muckraker report

Detroit’s new cop cars sport stolen image of cityscape (Updated)

DPD

Update: Photographer Bobby Alcott now says the images that are identical were on mock-ups given to the media. The actual squad cars contain a different image.   

Detroit’s sleek new police cars and ambulances, which were unveiled to the public today, feature a beautiful image of the city’s skyline.

It didn’t take local photographer Bobby Alcott long to notice that the cityscape was suspiciously similar to a photo he had taken and copyrighted in 2006. He examined the images closely and discovered that the cloud pattern, lights and small details were all the same.

There was no doubt it was his image.

“Detroit is unveiling 100 new police cars right now — and the Downtown Detroit Partnership, who has donated $8 million to lease the cars to the City, has STOLEN MY PHOTO to use on the cars,” Alcott posted on Facebook. “I’m REALLY SICK of being ripped off. PLEASE SHARE THIS so maybe I can be compensated for the blatant ripoff that the Downtown Detroit Partnership has committed.”

Alcott said no he gave no one permission to use the image, which is registered with the Library of Congress.

BobbyAlcottThe cars were purchased by a handful of downtown businesses that pledged $8 million for 23 ambulances and 100 squad cars.

It’s unclear who is to blame. Neither the city nor business leaders could be immediately reached for comment.

The donors include Penske Automotive Group, General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Group LLC, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Quicken Loans.

“I would get a lawyer and file a complaint — pronto!” one Facebook user wrote.

Steve Neavling

Steve Neavling lives and works in Detroit as an investigative journalist. His stories have uncovered corruption, led to arrests and reforms and prompted FBI investigations.

  • Dave Harris
  • Dave Harris

    Those words over the image that say Detroit Police are enough change in the image to void his copyright claim, unless his copyrighted photo said Detroit Police, he’s shit out of luck!!!

  • Brian

    wont get much, they are filing bankruptcy, but they can afford all these new cars.. hmm.

  • Pingback: Detroit, MI - Radio System Working Again After Second Outage In Two Months - The RadioReference.com Forums()

  • colmack

    are you going to put an update on this.. as I said, the image on the cars is not Alcott’s.. basic fairness says you need to do an update with the correction..

    • http://www.motorcitymuckraker.com/ only living girl in detroit

      It was edited to update last night. It’s at the top of the story.

      • joeblow

        Yeah, with a headline that definitively states that the cop cars sport stolen image. This Neavling character has no credibility whatsoever.

  • Ted Andkilde

    Nick asks, “How much compensation do you suppose this guy deserves for his postcard image?”

    According to US copyright law, potentially, quite a bit. On the wrong day with the right judge it could hit $30,000,000 in statutory damages (I’ll note that this is never going to happen, I’ve rhetorically multiplied the maximum damage for willful infringement by the number of times the images was used, most copyright cases are settled out of court). Copyright isn’t about what “you” think a piece of art is worth. It’s a concept that underpins and enables huge swaths of industry around the globe. Publishing of all flavors is essentially valueless without an enforceable copyright system.

    Your use of profanity and denigrating description of the artist’s work reveals a lack of basic social skills, your total disregard for the value of the image provides an insight into your astounding ignorance. I suggest you try a bit more reading and a bit less trolling, it’ll stand you well in your future endeavors.

    Cheers, Ted

    • Nick

      Yes, profanity is a horrific thing and we should all agree to give it up for good. I’ve refrained from insulting anyone involved in this conversation and have denigrated the “artist’s” work because it’s frankly begging to be denigrated. If an “artist” puts their work out into the world then that work is and should be subject to aesthetic judgement by the audience it reaches.
      That so many of the comments on this page seem to place far more importance on the $$ value of a work of art than on the way it is received and valued by its audience is a sad thing. I pity all who look at creative work in this way.

      Sincerely, Nick (the idiot, naive, clueless, unemployed, toilet-cleaning, troll, ignoramus)

  • been there!

    He should have protected it in the first place. there is tons of detroit skyline photos at there that people copy from the internet everyday. write them an email and call it a day. get paid and move on.

  • colmack

    No story… Alcott looked at photo on the actual cars and said it is not his image

  • Pingback: Policía de Detroit utiliza una fotografía robada()

  • 99 percent

    Consider this his donation, part of his productivity confiscated to make the needy City of Detroit better. Sort of like welfare.

