How could the USPS be sued by the architect of Las Vegas&#39; Statue of Liberty?
<p>I've seen reports that the <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/post-office-owes-3-5m-for-using-wrong-statue-of-liberty-on-a-stamp/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">USPS</a> had to pay $3.5 million for using a picture of "Robert Davidson's Las Vegas replica" instead of the original.</p>

<p>But it seems that the US has "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama#United_States" rel="nofollow noreferrer">freedom of panorama</a>", which means that one can take pictures of buildings still in copyright.</p>

<p>So what copyright issues did the USPS violate?</p>

<p>One fundamental issue decided in the 2017 ruling in <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170719b20" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Davidson v. US</a> which resulted in the finding against USPS in <a href="https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2013cv0942-136-0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Davidson v. US</a> is whether the statue is a building or a sculpture. The government sought dismissal of the case because</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does
  not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public
  display of pictures ... of the work, if the building in which the work
  is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>contending "that the sculpture is part of a much larger, unitary architectural work, namely the New York, New York Hotel &amp; Casino". The court found that the government had misconstrued the intent of that section of copyright law:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The addition of Section 120 was intended to <em>extend</em> copyright
  protections, however, not truncate them. Previously, architectural
  works had little protection because they were considered utilitarian
  and not subject to copyright protection. See Leischester v. Warner
  Bros., 232 F.3d 1212, 1216 (9th Cir. 2000). That changed in 1990 when
  congress passed the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act
  ("AWCPA"), which added specific protection for architectural works but
  with the limiting proviso, on which the government relies, that
  photographs of public architectural works are exempted from
  protection. Pub. L. No. 101-650, §§ 702-703, 104 Stat. 5133 (1990).
  The AWCPA is silent as to its effect on any other section of the
  Copyright Act.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Thus, Congress didn't intend with that clause to withdraw copyright protection from statues in proximity to a building. Moreover, the regulatory definition of building is given <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/202.11" rel="nofollow noreferrer">37 C.F.R. § 202.11(b)(2)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The term "building" is defined in the applicable regulations as a
  "humanly habitable structure."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and there is no dispute that the sculpture is not a building in that sense. In short, the court rejected the claim that the sculpture was a building.</p>

united-states copyright