• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

She Took the White House Photos. Trump Moved to Take the Profit.

1. Photography is an art; she is the artist. Certainly the White House chef would be free to open a restaurant drawing upon the menus and meals he developed when the White House chef.
2. This is no different than Congressman, Senators, Presidents, advisors and cabinet members trading on their experience. It is silly to single her out unless you want no one to write books, go on the lecture circuit or become lobbyists.
3. There is actually a public benefit that is derived from such activity as the body of work contributes to the archive of American history.
Again, that's different. A closer analogy would be the white house chef making food in the white house kitchen, with ingredients they provided, and selling them in his restaurant.

Note that what the photographer was planning to do was similar to what you describe - take photos in the public domain, editing and cropping them, adding her own commentary, and putting it in a book.
 
Who paid her to take the photos?
Every unethical, immoral antiAmerican thing the orange god does his brood supports and rationalizes the evil.

They would kill "nazis" for Trump just like Putin's cult does for him.
 
they're not public domain. she's a professional photographer that has likely copy-written her works which means she owns the copyright and publishing rights. If the copyright isn't renewed in 70 years, then they become public domain.
You are like the first that understands the law involved in this…

Once again trump is stealing!!!
 
The original negatives? Hopefully Twitter Von Cheeto doesn't have them. I would guess that the national archive should be the proper owner of them..
Nope unless there was a previous contract they belong to the photographer…
 
I just read that doesn't apply here. Federal law dictates that a White House photographers works are not owned by them which is 100% ****ed up.
I believe it would depend on the contract and not knowing what’s in it I’ll keep an open mind.

She would have been a fool to turn over those rights though….
 
So are all of the other experiences that politicians trade upon. Fine to tighten the grip, but don't pick on the poor photographer, have a global policy to which all government employees must adhere.

...and, she is an artist applying her skills, similar to the White House chef (cookbooks have been written as well). She isn't there taking snapshots.
It is a global principle. If you create a patent while working for Pfizer, the patent belongs to Pfizer. If you write a book or make a movie working for Disney,it belongs to Disney. If you take a photo while working for Time Magazine, it belongs to Time Magazine. Any agreement for ownership or profit off the work is normally agreed to when you take the job - as it was in this case. Now if you want to build upon the knowledge and experiences you had in those jobs and create something new after you leave employment, as this photographer was doing, that's different.
 
Nope unless there was a previous contract they belong to the photographer…
It is a global principle. If you create a patent while working for Pfizer, the patent belongs to Pfizer. If you write a book or make a movie working for Disney,it belongs to Disney. If you take a photo while working for Time Magazine, it belongs to Time Magazine. Any agreement for ownership or profit off the work is normally agreed to when you take the job - as it was in this case. Now if you want to build upon the knowledge and experiences you had in those jobs and create something new after you leave employment, as this photographer was doing, that's different.
Look up to the previous discussion. It's part of the agreement when she took the job. She was paid by the US government to take photos that would belong to them.

And really, this makes sense. The whole idea is that you want to document a presidency, and have photos you can provide to the press, government websites, etc. But you don't want to get clearances for, or have multiple photographers following the president around.
 
Back
Top Bottom