Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Your Rights Online

Court Rules Photo of Memorial Violates Copyright 426

Posted by kdawson
from the stamp-of-disapproval dept.
WhatDoIKnow sends in a story about an appeals court ruling in a singular case that might have the effect of narrowing "fair use" rights for transformative uses of artworks. "The sculptor who designed the Korean War memorial [in Washington DC] brought suit against the Postal Service after a photograph of his work was used on a postage stamp. Though first ruled protected by 'fair use,' on appeal the court ruled in favor (PDF) of the sculptor, Frank Gaylord, now 85."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Rules Photo of Memorial Violates Copyright

Comments Filter:
  • I suppose (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:06PM (#31309686)

    he's more obnoxious than a Reserved Gaylord.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:49PM (#31310122)

      This is nothing more than a huge slap in the face to all American veterans, of any conflict.

      My grandfather was in Korea, and he made what's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life: his genitals. Thankfully, he had three kids by the time he was sent over, one of them being my mother. But it still apparently left him a very changed man, more so than most veterans.

      I am glad that he is no longer around, to spare him from having to hear of this disgraceful ruling. Many of his friends' names were on that monument.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dimeglio (456244)

        Appeals court rulings are overturned frequently by supreme courts (google it) - if they hear the case (which the blatantly should). US postal service should be able to get there. I'm not worried but then again I'm not in the US. Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by SpockLogic (1256972)

          Appeals court rulings are overturned frequently by supreme courts (google it) - if they hear the case (which the blatantly should). US postal service should be able to get there. I'm not worried but then again I'm not in the US. Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal is strange and can be infuriating.

          Especially as the decision was 2 - 1 with a strong and well agued dissent.

        • Why are there so many cases where there is a reversal

          To a great extent it's because Federal appeals court judges are political appointees, more often than not chosen because of their partisan politics rather than any sort of legal knowledge. No experience as a lower-court judge is necessary, for that matter a number of them have been appointed after spending all of their post-Bar Exam years lobbying or politicking rather than practicing law.
      • by tuxgeek (872962) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @10:11PM (#31311158)

        Agreed
        If the sculptor wanted exclusive rights to this work in question, he should have put the thing in an art museum

        To place a war memorial in a national public arena should make it public domain.
        Whats next? Will he now go after and sue everyone that has snapped this thing with their point & shoot?

        I have a friend that is so disgusted with our government that he now votes against every incumbent that comes up for reelection
        Perhaps if we all took to this strategery, we could eventually rid ourselves of this scum that has fubar'd the country

  • by jjoelc (1589361) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:07PM (#31309690)

    Silly me... I thought the point of a memorial was for it to be placed in the trust of (or outright given to) the public... That being the case, how does this decision affect other images of public art?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by timeOday (582209)
      Yeah I don't get it, when somebody comissions an artwork, don't they therefore own the artwork? In this case that would be all of us.
      • by nedlohs (1335013) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:24PM (#31309862)

        from TFA:

        "she went over all of the available documents and found that they expressly kept those [IP] rights with Gaylord"

        So no the idiots at the Army Corps of Engineers who signed the contract for this didn't in fact get ownership of anything other than the physical sculpture.

        • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:36PM (#31309988)
          And shouldn't any photos of the memorial be under the copyright of whoever takes the picture? For example, although the design for, say an iPhone may be under copyright, I can still take a picture of it and Apple isn't going to claim copyright of it. Now, if I took a press shot of it, they might have a case, but an individual picture? No, they aren't going to do anything.
          • by nedlohs (1335013)

            No, it becomes a derivative work.

            You can't take a photo of a photo to get around the photographer's copyright, for example.

            There are exceptions to this, but sculpture isn't one.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by GrubLord (1662041)

            I think it's more about whether you're making profit from the picture, and what about the image - precisely - you are monetizing.

            If you sold your photo to a magazine for an iPhone-related article, you're in the clear because you are illustrating an existing product, and the value of the image lies in the skilful portrayal of the object in question.

            If you sold the photo to Chinese bootleg manufacturers so they can replicate the UI, or started making money off your revolutionary new idea, which you call the "

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by UnknowingFool (672806)
            Fair use is probably a legal defense especially when no money is involved. If you took a picture of an iPhone for a news story, that's fair use as it serves a legitimate purpose. If you used it to make a poster that you sell, that's not fair use. Ever wonder why movies have to get approval for products to be shown? Same reason. In fact if you look at the photo of the iPhone on wikipedia it tells you why it is covered under fair use.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by JWSmythe (446288)

              I think you're confusing product placement with copyright and approved uses.

