It means that they used a photo with unclear provenance, or they didn’t check the provenance. For issuing a stamp, you don’t just take a random photo of the statue and eyeball it and say “looks close enough to me”.
If you release an open source software with GPL license that is just a wrapper of an MIT licensed library, and someone manages to misuse your software, should you be entitled to damages?
Comments
The US managed to issue a stamp with clearly the wrong Statue of Liberty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty_Forever_stam...
Which presumably everyone in the design process should have recognized, if not practically everyone in the world.
The moral being, uh, it's weird how blind people can be when they're not looking for it.
To be fair, if I'm reading that right, the difference is "a small light patch on the middle spike"?[0] I can see people missing that easily enough!
[0] Absent contextual cues about height, location, etc., which aren't on the stamp
It means that they used a photo with unclear provenance, or they didn’t check the provenance. For issuing a stamp, you don’t just take a random photo of the statue and eyeball it and say “looks close enough to me”.
Wow, the sculptor got 3.5 million USD for copyright infringement from his copycat statue.
The Statue of Greed, located appropriately at a Casino
More like, "Statue of Litigancy", am I right? /s
If you release an open source software with GPL license that is just a wrapper of an MIT licensed library, and someone manages to misuse your software, should you be entitled to damages?