Police Detective NYC with a Leica

[mw_uio]

This is a story about a detective in NYC who roamed the ruins of the world trade center with his leica.

This is the link..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060827/ap_on_re_us/ground_zero_photos


Hope everone enjoys!!


Mark
Quito, Ecuador

 

[Uncle Bill]

interesting, I hope he holds onto the copyrights to his photos.

Bill

 

[Chris Lynch]

wow, that's some thin ice he's on.

 

[boarini2003]

I hope he wins the case.

 

[egpj]

Making him use his equipment and then he could not expense the cost of processing the film. I don't know. He might be able to get away with it. The lawyers will have to make the city look evil which is not hard.

 

[BillBingham2]

Way too many political folks looking for easy money. Makes me sad to call myself a former New Yorker.

If the City can not say what is job was, they it should be ruled that it was not part of his job. It should be their (the Cities) responsibility to prove it was part of his job.

We are breeding way too many lawyers.

B2 (;->

 

[vodid]

What did the police department pay for? The camera...no. The film, the processing and printing...no. But they were perfectly happy to use the photos, and his photos from the past, to promote themselves in their own personal careers. And now they want to say they own the negatives? Look, this was obviously one of those recurring legal nightmares that any of us could find ourselves in, where the guy who has an interest in photography is appreciated by those around him for the photos he takes...and they are all happy to use his photographs for their own purposes...until all of a sudden they think the guy might perhaps make some unexpected money from the hobby he has funded for decades. And the weak excuse is that he did this on company time? Why didn't they stop him from making photographs on company time years ago? This is bull**** and greed. I vote for the photographer.

 

[RdEoSg]

I doubt it.. then he would have been arrested.

Yea it looks like the city may lose this one. Or if they do win it seems he should be able to counter sue for rental fee's for his camera, for film, processing, etc.. It's only fair.

 

[RdEoSg]

ummmm I think you need new police officers... 😉

Unless of course there were some rangefinders in the evidence room... you might want to find that out before finding new police officers 😉

 

[Dougg]

Mamphis, interesting though drifting off-topic... Our small city here in the middle of Washington State for a time had a Police Chief who had started her career as a patrol officer in Memphis, and was surprised when hired by Redmond WA (home of Microsoft) that the culture was so different out here... Uniformed officers here didn't rate free coffee at the diner, nor free groceries at the market. No sleeping on duty either. She went on to teach and straighted out some corruption at the state's police training academy, then served as our Chief, and I just heard she's the new Chief at the state's third largest city which has a few scandals for her to work on there.

 

[Ben Z]

John Botte spoke and showed slides of his 9/11 photos at the LHSA annual meeting in Williamsburg, VA a couple years ago. I don't have an opinion about all this fuss but his images were spectacular.

 

[macnorfin]

What did the police department pay for? The camera...no. The film, the processing and printing...no. But they were perfectly happy to use the photos, and his photos from the past, to promote themselves in their own personal careers. And now they want to say they own the negatives?

His work is quite simply work-for-hire. He was employed by the NYPD at the time he took the photos and used his position with the authority of the agency to gain access to areas that were not open to the general public. The PD owns the photos.

 

[swoop]

Actually. My vote is for the city. He was on company time. And those photos are exclusive to his employment. He would not have otherwise had access.