In November 2000, George stopped at Paris Photo on his way home from a retrospective in
Madrid. Elaine spotted a booth and suggested he take a look. He told her not to bother — he had
freelanced for The New York Times for over forty years, but he had only ever sold One Time Rights,
so the paper owned nothing of his.
Item #122 was his. Jacqueline & John Kennedy, NYC 1960, described as a
vintage print, offered at four thousand US dollars.
What follows is the correspondence that came out of that discovery: twelve letters between
George and counsel for The New York Times Company, running from November 2000 to February 2001. It
ends with the print back in his studio, reunited with its negative after thirty-nine years — and
with a statement of principle that still reads as the clearest thing he ever wrote about a
photographer’s rights in his own work.
It first appeared in the Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 2001.
Many media companies are often at odds with freelance writers and photographers over who owns the
words and images once they have appeared in print.
What follows is an exchange of letters about a single picture. It was triggered by an e-mail from
the photographer, George S. Zimbel, to Barbara Cox of Photokunst, a consulting firm for both
individual photographers and archives, including The New York Times archives.
November 21, 2000
George S. Zimbel to Barbara Cox, Photokunst
Dear Barbara,
I currently have a retrospective at Sala Millares in Madrid and on the swing back, stopped at
Paris Photo where several of my dealers had booths. My wife saw your booth and suggested that I
might have some prints in that collection. Although I have freelanced for the [New York] Times for
over 40 years, I said “no” because I always sell “One Time Rights” and The Times does not own any of
my work. Surprise!! #122, George S. Zimbel: Jacqueline & John Kennedy, NYC 1960 8/10 print
described as “vintage.” Price (US)$4,000.
I have not authorised the sale of any of my work through The New York Times and would like that
print and any others that you may have of mine returned safely to me at the address below. Thanks
for your attention in this matter.
Yours truly,
George S Zimbel
November 28, 2000
Maggie R Drucker, counsel for The New York Times Company, to George S. Zimbel
Dear Mr. Zimbel,
I am counsel for The New York Times Company. Your November 21, 2000 e-mail to Barbara Cox has been
referred to me for a response.
You assert in your letter that all physical photographs taken by you and submitted to The Times
for one-time reproduction are not owned by The Times. We disagree.
Our understanding has always been that title to the physical prints passed to us upon payment to
you for the right to reproduce the photo. This understanding is reflected both in our practice of
retaining or disposing of prints without the involvement of the photographers, and in the fact that,
in the many years since we first acquired the photographs, you have never before seen fit to request
their return or otherwise challenge our ownership. Indeed, to accept your position one must believe
that for all these years, The Times has been providing free storage for your property.
In sum, it is our position that we own the prints you refer to in your letter. Therefore, we
decline to comply with your request that we first comb our extensive archives for photographs from
you and then return them. Please feel free to contact me in the event you have further questions.
Very truly yours,
Maggie R Drucker
November 29, 2000
Zimbel to Drucker
Dear Maggie,
You get paid when you write letters and I don’t, but sometimes I have to come out of the darkroom
and tend to business and ethical issues.
First I will deal with the philosophical aspects of this situation. You always had a wonderful
photography staff … Bill Eckenberg was a friend when I was still at Columbia; Pat Burns and I used
to trip over each other on the political beat, etc., etc., so your true New York Times archive is
rich in content and available for whatever commercial exploitation The Times feels is profitable.
You have paid these people a salary. Their negatives are undoubtedly in a file somewhere at The
Times.
The freelance people traditionally have worked for The Times on a one-time reproduction rights
basis with the modest remuneration based on that fact. I don’t know how many freelance photographers
or the estates of deceased photographers have contacted you, but if the letter I received is the
response they get I am very sad that you have seen fit to treat us in this manner. To quote a letter
which (New York Times publisher) Arthur (Ochs Sulzberger) Jr. wrote to me last year: “times have
changed,” but they have not changed so much that you can take my property to sell for your profit.
If I rent a car from you, I am just renting a car. It doesn’t give me the right to sell the
car once I am finished with the rental.
I would suggest the following process to deal with this situation. First, talk to your photo
editors to better understand the procedures which have been followed by The Times in dealing with
free-lance photographers. Then, for those photographers who are lucky enough to still be alive,
offer to return their material, or if they wish to participate in this process pay them a 50 percent
commission on any sales which The Times may make. My personal wish is to get my material back, but
others may opt to sell through The Times.
I hope you give this serious attention because it is a serious matter.
Yours truly,
George S Zimbel
December 6, 2000
Drucker to Zimbel
Dear Mr. Zimbel,
I am in receipt of your November 29 letter.
I have conferred with my clients and have determined that there are no plans to sell any
photographs taken by you and printed in The New York Times.
I am hopeful that the foregoing will satisfy your concerns. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Maggie R Drucker
December 11, 2000
Zimbel to Drucker
Dear Maggie Drucker,
Thank you for your letter of December 6 in which you say “there are no plans to sell any
photographs taken by you and printed in The New York Times.” When I first read your letter I had a
feeling that it didn’t say anything that would address the issues I raised with you. Then I thought,
“you are being too suspicious” and I brought it home for my wife to read. She said “It doesn’t
address any of the issues you raised.” So here I am again when I should be in the darkroom.
First is the question of the “Jacqueline & John Kennedy, N.Y.C. 1960” print… It is my
property and I would like to have it safely returned. I assume that it is the only print of my work
that Photokunst/The New York Times is offering for sale. If there are others let me know. In regard
to whatever prints of mine may be in your archives I would like them returned to me and, in any
event, I do not give permission for them to be sold.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
My best regards,
George Zimbel
P.S. I have only one addiction in my life, and that is reading The New York Times. I have read it
since I was a teenager in 1943, and have worked for it since the early 1950s, so my position is not
antagonistic. I just want this settled.
