He Shot an Iconic Photo—and Lost the Copyright; FStoppers, October 31, 2026

 Alex Cooke, FStoppers ; He Shot an Iconic Photo—and Lost the Copyright

"Lester LaRue shot 44 frames on the morning of April 19, 1995, with his employer's camera, his employer's film, and his employer's car to get him there. One of those frames ran on the cover of Newsweek's May 1 issue. A federal court later ruled the copyrights had never been his...

What This Means for the Camera in Your Bag

If you draw a paycheck and you take pictures, this is the case to read. The doctrine does not weigh how good the photograph is, or whether your employer could ever have imagined it, and it does not require the picture to depict the business. The test comes out of agency law and asks three things: whether the work was the kind you were employed to perform, whether it happened substantially within the time and space your job authorized, and whether you were acting at least partly to serve your employer. Whose camera you were holding is evidence going to those questions, not a fourth question. LaRue lost because every one of the three pointed the same way, and staff shooters, in-house content producers, safety officers, and real estate agents lose the same way every year without a Newsweek cover to show for it.

Section 201(b) leaves one lever, the written instrument. Ownership between an employee and an employer can be reallocated, but only in a signed writing, and the practical time to get one is before anything happens in front of the lens. The Copyright Office's own guidance for photographers is blunt about the same point, and if you are building a business around images you expect to license later, the contract side deserves as much attention as the business of commercial photography itself. Freelancers get the better end of this: under Section 101, a commissioned photograph is a work made for hire only in narrow enumerated categories, and only with a signed agreement.

The publicity half of the case cuts the other direction, and it travels badly. Oklahoma tied its statute to what the naked eye can determine from the photograph alone, so an obscured face defeated the claim no matter what the caption said. Other states draw the line differently, and identifiability standards vary enough that a shot that is safe in one jurisdiction is exposure in another."

Trump family rakes in profits as President Trump fires ethics watchdog; WBUR, February 25, 2025

 WBUR; Trump family rakes in profits as President Trump fires ethics watchdog

"The Trump family has made nearly $80 million since the election, and that's not counting the crypto assets they've been pushing. The Trump Organization, now overseen by the president's son Eric Trump, has not barred itself from pursuing deals with foreign companies, as it did during Trump’s first term. President Trump also fired the head of the Office of Government Ethics.

Wall Street Journal reporter Rebecca Ballhaus joins us to discuss the Trump family's growing fortunes.

This segment aired on February 25, 2025."

Amid all the craziness, don’t forget: Trump is using the presidency to enrich his family; Washington Post, August 11, 2017

Sarah Posner, Washington Post; Amid all the craziness, don’t forget: Trump is using the presidency to enrich his family

"As Walter Shaub, the since-departed director of the Office of Government Ethics, has said of Trump’s refusal to divest from his business holdings, “a conflict of interest is anything that creates an incentive to put your own interests before the interests of the people you serve.” Trump’s continued stake in the hotel and ongoing promotion of it by using his name as the draw risks the appearance of “using the presidency for private gain,” Shaub told Vox.

One of the biggest challenges of the post-Trump era will be how to restore the norms and standards that Trump has so blithely trashed. Someday, Americans — from the people who run our government to the citizens in every corner of the country — will have to reckon with what he has done, and figure out how to undo it. That process will probably have to start with some basic reminders that the presidency is not for sale."

Reminder: the Trump International Hotel is still an ethics disaster; Vox, August 11, 2017

Carly Stirin, Vox; Reminder: the Trump International Hotel is still an ethics disaster

"Who’s spending all that money at the hotel? Since visitation records are not made public, The Washington Post sent reporters to the hotel every day in May to try to identify people and organizations using the facilities.

What they found was a revolving door of powerful people holding galas in the hotel’s lavish ballrooms and meeting over expensive cocktails with White House staff at the bar.

They included Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), whom Politico recently called "Putin’s favorite congressman”; Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), who chairs the General Services Administration, the Trump hotel's landlord; and nine other Republican Congress members who all hosted events at the hotel, according to campaign spending disclosures obtained by the Post. Additionally, foreign visitors such as business groups promoting Turkish-American relations and the Romanian President Klaus Iohannis and his wife also rented out rooms.

Ethics experts — including the former top government ethics official who resigned last month — say this is exactly what they were worried about in a Trump presidency."