  • KV

    Mr. Alcott doesn’t own any of those buildings he photographed and I’m sure he didn’t ask permission to photograph, copyright, and seek profit by distributing an image of these buildings he does not own. GM, one of the donors, does however own the RenCen, so they should be allowed to use whatever image of their building that they like.

  • Soaringeaglequay

    Oh Please guy, this is a city and not just any city, a struggling metropolis trying to bring some hope to the masses. If it truly is your photo its already on the cars and they look great. Get your credit and ten minutes of fame and move on. Nobody ever heard of you, it could be profitable for you, that the mighty Detroit used your photo on their new line of vehicles. I’m sure it was an oversight. What do wanna do now? Sue them? Have a heart and take the free advertisement now that you’re in the paper and show some class and benevolence. That’s what ‘s wrong with the world these days, people don’t want to share anything or forgive an error. Give Detroit a break if it is your picture. You’ll not only go down in history for being a great photographer but a helluva nice guy. Not a bad trade, right?

    • photographer

      Can I have whatever you do for a living for free?

  • Michelle

    The cars were donated…get over your picture that people have been using forever (it’s a common picture), and be happy that Detroit is taking a good step. It’s people like you that stop us from improving Detroit!!

  • http://www.atstrategy.com/ atStrategy

    And, guess who has to pay for this? The taxpayers! Also, consider the image has a copyright. That means a different set of rules will apply which means mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money.

  • Pimpup!

    Sheeettt Yall know Kwame Kilpatrick hook dat sheet up. He told his boy Bobby to take dat muofo and give to his boys at da police Department. Day said “sheeet muufo” I’m usin dis fo da next new PD cruisers. I might even go to da Woodward dream cruise and show da fuck off. I aint givin dat dude SHHEET! kA KA KA LOL!

  • Pimpup!

    Sheeettt Yall know Kwame Kilpatrick hook dat sheet up. He told his boy Bobby to take dat muofo and give to his boys at da police Department. Day said “sheeet muufo” I’m usin dis fo da next new PD cruisers. I might even go to da Woodward dream cruise and show da fuck off. I aint givin dat dude SHHEET! kA KA KA LOL!

    • Dave Armstrong

      Well said, pimpup! I wish I’d said it first!

  • Justin Moore

    Pull the cops over for theft of intellectual property!

    • Dave Harris

      He didn’t create the skyline in his head!

  • Nick

    I think it’s pretty hilarious that the really delicious irony here isn’t the idea of stolen intellectual property emblazoned across a law enforcement vehicle, but that this guy is likely going to get far more exposure and monetary compensation for his picture than he would have had they approached him about using it in advance.

    • Jones

      Fact! Pete rose is more famous for being banned from baseball than over 75% of the hall of famers. Getting shafted is the best thing for you sometimes. Same thing happened to ozzy. Way bigger than sabbath. Sometimes getting screwed over is the boost your career needs. Look up Alcott. Things are getting better

  • Not the same

    The photos of the cars today appear to be different the photos used on the officially press release and in all the stock images. Something to look into.

    • Nick

      They’re both clearly the same image. How high are you?

  • Je reilly

    People get paid for professional artwork. Not even offering to pay someone for their work isn’t normal. Maybe the person who designed the logo was some intern somewhere who didn’t know better. Although, if you know how to use photoshop, you’ve probably heard of copyright. It may have been an error, but it should be corrected. And the irony of a police car with stolen intellectual property on it is worth noting. Plus why use donated money if you can just take stuff?

    • Nick

      I really wish that people would stop equating practical, tangible objects like shovels, ceiling fans and donated police vehicles to intellectual property. Not the same.

      • Darrin

        Do you buy books? Software? Music? all these are protected by the same Law. Without these laws none of these professions would exist, But they are paramount to the fundamental appreciation of the human existence. We don’t live to consume tangible products. We just live! These Intellectual properties are a reflection of just that. Human Life!

        • Nick

          Fortunately for all of us, people were making art for thousands of years before any such laws existed.

  • you can do better Neavling

    HEY, how about asking for a comment from Penske or the Cops. Turns out it isnt Alcott’s work. Basic reporting my friend, get the other side. Disapointed in you.

    • Nick

      Whoops. Link?

      • Dave

        It’s definitely the same photo as Alcott’s. Cloud pattern overlay in photoshop is identical. If the city didn’t steal it themselves, they’re still using a stolen photo.

