kdemas Posted August 27, 2006 Share #1 Posted August 27, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) All, I saw an interesting article about a former NYC police officer that documented ground zero after 9/11. You may remember a tread about him from the olf Forum where he had a custom engraved Leica, if I remember correctly. In any case he has published a new book and the city of NY is trying to get him to donate the proceeds. It's an interesting question, one I thought you might like to read about. Here is the link: City, officer battle over 9/11 photos - Yahoo! News I went ahead and bought his book on Amazon as it sounds interesting and it's always good to support a fellow Leicaphile! I am glad there were people like John Botte around to chronicle this milestone event and it's aftermath. Kent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 Hi kdemas, Take a look here Ground Zero Photography- Leica User. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lambroving Posted August 27, 2006 Share #2 Posted August 27, 2006 Kent, Thanks for pointing this out. I was hoping John or Rafael would mention it here. Bloomberg's attitude is beyond belief IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrEd Posted August 28, 2006 Share #3 Posted August 28, 2006 John was, still is a Forum member, if I can recall he posted some nice photographs, including a very good one of Don King, boxing promoter...Hope everything works out for Mr Botte. If you research the "old Forum" Archives you'll find lively discussions about Mr. Botte. Regards, Ed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafael_macia Posted August 28, 2006 Share #4 Posted August 28, 2006 Hey y'all, John botte is a retired NYC Detective. He also makes a line of high end photo vests. http://www.botteactivegear.com The Leica he had Leica make for him is exceptional. He is a very nice guy. Lots of health problems from spending time at GZero. If you get in contact say hello for me Lamb, you don't miss a thing! Rafael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest agnoo Posted August 28, 2006 Share #5 Posted August 28, 2006 Interesting point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 28, 2006 Share #6 Posted August 28, 2006 Bloomberg's attitude is beyond belief IMO. No kidding! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
franklinh Posted August 28, 2006 Share #7 Posted August 28, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Joel Meyerowitz's book, "Aftermath: World Trade Center Archive" is now published an shipping. My copy is due from Amazon this week. I read the article you cited on Botte and the poor guy had the the misfortune of working for government which all too often expects you to be an anonymity, and it is trying to steal his soul. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 28, 2006 Share #8 Posted August 28, 2006 Seems he took the shots while he was at work, so I guess it really depends on what was in his contract of employment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted August 28, 2006 Share #9 Posted August 28, 2006 Intersting. A photographer at work for a Danish newspaper keeps the copyright of his pictures so that when recycled into other medias or reused later, he gets paid royalty. Unless specifically given away, the artist - the one creating a photo - owns the copyright. It, by the way, also says so rather clearly in the UN Human Rights Declaration: ARTICLE 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. By the way. For anyone around NY there is a chance to meet him in September 2006: John Botte from HarperCollins Publishers Oh, and by the way. Here is a video clip on the story: wcbstv.com - 'Aftermath' Of 9/11 Pits Author Against NYC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 28, 2006 Share #10 Posted August 28, 2006 Intersting. A photographer at work for a Danish newspaper keeps the copyright of his pictures so that when recycled into other medias or reused later, he gets paid royalty. Unless specifically given away, the artist - the one creating a photo - owns the copyright. It, by the way, also says so rather clearly in the UN Human Rights Declaration: ARTICLE 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. The problem is that his NYPD employment contract is most likely deemed to be a "Work for hire" contract meaning that any work, work product, creation, intellectual property etc. developed belongs solely to his employer. As previously stated, the fact that he was asked to use his own tools and his own resources to produce this work is what calls the premise of work for hire into question. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 28, 2006 Share #11 Posted August 28, 2006 Viewed simply, if he was employed and paid to work as a policeman, that sugests he was cheating on his employer by 'working' as a photographer in his employers time. Or, if he was paid to take the photographs by his employer, then he does not own the copyright unless agreed specifically to the contrary. Since some expert lawyers have already been confused by the facts I guess we (photographers) have no hope of deciding anything except speculation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uulrich Posted September 2, 2006 Share #12 Posted September 2, 2006 I understand that the photographs taken were during a time he wasn't on duty. It could be questioned if copyright on these photos might exist. Those images could be in the public domain because it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide! Pictures taken by U.S. military personnel on duty are ineligible for copyright. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdemas Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share #13 Posted September 2, 2006 I just got my copy of the book today and it really is some incredible work. I am glad that John took the time, and the effort, to document this scene. 5 years later it is a very powerful and moving collection. Kent Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted September 3, 2006 Share #14 Posted September 3, 2006 Legal arguments aside, it stinks that a local government official (one who's independently wealthy no less) wants to get in the pockets of a disabled, retired cop who was just doing what he was told and now has a chance to make a buck off a very public tragedy. If Bloomberg can find twelve jurors mean enough and stupid enough to rob this poor man blind of something he created with his own equipment....well, it just says a lot for the state of affairs in this country. I hope John's publicist and the publisher can get the word about this out to as many people as possible. It makes a good case for a "Creative Bill of Rights" amendment to the American Constitution that is long, long overdue. Thanks. Allan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted September 3, 2006 Share #15 Posted September 3, 2006 All sordidly commercial isnt it. Hopefully some spark will show his profit loss in such a way he can make a counter claim for outstanding expenses. It would be nice to think they could just leave him alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted September 3, 2006 Share #16 Posted September 3, 2006 After reading the Yahoo article & not knowing anymore - I think the lawyers will make make lots of money. As for the morals: if he paid for all the D&P costs and the police chief stated this, then he should own the copyright. But there are many other arguements at play here. Anyway, I hope he gets the copyright and the book makes him a profit to help with more photography - or he could just waste the money on medical care. Also, why does the Police Chief get to publish a book? And I am sure Bloomberg will get a memoir out of his time in NY and will he keep those profits? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted September 3, 2006 Share #17 Posted September 3, 2006 And I am sure Bloomberg will get a memoir out of his time in NY and will he keep those profits? As his memories was obtained in working hours those memoir of course will have to be owned by the city ;-) I think one of the reasons this comes up – besides the press making the controversay and the politicians (as they do all ober the planet) like to comment on anything without doing proper research – the main reason is that few people know how much work goes into a photo after it was taken. Most people probably think it's 'snap' and then that's it. You've got a book. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.