DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> So Who Owns the Copyright? What say you?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 43, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/27/2006 07:46:05 PM · #1
Long story short...NYC police detective takes pics of 9/11 aftermath, over a period of 3 months or so, and uses his own equipment and pays for all processing...the pics are soon to be in a book...NYC mayor now says all pics and their profits should go to the police department because they were shot on city time.

I just wanted to see what kind of conversation and viewpoints this story would generate here in a group of photographers. The article is here:
NYC Policeman vs. NYC

Please keep all political viewpoints aside and focus only on the story at hand. Thanks.
 08/27/2006 07:49:17 PM · #2
My thoughts are that the copyright immediately belongs to the photographer at the click of the shutter, unless there is a legal contract that turns over the copyright.
 08/27/2006 07:50:07 PM · #3
I think that if I were the photographer that just the recognition in the book would be enough for me. I would suggest having a little blurp on the photographer and put his name on the bottom of all the pictures. I don't think the profit should go to the police department, I think it should go to all the victims families....not the department...
 08/27/2006 07:52:08 PM · #4
I think this really is a toss up. This is why we have courts of law. As a photographer I totally understand why he feels that he owns those copyrights. His camera, his ideas, taken in a public place. However, he was working and being paid by New York.

Personally, I think the mayor should stay out of this. This guy was a responder to the worst terrorist attack in our history. I say, let him have his photos.


Message edited by author 2006-08-27 19:52:38.
 08/27/2006 07:56:33 PM · #5
Originally posted by mosall:
I think this really is a toss up. This is why we have courts of law. As a photographer I totally understand why he feels that he owns those copyrights. His camera, his ideas, taken in a public place. However, he was working and being paid by New York.

Personally, I think the mayor should stay out of this. This guy was a responder to the worst terrorist attack in our history. I say, let him have his photos.


So all of the photos I've taken of bouquets and sunsets and whatever else catches my interest while technically on the clock belong to the bank? I'm going to side with the officer on this. His camera, his slow time, and his photos, whether on the clock or not. They would only belong to the department if the department commissioned him to do it or for some reason expected it of him as part of his duties. Ultimately, I think this is one for the copyright lawyers to sort out, but I definitely take his side.
08/27/2006 07:58:43 PM · #6
IMO - I think the photg owns the copyright to the images (unless there is something in his contract about images taken while on duty) BUT he could be subject to action due to abusing the cities time while on the clock (whether the city would want to open this publicity box is another thing).

It probably going to need to be determined in cout thought.. :-/
 08/27/2006 08:00:23 PM · #7
Bloomberg takes from one and gives to another. Frankly speaking, he is one of the worst things that has happened in NYC for a while. He rips off the education system and hands money to private charters. As regards this copyright issue, he has done a lot to mess up freedom of photographers in NYC. BTW, he is thinking of sanding for national office, I believe. You would be a fool to elect him.
 08/27/2006 08:00:26 PM · #8
I agree with karmabreeze.

However, I have one nagging issue in the back of my mind. What if they decide to pursue "conflict of interest" instead? That is... he was on the clock with the police department, while potentially profiting from work that he was doing on-the-side.

Now what?

08/27/2006 08:01:12 PM · #9
I would say that since he was ordered to use his own equipment and pay expenses that the only question would be his time. It shouldn't be hard to calculate the hours he spent on the job actually making photos. (EXIF info could help in this) Reimburse the city for the time he took as pay and that should make everyone happy

Just my 2c

(edited for spelling)


Message edited by author 2006-08-27 20:01:40.
 08/27/2006 08:03:55 PM · #10
The department was not paying him to take pictures. If they want to fire him for slacking (not saying that he was) then they have that right. but if they were to win then where would it end. Kevin smith wrote clerks while working at the quick stop should the owner get those rights. Tarintino wrote resivoir dogs while working at a video store do they get the rights? You think up ideas for photos while on company time do they get THOSE rights?

When a scientist discovers something while working on it for a company then the company gets the rights because that is what he was being paid for, but this is not what he was being paid to do. If it goes to court the city doesn't stand a chance IMO.
 08/27/2006 08:06:56 PM · #11
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by mosall:
I think this really is a toss up. This is why we have courts of law. As a photographer I totally understand why he feels that he owns those copyrights. His camera, his ideas, taken in a public place. However, he was working and being paid by New York.