    • joeblow

      Disappointed? Why? Steve Neavling isn’t a real journalist; he wasn’t a real journalist when he worked for the Freep, which is why he’s relegated to blogging. Actually, there are some really good bloggers out there I would call real journalists, and fine ones at that. Steve Neavling isn’t one of them. He wants so desperately to be relevant. He ain’t.

  • Andy

    Yes, because the city is using it to generate a profit. They’re making money because YOUR picture is on the side of their cars.

    Get over it. I know plenty of artists and photographers and they’d be thrilled to just be able to say, “hey, that’s my picture up there!”

    If it were something that makes someone else money then I could see wanting to take a cut. But it’s nothing more than a picture of a city on the side of that city’s police cars.

    • SuperC142

      It’s his! That’s *his* choice to make! I promise that when the city of Anaheim starts putting pictures of Mickey Mouse on their official advertisements/vehicles without permission, Disney is going to have something to say about it.

    • Shawn

      All of the exposure in the world isn’t going to do a photographer any good if they’re not compensated for their work.

      • Nick

        I made the mistake of assuming that Mr. Alcott has artistic aspirations. If all he cares about wrt to his work is financial compensation for it then you’re absolutely right.

        • Shawn

          You can have artistic aspirations and still want compensation for your efforts. Do you think that artists should just give their work away for free, despite putting in a lot of time, effort, and probably a lot of money, as well?

  • The point is…

    The point is, most of the pictures you take generate 0 revenue. It builds the skill and gives you the practice you need to get that one really good shot that, say, the Detroit police like enough to put on the side of their law machines.

    That said, he should be compensated for his one picture. Not because one picture is so valuable, but because the time and energy he has spent in learning the skills to take that one picture is.

    If you spend you whole life making oragamis, and few are ever bought… but then one day, someone just takes one of your really good oragamis… you’d be pissed. You’d be like “dude. I didn’t say you can have that.”

  • Dave Armstrong

    Come on, Mr. Alcott! Yes, they should have asked your permission. But this was a gigantic, sensational donation——how about you getting into the spirit of this thing?

    • Dave Armstron you Dink

      Why the fuck should he work for free? Honestly if they had taken ten minutes to actually find the owner and get his approval in the first place then maybe this wouldn’t have been an issue.

    • Nick

      This.

      • A different nick

        so I assume you guys are donating something too then?

        • Nick

          They can have as many of my corny Detroit skyline photographs as they like and I have several.

          • Shawn

            That’s your choice. This particular photographer’s photo was appropriated without his consent.

          • Shawn

            That’s your choice. This particular photographer’s photo was appropriated without his consent.

    • Nick (a different nick)

      You know, the cars were not free. The money was donated to buy the cars. So should the car manufacturers also just say, “eh, we don’t need the revenue either, here you go cops, free cars.”

      So you have the manufacturers getting paid, the guy who put the decals on the cars, the guy who presented at the event, the guy who recorded the presentation of the event, the guy who cleaned the cars beforehand, and probably even the guy who brokered the deal all getting paid for their service on this project. So, just the guy who contributed the major part of the design should not be paid? That’s what you’re saying?

      Its a very clean cut case of someone stealing someone else’s intellectual property. There’s really no room for argument. The reason its a big deal here is because its a law enforcement agency who is violating copyright law.

    • Shawn

      What if I were to steal your car, and then donate it to charity? By your logic, you should just shut up and accept it because it was for a good cause.

    • Dave Armstrong

      Guys, calm down. There are hundreds of cool Detroit skyline shots available for free. This guy should be honored that his is being used. Keep in mind, it is not being sold for profit.

  • Mark O’Brien

    They could afford 8 mil, but not a proper amount of compensation to use a copyrighted image? Should someone use one of Penske’s logos for their own business? How long would that take for one of their lawyers to get out a letter? The fault lies with the designer, who should KNOW about copyright law and fair use, etc. If the artist that appropriated Obama’s photo could get into a lawsuit, this certainly is a no-brainer.

    • KV

      Penske created their logo, or contracted someone to do so. Mr. Alcott may have taken the picture, but he didn’t create the city of Detroit which is the subject of that photo. It’d be like if a stranger took a photo of my child without my permission, copyrighted it without my permission, and then complained when I used it on my Facebook page.

      • tim

        This isnt a issue over the copyright of the skyline it self, it is the issue of the use of a single image. They could have chosen any other image or just went out a took their own but they choose that one. They only way your argument makes any sense is if they used someone elses photograph and then this photographer said he had copyrighted the rights for the subject of using the skyline in a photo and would like compensation. If you go out and take a photo and get that photo copyrighted then someone takes the exact image you created puts a logo over it that photo does not stop being your creation, That exact photo they used would not be around had you not taken it.

