Artist sues Postal Service for using Vegas version of Lady Liberty on forever stamp
LAS VEGAS — An embarrassing mistake involving a Statue of Liberty stamp could come back to haunt the Postal Service.
The “forever” stamp design released in 2011 was not based on the statue in New York Harbor, as intended, but on a replica outside the New York-New York casino hotel in Las Vegas.
The sculptor who made the Lady Liberty of the Las Vegas Strip is suing the government for copyright infringement.
Attorneys for Robert Davidson argue in a suit filed last week that the Sin City statue was more “fresh-faced” and “sultry” than the original. They say these differences led the government to prefer Davidson's statue.
A spokesman for the Postal Service did not immediately return calls. The Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor has appeared on more than 20 stamps.
Davidson's attorneys say the Lady Liberty who welcomes weary gamblers has a more feminine form. The original, they say, was just an “inspiration” that provided “loose height, width and depth requirements.” The claim notes that Davidson never visited the New York statue while designing his diminutive copy.
The two ladies do look unmistakably different. The Las Vegas sister has more stylish hair and appears to be smirking slightly. Her crown features a plaque, visible but not legible in the stamp, that reads, “This One's For You Mom.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Phone threats put scare into international flights
- California man beaten by deputies on video faces charges
- Dinosaurs may have been warm-blooded after all
- Diplomats report progress in U.S.-Cuba talks, which will continue
- Defense chief says U.S. can fly over South China Sea
- EPA’s temporary pesticide-free zones would protect commercial honeybees
- Texas rivers threaten cities downstream