the use” did not result in any revenue lost to Mr. Davidson because there was no ready market for images of the statue’s face. For the Post Office.
Opinion at pages 21-24.