      • Ben Drucker

        The subject of the image isn’t relevant here in the slightest. In your example, posting that photo to your Facebook page would be willful copyright infringement on your part. Like it or not, the only case in which the photographer would need your permission would be in order to use the photo commercially (e.g. for an ad). In this case, no one can own the copyright to the Detroit skyline and so he wouldn’t need a release.

      • Mark O’Brien

        Oh, yes, and I suppose ANYONE could have just shot that photo. Really, copyright law is well established, and one can photograph your child without permission, but they cannot use the image in most instances without a signed model release by you, except yes, the photographer does own the copyright to the image unless he or she relenquishes it.

      • Reggie

        In that scenario he would own the picture. Without your permission he couldn’t us it to make money but you wouldn’t be able to use it without his permission. And this picture of Detroit is the creation and property of the photographer.

        • Angela Sherman

          Oh ok so he can’t sell the photo anyway but he can make money if anyone else uses that photo..obviously this guy has been waiting for such a moment then.

      • Angela Sherman

        I agree 100 percent KV he took a picture of a skyline that belongs to the city…They have every right to use it..If he took a picture of my child without permission from me and I posted that picture on Facebook he subsequently sued me, would that be right? Hell no! So sorry to the photographer, as a matter of fact If I were you I would just let everyone know that I was the photographer and be thankful you have some advertising!

  • Finch

    Someone shoot Nick, please.
    I’d go into detail to try to explain it to that tool, but it would be a wasted attempt.

    • Nick

      I’m all ears.

      • Nick is an idiot

        Nick, I imagine your ‘career’ most likely consists of something that requires no education, nor effort, most likely you live off of the state. Anyways, when someone does work PROFESSIONALLY, they do it to generate an INCOME.

        Lets say I rent shovels for a living, and in order to break even I need to send out 10 shovels per day, imagine people coming up, taking my shovels, and walking away with them? I’m no longer generating an income, but, who cares right? How much money should I be making of 10 measly shovels?

        • Nick

          Thanks for not taking cheap shots. It was a serious question. How much should Mr. Alcott be compensated for the use of his image on donated city service vehicles? Enough to put a meal on his table? 3 meals? A week’s worth of meals? I think that certainly he should have been asked his permission to use the image and when he named his price they could have politely told him that the exposure his photo would get should be fucking compensation enough.

          • Ghost

            Exposure only counts if he’s credited for the work and had agreed to that before hand. You wouldn’t call an electrician to install a new ceiling fan, then say after the fact “Well, I entertain a lot and promise to tell everyone about your work, so you should forget the bill”.

            In terms of how much he should be compensated, that’s completely, and rightfully, up to him as the content owner. That should be, and legally is as I understand it, in addition to damages for copyright infringement. If the city/business partners don’t feel that is a fair price, they can go elsewhere. Yay, capitalism.

          • Nick

            “I think that certainly he should have been asked his permission to use
            the image and when he named his price they could have politely told him
            that the exposure his photo would get should be fucking compensation
            enough.” Reading comprehension is an important skill. Or so they told me in elementary school.

          • Nick hasn’t a clue

            Bottom line, it’s HIS image. He names his price, they agree or disagree. They offer ‘exposure’ and he agrees or disagrees.

            Let me ask you, Nick: If he disagrees and stands firm at his cash price, do you think the city should have the right to just take the image? Be careful….you say yes and today we’re talking about an image. Tomorrow we may be talking about something else.

            It’s his and they took it.

          • Nick

            No they shouldn’t be able to just take the image. If they had approached him about use of the image ahead of time and he asked an unfair price then they could have told him to fuck off and found a different photo. Since they didn’t do that, they’ll likely be stuck paying him whatever he wants and at this point that’s probably way more than he would have asked/gotten in the first place. I’m guessing that he will ask for less than the the cost of repainting 123 vehicles, though I may be mistaken about that.

          • Geoff

            US Copyright Law is very clear on this one. If you find an image of yours has been used anywhere without permission then you have a right to fair compensation. You also have the right to sue them for up to $30,000 per use/image. If you ask them to take it down or stop using it and they refuse then you have the right to sue for $150,000 per use/image. Bottom line is that businesses should be very careful before they use an image. I would not sue for that large amount of money, but there are plenty of people who would and you want to protect your business.