Personally, I think the mayor should stay out of this. This guy was a responder to the worst terrorist attack in our history. I say, let him have his photos.


So all of the photos I've taken of bouquets and sunsets and whatever else catches my interest while technically on the clock belong to the bank? I'm going to side with the officer on this. His camera, his slow time, and his photos, whether on the clock or not. They would only belong to the department if the department commissioned him to do it or for some reason expected it of him as part of his duties. Ultimately, I think this is one for the copyright lawyers to sort out, but I definitely take his side.


I agree. The copyright should be with the photographer especially since photography isn't something you get paid for with that job or that of a police officer. Also, I doubt he signed any agreements handing over his rights to take photos. However, with that said, why was he shooting photos while on company time? If anything maybe the city should dock him for hours he was not working?
 08/27/2006 08:07:31 PM · #12
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
The department was not paying him to take pictures. If they want to fire him for slacking (not saying that he was) then they have that right. but if they were to win then where would it end. Kevin smith wrote clerks while working at the quick stop should the owner get those rights. Tarintino wrote resivoir dogs while working at a video store do they get the rights? You think up ideas for photos while on company time do they get THOSE rights?

When a scientist discovers something while working on it for a company then the company gets the rights because that is what he was being paid for, but this is not what he was being paid to do. If it goes to court the city doesn't stand a chance IMO.


Great point(s)
 08/27/2006 08:09:53 PM · #13
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
The department was not paying him to take pictures. If they want to fire him for slacking (not saying that he was) then they have that right. but if they were to win then where would it end. Kevin smith wrote clerks while working at the quick stop should the owner get those rights. Tarintino wrote resivoir dogs while working at a video store do they get the rights? You think up ideas for photos while on company time do they get THOSE rights?

When a scientist discovers something while working on it for a company then the company gets the rights because that is what he was being paid for, but this is not what he was being paid to do. If it goes to court the city doesn't stand a chance IMO.

Post-It Notes...guy thought it up and made it on company time. Company didn't originally want it, after it got big, they decided it was done on company time, so it's theirs.

08/27/2006 08:09:58 PM · #14
whether he was on the job or not at the time he took those photos is irrelevant. at the very most, the city can fine him, or suspend him, or perhaps even fire him, but they most certainly do not have rights to his photos.

now, if in NYPD's last collective bargaining they agreed that any "artwork" creative by any officer while on duty specifically belongs to the department and/or city, then things may be different. but for such a clause to be included into the language of the contract would be very highly unlikely.

again, the officer in question may very well be penalized in one way or another for not "perfoming his duty," that alone does not transfer rights.

it's important for everyone to remember that these officers are part of a union.

Message edited by author 2006-08-27 20:11:33.
 08/27/2006 08:16:28 PM · #15
Nobody's mentioned that this man was taking photographs that virtually no civilian was authorized to take. They shut the 9/11 site down to photographers almost immediately after the towers collapsed. They had concerns (officially) about both liability and exploitation. This lack of access has to be factored in as well.

R.
 08/27/2006 08:17:10 PM · #16
Originally posted by photoheathen:
whether he was on the job or not at the time he took those photos is irrelevant. at the very most, the city can fine him, or suspend him, or perhaps even fire him, but they most certainly do not have rights to his photos.

now, if in NYPD's last collective bargaining they agreed that any "artwork" creative by any officer while on duty specifically belongs to the department and/or city, then things may be different. but for such a clause to be included into the language of the contract would be very highly unlikely.

again, the officer in question may very well be penalized in one way or another for not "perfoming his duty," that alone does not transfer rights.

it's important for everyone to remember that these officers are part of a union.


some good points. I have not read their CBA (and doubt many of them have either) but I would doubt it is in there as well. Also if they did try to fire him his union lawyers would have a field day showing how much other officers waste time while on duty. I mean who works at 100% every second of the day.
 08/27/2006 08:20:11 PM · #17
I work in an office. Let's say that I see a UFO land outside my window and the photo is DPC Winner material ! It is proof positive that UFOs are Alien...

...who owns the photos...me or my company?
 08/27/2006 08:20:23 PM · #18
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by mosall:
I think this really is a toss up. This is why we have courts of law. As a photographer I totally understand why he feels that he owns those copyrights. His camera, his ideas, taken in a public place. However, he was working and being paid by New York.