              You see very obvious brand names in movies and TV because they are sponsoring the movie. It's advantageous for them to have their products shown.

              Don't think every couch, lamp, and article of clothing had a royalty paid for it's use. You could extend that idea to "character A walks through a door. He hangs his jacket on a hook." Consider every element in that shot. The clothes, the doo

      • Depends on the contract. Look at wedding photographers - often if not they retain the copyrights.

        • by nigelo (30096)

          Hardly the same thing, is it? They are retaining rights to the photos, surely.

          Unless you mean photos of the cake?

      • I don't get it. A post is marked "Interesting" for asking a question that is already covered IN DETAIL in TFA!
        The artist won a competition to design the memorial. At no stage was he paid, or contracts entered into...

        • by Cryptnotic (154382) * on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:51PM (#31310142) Homepage

          I don't get it. A post is marked "Interesting" for asking a question that is already covered IN DETAIL in TFA!

          You must be new here.

      • by Ghostworks (991012) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:31PM (#31309924)

        They own the piece of art. They don't own the work. For example, if you buy one of two hundred prints of an artist's latest painting, you just own a print, but the artist retains ownership of the IP (the painting) and all copies (the print). You wouldn't be able to just photocopy (or, according to this court ruling, photograph) and distribute the copies freely. One of the best -- and most annoying -- examples is wedding photos, which the photographer usually retains rights to, even if he sells you prints.

        The same is true even if you're sold original works, not copies (such as books, replica painting) or even a singular work (the only existing sculpture, like in this case). This is why copyrights are supposed to expire: eventually, all art should belong to mankind as a whole as part of our common culture. The founding fathers never intended for anyone to be able sit on his laurels and live off a single work for his entire life, much less for three generations of his estate to benefit after his death.

        As has already been noted, the interpretation of a picture of a monument as a derivative work subject to protection under copy right is harsh narrowing of fair use rights. While non-profit "reproductions" (say, vacation photos in front of the memorial) would probably still be considered fair use, it gives IP owners with a litigious mindset a very big stick.

        • by turbidostato (878842) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @11:18PM (#31311522)

          "One of the best -- and most annoying -- examples is wedding photos, which the photographer usually retains rights to, even if he sells you prints."

          As long as you surrender your rights as a consumer it's no wonder others will abuse of that.

          I married two years ago and I made damn clear I was contracting a service and that all byproducts and associated rights from that service were my own. There were two phographers that didn't see it that way... well, they didn't get neither the copyright nor the money for the service.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by codegen (103601)

        Unfortunately, it depends on the contract between the artist and the commissioner. It is becoming more and more common for the artist to retain the copyright. When an artist paints a picture and sells it, they often now explicitly put in the bill of sale that the copyright is not transferred, allowing them to sell prints of the painting even after they have sold the painting.

        In another discussion group, we were discussing the incidents surrounding the Mackie dance sculptures on Broadway St. in Seattle. Th

    • by uvajed_ekil (914487) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:14PM (#31309772)
      Silly me... I thought the point of a memorial was for it to be placed in the trust of (or outright given to) the public... That being the case, how does this decision affect other images of public art?

      Scary, or perhaps stupid, or even ridiculous. This was commissioned by Congress and occupies space in a public park. It belongs to the United States, so we should be able to use images of it just as we do with the other public buildings and monuments we own. It is a beautiful monument to those who risked and gave their lives for us. If some blowhard "artist" wants to retain all image rights to his work, then he should keep a piece for himself, not expect us to build a setting for it and maintain it. Plenty of artists could have created something as significant without being assholes about it.
      • BTW, I'm sure WE paid for it, too. It is massive and huge in scale, so I sincerely doubt the artist footed the cost out of pocket and just donated it all. So should I insist on retaining rights to all work I do, even when someone else pays me to do it and I do not negotiate such rights beforehand?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NeutronCowboy (896098)

        The people who approved this contract ought to be drawn and quartered. Not only did the guy get paid royally for his work, he gets to keep the IP without actually contributing anything to its maintenance. I couldn't find anything about how much the upkeep is, but it seems to me that if the guy wants to keep control over his work, he ought to maintain it himself, along with the park in which it stands. If he doesn't want to do that, he clearly is not interested in keeping control of it.

      • Scary, or perhaps stupid, or even ridiculous. This was commissioned by Congress and occupies space in a public park. It belongs to the United States, so we should be able to use images of it just as we do with the other public buildings and monuments we own.

        And the Corps of Engineers should be able to take the damn thing to a safe place and blow it up. I'd rather see it destroyed than stand in mockery of the men it commemorates.