            As a photographer myself it is very often that my photos are used without my permission but there are ways to get them taken down or to be fairly compensated if it is warranted. Some situations call for you to just communicate with the company or person who used them and work out the situation. In this case, the Police department should have done their homework before deciding on the final product.

          • Toka313

            WTF are you talking about “exposure?” He didn’t need more exposure. He had enough exposure to get his photo plastered on a ton of city police cars! That’s the kind of SALE you want. Not exposure. That’s stupid. That’s like saying “I’m going to be in this summer blockbuster movie, but I don’t want to get paid because I want exposure.” Huh? That’s exactly when you ask for money.

          • http://www.motorcitymuckraker.com/ only living girl in detroit

            However much he has decided to license the image for.

      • Also thinks Nick is an idiot

        So let’s say you spend 20 hours on this photo over multiple trips and labor to take the picture and then edit it to be a final product. You also pay to have it copyrighted and then registered. Then someone just “Right Click, Download Image” all of that work and uses it in an 8 million dollar project without even contacting you.

        It’s like taking a part of your soul, something you spent pouring a bit of yourself into and then letting someone else who has nothing to do with you and letting them step in to take all the glory.

        Who knows this photog might have even given free use of the photo as long as he was credited… they wouldn’t have ever known that because they never even contacted him.

        • Nick

          What glory, exactly? It’s a cheesy photo of the city skyline and it appears on DONATED city service vehicles. I don’t know if you heard, but the city just declared bankruptcy. How about Mr. Alcott comes on board for the big win here? I agree he should have been asked permission, absolutely, but the classy response in my opinion isn’t “wahhh I got ripped off by a broke city who isn’t using my picture for profit!”

          • Broke Guy

            Hey Nick, I’m broke.
            I’m going to come over and steal something from you. But no Whining okay, cause I’m broke.

          • Nick

            If you want to steal my TV, then no. If you want to steal a shitty photo I took, come on over. Promise I won’t be a turd about it.

          • Quirkydude Kev

            oh no… It’s not your place to determine the importance of one thing compared to another…mabye the photographer wouldn’t care if you took his tv.

          • Toka313

            Whoa, Quirkydude? Like, BB Quirkydude??

          • Ryan

            1 – The photo isn’t shitty…

            2- Your TV probably is

            3- You clearly don’t know anything about the law, but it was broken. Don’t you think that sorta goes against what a police department should be trying to accomplish.

            4- You should give a fuck. Karma is a bitch though so it’s good that you don’t, it’ll get you in the end one way or another. Maybe you code software and Microsoft steals it and incorporates it into their next product. I bet you’d be pissed. (Or maybe you just clean toilets, which seams much more realistic given your shit attitude)

          • Nick

            1 – That’s obviously a subjective judgement. In my opinion, while it be technically fine, it is completely lacking in originality. I’ve seen its artistic equal on postcard racks many times over. 2 – I think my TV is pretty nice, though that’s subjective as well. 3 – I think it’s pretty obvious that I do understand that it’s illegal to appropriate intellectual property without the consent of the owner of that property. 4 – Karma is bullshit.

          • Nick

            *may be technically fine

          • Nick loses!

            You’re clearly just arguing to be stubborn. You even admitted he should have been asked his permission:

            “I think that certainly he should have been asked his permission” – Nick

            Now you’re trying to back up your claims by discrediting his work. But they clearly think the work was good enough to use on all these police cars, so you can’t really say the artist did a bad job and doesn’t deserve to be compensated.

            It also sounds like you’re claiming its not an important enough offense to merit discussion, but your multiple responses to this thread contradict that claim.

            It seems by your own words and actions, you agree with everyone here, so we can just call this case closed, right?

            We all agree this is a violation of copyright law (not really a question), the photo should not have been used without artist permission, and the quality of the work is good enough to merit compensation.

            I think matters of opinion are closed on this subject as this is a straightforward issue of copyright violation. Nick and trolls like him everywhere have lost this day.

            Thank you, no applause necessary.

          • Nick

            My point all along has been who gives a fuck? I don’t know how I can express that any more clearly, though it may be difficult to hear me over the standing ovation your comment is likely getting.

          • Zunicorns

            Plenty of people obviously give a fuck, including you, since you keep commenting. I’m a photographer myself, and I’d be pretty pissed off if my images were used not only without compensation, but without my permission. The guy deserves credit and payment, end of story. He didn’t get the option to donate his material, unlike the multiple businesses who chipped in to buy the cars.