December 20, 2000
Drucker to Zimbel
Dear Mr Zimbel,
In your recent letter, you requested the return of your photographs, including this one. Let me
explain why (in addition to the fact that there is no legal basis for returning photos, which we have
discussed) we can’t comply. That photo, through the years, has become a historical document by virtue
of The Times’ possession of it. The back of it has become as important as the front because it is a
passport to its life at our newspaper, showing captions and date stamps. In fact, it is this very
documentation that gives value to the scuffed print. I’m sure you know that, in Paris, we framed the
pictures to expose the backs, and we were not surprised when visitors were as interested in that part
of the picture’s history as they were in the image itself.
As a photographer who has shot extensively throughout his life, I know you understand the worth
that The Times brings to history, and now your photograph has become part of ours. I hope you can
understand our position and that we have satisfied your concerns.
Very truly yours,
Maggie R Drucker
January 3, 2001
Zimbel to Drucker
Dear Maggie,
What an eloquent letter. Please fax or e-mail me the front and back of my Kennedy picture which
was offered for sale in Paris. I know it was not made for The New York Times and I want to know its
provenance. After I receive it, I will respond to your letter, specifically in regard to that
print.
My best regards,
George S Zimbel
January 12, 2001
Drucker to Zimbel
Dear Mr Zimbel,
Pursuant to your January 3, 2001 request, I have enclosed a copy of the front and back of the
Kennedy photograph. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
Maggie R Drucker
January 16, 2001
Zimbel to Drucker
Dear Maggie,
I have now received the photocopy front and back of my photograph “John & Jacqueline Kennedy
1960, NYC” that you offered for sale through Photokunst in Paris. The provenance has now become
clear. The print was requested by your photo editor. At that time I lived in Dobbs Ferry, New York,
as indicated from the stamp on the back. It evidently was used by your women’s page and was not
returned to me after use as is the normal procedure but instead was put in your morgue. It was not
shot for The New York Times. (See American Politicians, MoMA, 1994 — page 34). It was done
for an ongoing personal documentary project on American politics.
Now I am going to reply to your letter of 20 December 2000. I do not agree that you own the print,
despite your citing a “legal basis” for your claim. You get paid to cite legal bases which then have
to be challenged in court in order to be resolved. That is not my path. I am a documentary
photographer who is trying to do my work. I could walk away from this, but I don’t choose to do so,
despite the urging of my doctor/art consultant.
You mention that my photo has become a historical document by virtue of The Times’ “possession” of
it. My photograph is a historical document because of its content. The fact that The
Times stamped dates on the back and used red grease crayon on the surface “gives value to this
scuffed print” and so, in the new world of commercial exploitation, The Times offered my photograph
for sale in Paris for $4,000 through Photokunst.
I am getting very upset as I write this, but I will continue and quote your last paragraph and
respond. You wrote: “…I know you understand the worth The Times brings to history, and now your
photograph has become part of ours.” That is very eloquent but the reality is that the reproduction
of my photograph has become a part of The Times’ history. My Kennedy photographs are in the
collections of MoMA, ICP, Museum of Fine Arts Houston, Musée du Québec, Musée d’Art Contemporain de
Montréal, Institut Valencia d’Art Modern, and other collections. That is a historical context.
You have my permission to scan that print, front and back for your archive, with any future sales
from that scan paid for in the normal manner which has been our way of working together for nearly
fifty years.
I value The Times more than you will ever know. My concerns will be satisfied when I receive my
print properly packed here at my studio. That is a Times tradition.
Best regards,
George S Zimbel
January 17, 2001
Drucker to Zimbel
Dear Mr Zimbel,
I was pleased to hear that the issue of your Kennedy photograph has been resolved and that the
print is being returned to you. As I think Jim Mones [director] of The New York Times Photo Archive
made clear to you, our return of the photograph does not suggest that we do not stand by our legal
position. We continue to believe in our ownership of the print, but, in the spirit of compromise, we
have agreed to make an exception in this case.
Sincerely,
Maggie R Drucker
February 12, 2001
Zimbel to Drucker
Dear Maggie Drucker,
Jim Mones used terms such as “valued contributor” and “longtime relationship” in our final
conversation before he returned my photograph of “Jacqueline & John Kennedy, 1960.” In the
conversation prior to that he said that the archive was returning my print, and then added the
proviso that I would have to pay 50 percent to The Times if I sold it! I used several expletives to
let him know that the photograph belonged to me and I expected it returned properly packed. He urged
me “not to get excited” and said he would call me the following day. He did, stating that the
photograph would be returned with no provisos. It was and he kept his word. So, after thirty-nine
years the print was where it was supposed to be — in my possession, in my archive with the original
negative. It is and always has been my property.
Then I received your letter dated 17 January on 6 February … I will begin by saying that I
consider that letter as insulting as the first one you wrote. I am not an exception, I am one of
those freelance people who you seem intent on denigrating in the name of increased profits for The
New York Times Company. Now I know what Arthur Jr. meant when he wrote me “times have changed.” So,
that is clear.
I am ashamed of you and your management colleagues. I still have the highest regard for your
editors, writers, and photographers. Your statements have the feel of events in Florida during the
last election with lawyers and persons of authority depriving people of what was theirs. You are
expending huge amounts of highly paid time to deprive freelance photographers of their property and
consequently of income for the minimal amount of profit that will be generated by this mean-spirited
policy. It is not acceptable. You use your muscle in words in a court of law because you are
lawyers. I will use my muscle in words in the court of public opinion because I am a
communicator.
George S Zimbel