While most art can be protected by copyright laws, if a \u201cnew\u201d piece of art is too similar to a prior work, then it cannot be protected. The work of art, at the very least, must be \u201ca new and original expression of some previous work.\u201d Davidson v. United States, No. 13-942C, 2018 Fed. Cl. WL 3213604, at *10 (Fed. Cl. Jun. 29, 2018). A thin line lies between creating a new embodiment of artistic expression of the Statue of Liberty, and a mere replica. However, this begs the question of where exactly defines the line that separates a mere replica and a new interpretation of art?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fortunately for us, that fine line may have gotten just a bit clearer after the
United States Court of Federal Claims issued a $3.5 million judgment in favor of an artist who created his own interpretation of the Statue of Liberty. Davidson, 2018 Fed. Cl. at *1. Mistaking it for the iconic Statue of Liberty, the United States Postal Service (USPS) created a stamp from an image of the face of Robert Davidson\u2019s statue, which stands outside of the New York – New York Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. Id.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The question for the court was whether Davidson\u2019s statue constituted a new artistic expression of the Statue of Liberty, so as to be protected by copyright law, or whether it is merely a replica. Id. The answer to that question would determine whether Davidson was eligible for copyright damages resulting from the USPS\u2019s unauthorized use of Davidson\u2019s art on the stamp. For Davidson to receive damages, his statue had to be considered an artistic interpretation of the Statue of Liberty, and not just a replica. Id. at *10; however, if Davidson\u2019s statue was only a replica of the Statue of Liberty, and therefore not protectable by copyright law, then the USPS could not infringe. Id.<\/p>\n\n\n\n