Dispute over Ground Zero photos

No but they do have the responsibility of paying for his medical care for what may be a very costly job-related illness and perhaps have the responsibility for caring for his survivors if he dies prematurely. It appears they could be maneuvering for an "I'll drop my lawsuit if you drop yours" scenario in order to shirk that responsibility.

So how would that, in any way, suggest he should be allowed to sell the photos??

well, whos equipment did he use? and when exactly was he shooting? what about the time it took to prepare the images? submit and all that? sounds like someone in NYC has a hard on to make a name for themselves or are trying to stop this guy from earning a buck from this tragedy.. at any rate, if this is true NYC needs to get off their high horse and give this one up! My bet is they are trying to make some sort of point here.. but one that makes little to none sense!

Oh, I would have fun with that!
lol

As I've been saying, I think this whole thing will hinge on whose equipment was used, who paid for processing, etc.

I think the detective will prevail, but I also think the city can make a case for onwership, and they should...

yeah if they really decide to persue it i guess they can but is it worth it? Whats the point? Just for revenge? WTF? Politicians are something else!

"Worth it"?

I guess that's based on what your perspective is. If the city believes it's worth it, then they'll go for it. If they win, they win. If they lose, they lose.

But they seem to have a reasonable case...

youd think theyd have just fired the guy for not doing his job, but it just seems they are trying to get back at him for something.
By worth it i ment all the bad publicity... it makes the city look like its trying to bully this guy.. hell, thats how I feel.. it seems like a "david and Goliath story.. wonder how it will end?

ok, lol.. i think i got it now... this cop is prolly in the wrong because of the fact he was on duty... now, the pics are in a book by another cop, the city wants all the $$$ from said book.. the cop who wrote the book then needs to pay the cop who took the photos and then the city needs to get the profits from the writer also. i think.. this is confusing! someone owes sombody else something.. lol but this cop who took the shots, he used his equipment but not his time.. Hmmmm. it now looks like he's screwed.. i just wonder why its so important the city gets the money?

Because they believe the ownership of the photos is theirs.

Bernard Kerik made a donation from his profits. I suspect that this type of arrangement was offered to the detective (it would be common sense to do so), and that he declined.

He, therefore, gets whatever's coming to him. If the decision is that the photos are his, he gets to retain the profits. If the decision is otherwise, he loses the profits.

A fair arrangement...

As has been pointed out by someone in civil service, what gets created on gov't time belongs to the gov't. On the other hand, the guy's health apparently has been deteriorated by his involvement. So it seems that the arbitration of this probably ought to be 'let us call it even'. OTOH, someone pointed out the issue of propering from public tragedy, so maybe he ought to offer the proceeds back to the agencies of the NYFD and NYPD that takes care of widows and family left from 9/11!

I think your right then steve...

as for profiting off a tradgedy, the news and papers do it all the time.. as does Hollywood..and TV. Nothing wrong with providing info to the people who want it and if they are gonna pay someone, it might as well be you. I do agree that he should donate some of the proceeds... esp the fact that as a resident and an ex cop.. he should know first hand what they need and what theyd like to have. But, if the courts rule in his favor, its his money and he gets to decide what to do with it.. He can give me some... lol

I don't mean to suggest that (which is a matter for the courts to decide) so much as call the city's motives into question.

But Newspapers and TV are in existence to bring us news. This guy wasn't...he was in existence to serve the public as a member of the police force. Newspapers and TV stations are legal entities that do not gain at the personal level, like the ex-cop would.

Hollywood...profits indirectly, from the movies, etc. spawned off by the story. All the war movies from WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, no different! Not profiting directly, like the ex-cop would.

Time will tell its story about the character (or lack thereof)

With the exception of NPR and C-span (at least in the US) that is not true. Newspapers and TV are in existence to sell advertising and make profits for their owners, which is why Jon-Benet Ramsey and Tom Cruise get more coverage than the U.S. Congress in many cases.