Personally, I think the mayor should stay out of this. This guy was a responder to the worst terrorist attack in our history. I say, let him have his photos.


So all of the photos I've taken of bouquets and sunsets and whatever else catches my interest while technically on the clock belong to the bank? I'm going to side with the officer on this. His camera, his slow time, and his photos, whether on the clock or not. They would only belong to the department if the department commissioned him to do it or for some reason expected it of him as part of his duties. Ultimately, I think this is one for the copyright lawyers to sort out, but I definitely take his side.


I agree. The copyright should be with the photographer especially since photography isn't something you get paid for with that job or that of a police officer. Also, I doubt he signed any agreements handing over his rights to take photos. However, with that said, why was he shooting photos while on company time? If anything maybe the city should dock him for hours he was not working?


Then there are about a million things they should be docking everyone for. Every job has its slow periods. Cops might take advantage of the downtime for a donut run. Firefighters take naps and watch the football game. My head teller plays Sudoku online. I do my homework or read a chapter of whatever novel I've got stashed in my purse or dash out to the parking lot to snap a quick photo of a neat sunset. My Mom shows my photos to her co-workers using the insurance company's computer. How is happening to carry a personal use camera with you and snapping a quick shot between calls any different?
08/27/2006 08:20:35 PM · #19
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
[quote=photoheathen] whether he was on the job or not


The article states that he his now retired and on disability due to a lung disease he claims he got from being at ground zero.
 08/27/2006 08:22:46 PM · #20
Originally posted by kenskid:
I work in an office. Let's say that I see a UFO land outside my window and the photo is DPC Winner material ! It is proof positive that UFOs are Alien...

...who owns the photos...me or my company?


The aliens because after they take over the world and kill everyone they find your photos and claim them as their own. (damn lyin aliens)

Message edited by author 2006-08-27 20:23:28.
 08/27/2006 08:24:15 PM · #21
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Nobody's mentioned that this man was taking photographs that virtually no civilian was authorized to take. They shut the 9/11 site down to photographers almost immediately after the towers collapsed. They had concerns (officially) about both liability and exploitation. This lack of access has to be factored in as well.

R.


True, but I wonder if this isn't a completely separate legal issue. That would involve the violation of some kind of statute. If the city wants to confiscate them on those grounds, that would be their right and no one would question it (much). But since this is apparently being ignored by both the department and the mayor and the lawyers involved, who would presumably have better insight into those particular legalities, assuming that the photos were legally taken, we have a copyright issue, not a statute violation.
 08/27/2006 08:24:41 PM · #22
Originally posted by pineapple:
Bloomberg takes from one and gives to another. Frankly speaking, he is one of the worst things that has happened in NYC for a while. He rips off the education system and hands money to private charters. As regards this copyright issue, he has done a lot to mess up freedom of photographers in NYC. BTW, he is thinking of sanding for national office, I believe. You would be a fool to elect him.


You need not worry, he's not electable.
 08/27/2006 08:27:34 PM · #23
Were he working for a private company his prospects would not be good. Case law would be against him generally. When we work for the other fellow we give up many of our rights. Working for the public may be different. I think if he comes out and offers his profits to charity, I suspect the mayor has lost.
 08/27/2006 08:29:58 PM · #24
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by pineapple:
Bloomberg takes from one and gives to another. Frankly speaking, he is one of the worst things that has happened in NYC for a while. He rips off the education system and hands money to private charters. As regards this copyright issue, he has done a lot to mess up freedom of photographers in NYC. BTW, he is thinking of sanding for national office, I believe. You would be a fool to elect him.


You need not worry, he's not electable.


umm, do you follow politics in this country? There's nothing but unelectable people in office.

Message edited by author 2006-08-27 20:35:47.
 08/27/2006 08:31:42 PM · #25
"The veteran crime scene investigator said he began taking pictures at ground zero after being "encouraged" to do so by then-police Commissioner Bernard Kerik. "

"Kerik's only rule, according to Botte: "He was adamant that it was done at my expense, with my equipment and not a single department resource.""

Ahhhhhhhh, if these two quotes are true, Bloomberg may be SOL.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/11/2025 01:55:06 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/11/2025 01:55:06 PM EDT.