          • SuperC142

            It may not be necessary, but can I applaud anyway?

          • Section111

            I will withhold my applause, but I can’t hold back the love I have for this comment.

          • Nick the naive

            I’m a photographer. Nick, what do you do? eh, it doesn’t matter – your time is probably not worth anything either…

          • Nick

            I’m also a photographer, but that isn’t how I make my living. I don’t think that adding a profit motive to something I consider a joy and an artistic outlet would make me very happy, but rather would taint the enjoyment that I take from it.

          • North of Detroit

            Here’s an idea…how about a bankrupt city doesn’t waste $1,000 per vehicle putting a graphic wrap on them.

          • Nick

            I like that idea.

  • Nick

    Sorry, but who gives a fuck? How much compensation do you suppose this guy deserves for his postcard image?

    • # carolynchip

      Nick, do you advocate stealing? Do you get paid for the work YOU do? Mr. Alcott should too.

    • Tracey

      @NIck: Go back and research the history of Napster. Or listen to that “you can’t record this (insert favorite sport here) telecast with express written permission of (insert sports managing body here)” disclaimer during a broadcast. Or read about the problem with movie piracy. Same concept applies – copyrighted work grabbed, distributed, and used without the consent of the person who created and copyrighted the work. Mr. Alcott did the work, and owns the copyright. No one – not even the Downtown Detroit Partnership – has the right to use his work without his permission. A stolen image on the side of a police car is the height of irony.

      • Nick

        Despite the prevailing notion here that I’m stupid I do, in fact, understand how intellectual property rights function. My question was deadly serious. How much should he get?

        • Tracey

          That’s for the artist to determine. For all we know, he may have donated the work had he been afforded the opportunity to do so before his work was acquired.

        • Bryan

          For actual usage on 123 vehicles about $2500 per year, for possible loss of revenue due to the image now being in common usage that’s for the artist and the courts, for statutory damages on willful infringement of a registered copyright up to $150,000.

          • Nick

            That may be what he’s legally entitled at this point, but it’s not as if he came up with the fucking Nike swoosh. It’s a photograph that a thousand other people have taken already.

          • Bryan

            You are right on the first part – it is what he is entitled to. The second part although intended as a dismissive comment – you are wrong it is exactly like he came up with the Nike swoosh except at a city level. And for the third one his picture is different the fact that you don’t like it or don’t think it is unique is simply your opinion and it is the same as saying that all songs with a guitar in them are the same. They are not. Thinking of it like music might help you. If a band had a major hit stolen by them and used for commercials before they reaped the benefit of it and licensed it for commercial media on their own accord would that be ok? That’s exactly what has happened here an artist had their work stolen and they deserve payment which includes the lost payment.

          • nick

            There certainly are a lot of inapt analogies being thrown around regarding this. It isn’t at all like he created a logo that will cause brand recognition and increase profits for anyone or anything. He took a photo, one that is extremely similar to literally thousands of other photos of nearly the exact same subject matter.

            “it is the same as saying that all songs with a guitar in them are the same”

            Your music analogy is also inapt. A better one would be: Mr. Alcott’s photo is to other similar photos of the Detroit skyline at night as Stevie Ray Vaughan’s cover of Voodoo Chile is to the Hendrix original. As in… not fucking original.

  • ThePeopleofDetroit

    Sigh. SMH

  • Tracey

    Must our leaders screw up every single chance to move ahead in this city? Our perpetual incompetence is no longer funny.

    • https://twitter.com/DrMatthew Dr. Matt

      I don’t think is the fault of any leaders, rather some low-level, lazy worker bee who googled imaged ‘Detroit’ and snagged the best looking skyline.

      • Tracey

        And who manages that low-level lazy worker bee? Or approves the layout that low-level lazy worker bee designs?

        All roads lead to a leader.

        • https://twitter.com/DrMatthew Dr. Matt

          Clearly you are unemployed and never held a job a day in your life if you believe every single action by every single employee “leads to the leader”. Grow up, get a job. You’re dismissed, punk

          • Jimbo

            I manage people and ultimately everything my people do leads to me. Good or Bad. Heads should roll.

          • Sara

            No Dr. Matt, you’re an idiot. How can you tell someone has held never held a day job by disagreeing with you? Whomever (most likely, a TEAM of people) approved the final design should have made sure the image was either paid for, or under the appropriate Creative Commons license.

          • Tracey

            Fired by a troll…there’s a first for you….