      • Well, I'm never going to DC to see it, and since taking photos of it is a violation of his copyright I suppose I'll never see it. Gaylord (what an unfortunate name, BTW) is an idiot. Now, instead of millions seeing his creation only the handful of people who actually venture to DC then venture to the area where it is will get to see and enjoy it.

        If this tool wants to restrict the viewing of his creation then so be it. It's his loss that so many people will miss out on it. Artists just don't seem to have the

      • by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:03PM (#31310676)

        IANAL, but I can see where fair use would be an appealing technique here, but the public trust might actually be the right way to argue this one. The argument to make would be that whoever signed the contract, and perhaps even the Congress, does not have the power to grant the artist a copyright good against the public in a case where, as in a monument, the work is commissioned for display at the seat of the federal government and for the public good. The monument is something created for and held in the public trust and as such, control over its use cannot be restricted to a single individual or corporation.

        The idea of the public trust overriding corporate ownership came up about a hundred years ago when a Railroad Company was arguing an older (1869, IIRC) act of the (corrupt) Illinois legislature had successfully given the railroad company title to a square mile of the lakebed of Lake Michigan. The court held that if the title had been valid, it certainly didn't survive a repeal of the original act, and in any event the State couldn't really give up control of its harbor to a private entity because that would violate the public trust.

        The environmental law folks pulled the public trust doctrine out of a drawer about 40 years ago, now, and it might have been useful here.

    • by b4upoo (166390)

      Even worse a photo of a sculpture does not replicate the sculpture. That is the overwhelming fact when the photo is a reduced drawing on a stamp. Then the next issue is that the selling of an object should convey absolute rights to the new owner and disolve all rights of the seller. The moral and ethical issues of copyright are so twisted that copyright needs to be eliminated.

  • by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:09PM (#31309712)
    Knock down his statue, break it into a million pieces, and send them all to his house using the infringing stamps.
    • by Kpau (621891)
      I'm up for that. Actually, dumping them on the judge's lawn might be the next best thing. What an inordinately stupid ruling. Sooooooo, if my kid *sketches a public piece of art (or hell, wanders into an art museum and sketches) - this is verboten? Sounds like the wrong rules were invoked.
      • by TheABomb (180342)
        Actually, most museums DO HAVE official "Sketching Policies" detailing which, if any, pieces in their collections you may or may not sketch.
    • Only if I pay you for it. That's a really nice picture btw.

  • by xerent_sweden (1010825) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:11PM (#31309748)
    Is this one of those... monumental rulings?
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:19PM (#31309818)

    It's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it's not okay to use that photo to market your service, such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp. This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp.

    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:41PM (#31310048)
      Why not? Look at all the things marketed through sculptures. Is it wrong for Toronto to promote their city using the CN Tower? Heck, is it wrong for Washington DC to use it to promote their city? Throughout history, people have used landmarks to promote things, and there has been no lose do to it. I see no difference in this.
    • It's okay to take a photo of a sculpture but it's not okay to use that photo to market your service, such as the way the USPS was trying to do with this stamp. This is part of the reason they make sure people are dead for a good long time before they honor them with a postage stamp.

      That doesn't make any sense. If you take a picture of me, it's not as if I retain any authorship rights to my own face. The "living persons" rule does apply to images of people on U.S. stamps, but not to images of sculptures AFAIK.

      Now this is a quote from the findings in the ruling:

      Analysis of the purpose and character of the use also includes whether the “use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” 17 U.S.C. 107. The Postal Service acknowledged receiving $17 million from the sale of nearly 48 million 37-cent stamps. An estimated $5.4 million in stamps were sold to collectors in 2003. The stamp clearly has a commercial purpose. The Court of Federal Claims did not address how the commercial purpose of the stamp affected this factor of the fair use analysis.

      This gets down to the question of what a stamp is for. Is the $5.4 million figure even relevant? All those stamp collectors can still mail letters with those stamps.

  • FTA - noone actually ever paid the artist for the work, and I assume it wasn't stipulated in the rules of the competition (that the artist won) that the work, and any IP related to the work, would become public domain if he won.

    Looks like a stupid oversight on behalf of the original organisers and the Postal Service for not enquiring about ownership.
    Due diligence on the part of the Postal Service wouldn't have gone astray either.

    I'm not sure where the outrage is coming from...

    • by Dachannien (617929) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:40PM (#31310032)

      From the court decision, Mr. Gaylord was paid $775k by the United States for his part of the work, and the primary contractor (who hired Mr. Gaylord directly) was paid over $5M (p. 5 of dissent).

