Dispute over Ground Zero photos

Most private entities (apart from chartered not-for-profits) exist to make money for their investors. HOW they do that varies. Some entities sell products, some sell services (e.g. wedding coordinators), some offer services (e.g. charities, government agencies) and we pay for those government services as taxpayers. Government is somewhat a 'non-profit' entity, it is overhead on society. The taxpayer pays for the government to exist, whereas the newspaper exists to make profit, as you point out.

Newspapers make their profit by selling newspapers, which attract ads that generate revenue. In contrast, car magazines make their profit by selling car enthusiast publications, which attract ads that generate revenue. Cops and firemen exist to offer services like maintaining law and order or protecting us and our property from harm.

I say the city shouldnt be trying to make profit out of such tradgedy.

I would posit that police and fire departments exist to provide those services. The reason for the existence of the human beings who are employed by those departments is a more philosophical question.

Touche.

But an individual should??

i dont get it? is ANYONE here actually against this guy doing what we all here would love to do?...sell your photos? why is everyone against this guy? Soooo many people have made $$$ from 9/11 writers, hollywood, network tv, newspapers, security services (rent-a-cops) i even seen companies selling parachutes to office workers.. so if they had to jump out of a highrise.... now that was amazing! I think this guy, especially now that he's out of work SHOULD be able to sell his photos, besides, he's not selling them to people who are glorifying the tradgedey, he's selling them to someone who wrote a book. Even if he DID take them while on the job, this kind of lawsuit, if won by the city, sets a really bad precident for photographers everywhere. Hell, even I take shot while at work... does it mean my boss owns the rights to them?

You're right. We should only be concerned about what photographers want, as opposed to what may be right.



The fact of the matter is that the city may well have a case, and they're permitted to present it...

I for one am 110% behind him.

If his health has been seriously affected by his time at the site, which seems to be the case, then he's going to need all the cash he can get.

Having lost both my father and grandfather to asbestosis, i can say without fear of contradiction that it's a thoroughly nasty way to die, and almost as bad to see. Any other chronic lung disorder will be similar.

As for profiting out of a tragedy, spare me the bleeding heart stuff. From the companies that did the site clearance to the company that builds the new tower, EVERYONE will be making money out of it. However the little guy as per usual, gets sued.

Yes, But JUST Photographers.. nobody else! lol

Seriously, what you might consider right or wrong, some one else might not... we ALL dont have to agree... geeze

Now, whether or not the city has a case I guss is up to a judge to decide... I just think they really dont.... if it were just a fight between the city and an employee losing his job over taking pics while on the clock, it would be different, but since they are actually suing him for the $$ earned, it just seems fishey, why didnt they sue for the rights before the pics sold? Plus, he wasnt under any type of contract as a photographer... if he bought lunch and a lotto ticket and hit, would the winnings belong to the city? They might if the city actually wins this one! It just seems wrong... I dont know why, and I really dont understand what the big deal is but im thinking this is something deeper between this guy and the city than what meets the eye. The city seems to have a really good reason to go after this guy, almost vendetta like!

you sorta took the words right out of my mouth...

For what?

Certainly not his medical bills. The city will be on the hook for that.

So, what would it be for? Sympathy money?

For one thing, it wasn't a tragedy. It was a wanton act of war. A tragedy is a earthquake, a flood, a tornado, getting hit by a car. This was war; it was murderous, but rises clearly to the level of formal warfare. The cop took the pictures with his own equipment, and at his own expense, not as an official act or requirement of the job. He was given permission by his boss to do so without being told to turn the images over to his superiors. I suspect that taking photos were unlikely to have affected his duties. I am sure the photos didn't take but seconds from the city's time and could be easily covered by personal 'break time'. The city is greedy. They want the money. It has nothing to do with right, or respect or jobs. They flat out want the cash because governments like cashflow. Unless there are rules existing, that he signed off on, that said the city would own every photo taken by someone paid by the city during his tour, this is the state seeking to steal artist rights from a photographer. Robert Capa was paid for his pictures, Ernie Pyle paid for his words - does this mean that what someone wrote or painted as a result of their experiences while paid by a government agency that the government now owns the compiled thoughts of that person? Why is a photo any different from a written word, or a drawing, or a painting that developed from the experience? The city wants to sell those photos and own them for years and years to come. Its greed. Its theft. I don't care what any court says to the contrary. We should be defending his freedom of artistic ownership and insist that this be treated no differently than other artist expressions coming from the same events.

We all need look pass the 9/11 issue and look at it in a different light. Let say this cop was, while on duty, doing a photo shoot in a studio and the photos were used in some publication. Would you believe that these photos belong to the NYPD. Here is another scenario, let say the cop, while on duty, worked as a bouncer in a ritzy night club. Unfortunately there was a shooting and the cop was involved would the NYPD be involve in this matter? As tax payer would you feel ok that public servants while on the clock is working another job?

BTW, NYPD get paid Overtime and they are in peace officer status 24/7 365 days a year, unless they leave the country on vacation.

Taking photos of a moment as huge as 9/11 is not in the same arena as doing additonal paid work that would take way huge amounts of time while on duty. Your example, lostdoggy, is way too extreme. Especially since it would be a firing offense, and is covered by written rules. This is about images taken with permission of a superior officer. your statement would imply that anything a police/fireman does in or out of uniform would belong to the state. Private art comandered by the state because they think they can doesn't quite cut in my view. If it were your images at stake would a different tone might be in the offering? Before you answer, they will be eventually if the city wins this one.

That is the point, people are taking too much in account the event that let to the photos rather then the action in itself. If in fact the cop was order to take the photos then the photos without a doubt belongs to the City.

What a cop or anyone else for that matters does in their free time is their business and it would belong to the individual as long as it does not violate their employment agreement.

You must also remember moments after 9/11 the effected area was under lockdown and only authorized personnels were allow to enter. If the Cop enter into the area on the pretense of official duties then he have enter the area as being on the clock. If he took those photos as a cop then yes the photos belong to the city, since as you've stated it would be a firing offense to perform action of personal gain. If he posted the photos online to share without personal gains then yes he can take those pictures. But the very fact that he use his badge to gain access and make personal gain as a result then he have violate his employment contractual agreement. Being a cop only allows him uphold the law not to be above the law. Please look beyond the 9/11 and not be blinded by it. The LAW of this country did not stop for him to take pictures while those effected layed in suffering.