Copyright suit against US Post Office reveals underlying problemsrelated to copyright laws

Carol Forsloff - Copyright issues continue to create questions for both the artist and user of artistic material in some cases, where artists, visual or performance, maintain their creative work not properly remunerated, including the artist of the famous war memorial stamp depiction of the Korean War while others claim fair use.

In this most recent case, the artist Frank Gaylord, who designed and created the sculptures that are depicted on the stamp that commemorated the 50th anniversary of the peace-signing agreement of the Korean War, is suing for a 10 percent share of the $30.2 million earned by the sale of the stamps. The US Postal Service, it is alleged,  licensed the photograph taken by John Allie, but Gaylord maintains it never got his permission to show his "The Column" art work on the stamp and retail merchandise.

Whereas outright plagiarism is often considered the major threat to an artist's work, and most other artists condemn what they also see as a theft of creative work, there are  far more subtle issues that sometimes swing issues into a no-man's land of controversy where folks no longer know when they may be cited, even for such a simple thing as posting a family video of a child's dancing to a familiar tune for the entertainment of other family members and friends.

In the case of a man called Tony, who runs a music store in the Portland, Oregon area, his daughter had been at Disneyland and was photographed with some of the Disney Characters. Tony's child was so delightful and animated during the video photography that the video put on YouTube became an overnight sensation with 7 million hits and counting. But later, when Tony videoed his little daughter dancing in the living room, he was cited for copyright infringement, as the child was dancing to music from the television set.  The music itself was copyrighted, and Tony's video-taping accented his daughter's dancing. But the copyright was maintained so that the publishing company is free to advertise on the video itself.

Cover songs are often used by musicians to demonstrate their musical abilities to potential employers or for simple entertainment of friends and the public. These days, since YouTube allows the uploading of material in many areas outside of the creative ones, the competition for page views has increased dramatically, so that many musicians find their quality work, including original tunes, at the bottom of a seemingly bottomless dumpster that contains YouTube videos suggestive of incest, rape and some that depict physical violence on many levels. Yet, despite YouTube's written standards, these questionable videos remain a part of the video family, while Tony's video received a citation. Furthermore, many folks may present a cover song and receive no reprimand at all, whereas others doing the same thing with the same song will be asked to take the video down or to allow advertising. The more popular the channel, it appears, the more apt the publisher via YouTube, will respond with a citation of third-party content to allow advertising and prohibit any remuneration by the user. This sometimes includes old gospel songs, classical pieces, and other tunes thought to be in the public domain.

And these citations come with no explanation except the reference to the copyright section of YouTube's Terms of Service.

Tony's video is one of thousands that are not direct and purposefully done depictions of another artist's work, but it reflects the questions that show the problems in the copyright laws and their applications. While direct copying of another person's song is justified  in the mind of the musician by listing it as a "cover",  the application of the rules is ambiguous at best, as many are allowed through the gate, so that cover songs are considered legal by those who do them, while an unlucky group is cited for doing far less.

Most artists want the original owner of creative material to be rewarded for the work and for its use. On the other hand, it is impossible to perform a piece of music written after 1923 without risking a YouTube warning. It is simply a matter of who gets lucky.

In the meantime, the US Post Office is now unlucky, in the sense it too is now on the copyright ropes for having allegedly crossed the line on copyright laws with a photograph that included an artist's sculpture. That might likely mean that some happy tourist who takes a picture of his family in the doorway of a room containing paintings could be cited for copyright infringement by one of the painters even if the focus is not on the paintings but the family vacation and that museum or gallery experience.

‘Going postal’ rage from bureaucracy, 'no win' rules

[caption id="attachment_7004" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Post Office"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - "Going postal” is a term that originated from workplace violence of postal workers against their work conditions.  These days it is associated with rage against bureaucracy or conditions that create a perceived "no win" condition, and these wider implications have a serious impact on not just mail service but other matters too.

In Honolulu postal workers involved in delivering the mail can be seen in office buildings and shopping centers, a good distance from the mail cart, delivering letters and packages to individual consumers.  The cart is open and ready for theft under these conditions   A letter or call of complaint to the post office may or may not impact future behavior.

In Natchitoches, Louisiana businesses and individuals have regularly found mail delivered to the wrong address,  even to  vacant buildings, or even dropped on the grasses on a street corner in some rural location somewhere.  Complain to the local post office, and the situation may or may not improve as a result.

For those who use commercial mail boxes, a catch 22 can risk non delivery of personal mail or complications that creates long delays.  For example,  “the United States Postal Service is unable to forward personal mail from a business address," specifically a mail service or mail forwarding entity.  The explanation is this:  "We are prohibited from accepting a Family or Individual change of address from a business address."  This means that an individual who uses a private mailbox service in order to avoid the delays and wrong mailings from the US postal service or for personal needs isn't able to have mail later forward to a private residential address.  This locks in the mail to the commercial address, even if an individual moves out of the area or even out of state.

The solution presented can create that ‘going postal’ condition.  The consumer is advised to alert all correspondents to arrange forwarding of personal mail.  The problem is, however,  if you have had the personal mail originally forwarded to the commercial box and then wish to have it forwarded to a new residential address,  the US postal service won’t do it.  So the old service retains the responsibility of forwarding the mail, since new correspondence will continue to follow the original address, the commercial service, since the government postal authorities will simply direct the new correspondents to that old address.  Asking businesses and friends to send letters and business mail to a personal address will simply mean those new letters and business mail will be undeliverable as addressed or sent to the commercial address.

Multiply these problems during government budget crises and add to them the policy that makes it virtually impossible to change the post office behaviors or the conduct of employees because of their government worker status.  The power becomes absolute, thereby creating a condition that goes beyond ordinary frustration, especially when there is no solution to the problems created.

Frustrations within the post office itself create conditions for workplace violence, that continue to spread in different locations, so that employees themselves are impacted as well as the public, when the rules and conditions create an impasse that has no reasonable solution, as the documentary about the Royal Oak post office revealed.

Going postal, as one website tells us, is really no laughing matter.

While politicians labor over private versus government solutions to ordinary problems, and the budget crisis looms overhead, ‘going postal’ rage increases when there is no solution, and the advice will continue the problem.  Experts it becomes the “perfect storm” for violent response to occur.   There can be a "fight or flight" response.  The solution is likely to allow individual considerations and options where solutions can occur, something large bureaucracies have difficulty doing and corporate chieftains unwilling to bend rules.  That rigidity we find in daily lives increases stress in the culture, where ‘going postal’ may include an aggressive acting out.

Solutions to managing bureaucracy are critical to avoid aggressive response, either internal or external threats.   One website describes how manage these issues.   The advice is to seek help from advocacy groups and support from friends and family.  In other words, whether it's the post office or some other bureaucracy, don't go it alone and risk 'going postal' instead.