      Personally, I'm rather confused as to how this case turned out this way. The dissent offers a very strong argument for why the government already has a license to use the artwork however it sees fit, and it also notes a federal law which should disqualify a claim against the government in this case. The US should at least try to get the CAFC to hear this case en banc, because it seems that the majority in this case overlooked some important details.

  • Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sys.stdout.write (1551563) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:24PM (#31309864)
    From the opinion...

    Fair use of a copyrighted work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

    17 U.S.C. 107

    This is the law. This is not how the Postal Service used his copyrighted work. As an aside, this is also not what Tenenbaum et al. did when they downloaded music.

    We shouldn't complain when judges use restraint and don't bastardize statutes.

    • Re:Fair Use (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jjoelc (1589361) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:31PM (#31309936)

      Notice in my original post, I never lambasted the judge... just the idea that a war memorial, in a public place, commissioned by the public (er... gov't in this case, but isn't that supposed to be the same here?)

      Given those circumstances... shouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that the rights for the memorial also be placed in the public trust?

      I agree... Bad contract from the start that let this slip through.

    • Re:Fair Use (Score:4, Funny)

      by Nimey (114278) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:34PM (#31309962) Homepage Journal

      Judicial activism is when a judge does something I don't like.

    • Re:Fair Use (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kjella (173770) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:56PM (#31310206) Homepage

      Fair use is determined by the four factor test and that list is not exhaustive, for example "timeshifting" which was vital to the Betamax case is not listed nor covered by any of the others. So the only one bastardizing the statutes here is you, by asserting that it can't be fair use since it's not on the list.

    • Re:Fair Use (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeremy Erwin (2054) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @08:41PM (#31310532) Journal

      I don't think you understand copyright law. A finding of fair use requires that the derivative work survive the "four factor test". Mere inclusion in the category of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is neither neccessary nor sufficient for a finding of "fair use".

      The task is not to be simplified with bright line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case by case analysis. Harper & Row, 471 U. S., at 560; Sony, 464 U. S., at 448, and n. 31; House Report, pp. 65-66; Senate Report, p. 62. The text employs the terms "including" and "such as" in the preamble paragraph to indicate the "illustrative and not limitative" function of the examples given, 101; see Harper & Row, supra, at 561, which thus provide only general guidance about the sorts of copying that courts and Congress most commonly had found to be fair uses. Nor may the four statutory factors be treated in isolation, one from another. All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright. See Leval 1110-1111; Patry & Perlmutter, Fair Use Misconstrued: Profit, Presumptions, and Parody, 11 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 667, 685-687 (1993) (hereinafter Patry & Perlmutter).

      Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994). [cornell.edu]

  • by fluffy99 (870997) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:28PM (#31309904)

    The underlying problem is that copyrights were improperly assigned to Gaylord in the first place. Being under contract to the govt, those copyrights should have been assigned to the govt. In fact the contracting officer has been and still is demanding that those improperly assigned copyrights be turned over. The court wasn't allowed to challenge the validity of those copyrights and had to take them at face value.

    • by OzPeter (195038) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:50PM (#31310130)

      The underlying problem is that copyrights were improperly assigned to Gaylord in the first place.

      I think the word you are actually looking for is something like "erroneously" or "stupidly". It seems like the copyrights were properly assigned.

      • by fluffy99 (870997)

        The underlying problem is that copyrights were improperly assigned to Gaylord in the first place.

        I think the word you are actually looking for is something like "erroneously" or "stupidly". It seems like the copyrights were properly assigned.

        The govt in its arguments used the word "improperly assigned" so I stuck with that. Erroneously implies by mistake to me. Gaylord wasn't the sole holder so it was improper to have assigned him a copyright saying so. A bit ironic as it was a govt office that screwed that up.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:32PM (#31309952)

    Call me crazy, but wasn't the sculpture created from a photo? Hmmmm...

  • by Telephone Sanitizer (989116) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:38PM (#31310008)

    17 million sales of $.37 stamps = 46 million or so stamps actually produced.

    Statutory damages can run from $750-$30,000 per copy, assuming that it wasn't a willful infringement.

    That's a minimum award of $34,500,000,000 (34.5 billion) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 (1.4 trillion). Plus attorney's fees, of course. Roughly last year's federal deficit not counting off-budget spending bills.

    Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are not way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement?

    • That should have started, "With $17 million in sales..."

    • by mr_matticus (928346) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:43PM (#31310072)

      That's a minimum award of $34,500,000,000 (34.5 billion) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 (1.4 trillion).

      No, it's a minimum award of $750 and a maximum of $30,000, assuming no willful infringement.

      Statutory damages are per work, not per copy.

      Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are not way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement?

      Complete non-sequitur. Is a $30,000 penalty for a corporation misusing someone else's property too high? Of course not. Is the same penalty too high for a kid who is pirating music for his iPod? Almost certainly.

    • The damages depend on how much of the value of the stamp is derived from the picture on it. Most of the value of the stamp is tied up in what it can do for you (convince the USPS to deliver your letter/package), not the picture on front.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Theaetetus (590071)

      17 million sales of $.37 stamps = 46 million or so stamps actually produced.

      Statutory damages can run from $750-$30,000 per copy, assuming that it wasn't a willful infringement.

      That's a minimum award of $34,500,000,000 (34.5 billion) and a maximum award of 1,380,000,000,000 (1.4 trillion). Plus attorney's fees, of course. Roughly last year's federal deficit not counting off-budget spending bills.

      Would anyone here care to argue that statutory damages in the U.S. are not way out of proportion to the scope of the infringement?

      I would care to argue that... Mainly because you're misquoting the statute. 17 USC 504(c)(1) says: "... the copyright owner may elect... an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $ 750 or more than $ 30,000 as the court considers just."

      It's $750-$30k per work, not per copy. This was specificall

  • The guy thinks too much of himself and his work, imo. I mean something like that should be seen as given to the public rather than having some guy controlling it like it's gold. In fact I think the latest developments in copyright are making everyone think their work is much more important than it is.

    The government should give the memorial back to him and tell him to get bent.
  • Is this on public land? Did the artist get public dollars?
    • by kalidasa (577403)
      I believe such monuments are usually funded by subscription by private organizations; and I find evidence that such is the case for this Memorial. So, NO, your tax dollars did not pay for this, though it is on public land; I do not know if the Federal government maintains the site or a private organization does so (as is the case with e.g. Monticello).
  • by gmuslera (3436) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @07:54PM (#31310162) Homepage Journal
    Setting precedents opens the door to business opportunities. Just put a sign or whatever near very public and photographed places, and sue any publication that from now on include photos of those places because they are sharing your sign too. Even a grafitti could eventually do the work.
  • The monument itself is based on a famous photo. The postal service should have bypassed the monument new artwork for the stamp based on the photo.

    Did the sculpter pay royalties to Joe Rosenthal [wikipedia.org] the photographer? Or to the AP, which employed him? If not, this is the height of hypocracy.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by PacoCheezdom (615361)
      The memorial that looks like Rosenthal's famous photograph of the flag being raised on Iwo Jima is the Marine Corps Memorial in Arlington VA. This article is about the Korean War Memorial in Washington DC. I mean, I know that nobody reads the articles here but seriously the Iwo Jima battle wasn't even during the Korean War -- it was WWII.
  • by NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @08:19PM (#31310368)
    When a society ceases to produce real property, the value of intangible property virtually soars. Even our money is no longer tangible, as vastly larger sums flow through wires than through hands. Someday, free speech will not be, as the government will see it as the last bastion of tax revenues.
    • by kalidasa (577403)
      I certainly hope you don't characterize "real estate" as "real property." The owner of real estate owns something just as abstract as the owner of Intellectual Property does - the right to use and occupy land. Ultimately, all property is abstract: if you hand me a five dollar bill to look at, does it become my property because it is in my possession, or does it remain your property?
  • by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @08:24PM (#31310398) Homepage

    I read the decision as a straightforward and reasonable interpretation of fair use. It may clarify some points, but I don't see that it narrows fair use.

  • Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)

    by smd75 (1551583)

    This is just wrong.

    It was commissioned by Congress. "Management of the memorial was turned over to the National Park Service, under its National Mall and Memorial Parks group. As with all National Park Service historic areas, the memorial was administratively listed on the National Register of Historic Places on the day of its dedication." (wikipedia)

    I think, as the piece being commissioned by congress and the managing body by the US Park Service, the artist can go fuck himself. As an artist my self, Im pos

  • Vets sue Gaylord (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, 2010 @09:24PM (#31310810)

    How about all of the Korean vets sue Frank Gaylord for intruding on their IP. After all, they FOUGHT the war.

  • Solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stormy Dragon (800799) on Sunday February 28, 2010 @11:53PM (#31311752) Homepage
    Why don't we comission a new Korean War Memorial sculpture, smash Mr. Gaylord's sculpture to bits and then mail him the pieces?

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...