Federal Register notice: NIST asks for rights to release all WTC images

[BigAl]

SUMMARY: Photographers whose photographs and videos were provided to NIST for use in its investigation into WTC1/2/7 must provide NIST with a written response explaining how disclosure of their images would likely cause substantial competitive harm ... if you believe that some or all of the images you submitted to NIST should be withheld in response to requests received by NIST. Responses must be received by NIST by c.o.b., August 24, 2009.

NIST has received requests made under FOIA for the photographs and videos NIST collected as part of its investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (Buildings 1 and 2) and World Trade Center Building 7.

Four FOIA requests are located at: http://wtc.nist.gov/FOIA/FOIArequests09_15_42_63_88.pdf. During the course of its investigation NIST received thousands of photographic and video images from hundreds of photographers.




http://cryptome.org/0001/nist081409.htm
(Full text below)

[Federal Register: August 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 156)]

[Notices]
[Page 41124]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14au09-38]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Freedom of Information Act Requests for Photographs and Videos
Collected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for Its
Investigation Into the Failures of the World Trade Center Buildings


AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Photographers whose photographs and videos were provided to
NIST for use in its investigation into the failures of World Trade
Center (WTC) Buildings 1, 2 and 7 must provide NIST with a written
response explaining how disclosure of their images would likely cause
substantial competitive harm to their competitive position and/or
impair the Government's ability to obtain similar information in the
future if you believe that some or all of the images you submitted to
NIST should be withheld in response to requests received by NIST under
the Freedom of Information Act.

DATES: All written responses must be received by NIST by c.o.b., August
24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: All written responses must be sent to NIST Freedom of
Information Act Officer, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1710,
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1710 or by e-mail to
Catherine.fletcher@nist.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NIST FOIA Officer by telephone at
(301) 975-4074, or by e-mail at Catherine.fletcher@nist.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) has received requests made under the Federal Freedom
of Information Act (Title 5 U.S.C. 552) (FOIA) for the photographs and
videos NIST collected as part of its investigation of the collapse of
the World Trade Center Towers (Buildings 1 and 2) and World Trade
Center Building 7. The FOIA requests are located at: http://
wtc.nist.gov/FOIA/FOIArequests09_15_42_63_88.pdf. During the course
of its investigation NIST received thousands of photographic and video
images from hundreds of photographers.

Under the FOIA, the Government is required to release to a
requester copies of documents it maintains that are not otherwise
protected by an exemption to the FOIA. One particular exemption,
exemption (b)(4), protects from disclosure any records, or portions
thereof, which contain ``trade secrets and commercial or financial
information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.'' 5
U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(4).

If you submitted photographic or video images to NIST for its World
Trade Center investigation and if you believe that some or all of the
images should be withheld, you must notify NIST in writing within ten
(10) working days (i.e., excluding Saturday, Sunday, and legal public
holidays) from the date of publication of this Federal Register notice.
Your written response must specifically identify which images you
submitted to NIST for which you are asserting privilege under exemption
(b)(4). You should include copies of your images with your written
response to help identify your images. If you do not positively
identify your image(s), your written response will not be considered.
Your written response must indicate that you are responding to this
Federal Register notice. Your written response must explain why the
images are commercial or financial information that is privileged or
confidential. In order to protect information under exemption (b)(4),
your written response must explain, in detail, how disclosure of your
images would likely cause substantial harm to your competitive position
and/or how disclosure of your images will impair the Government's
ability to obtain similar information in the future. A conclusory
statement, to the effect that the information is confidential because
releasing it could cause substantial competitive harm, will not
suffice. Your written response must include your full name and complete
address. You may notify the NIST FOIA Officer of your position by
sending an e-mail to Catherine.fletcher@nist.gov or by mailing a letter
to: NIST Freedom of Information Act Officer, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail
Stop 1710, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1710.

NIST does not have current contact information for all of the
photographers whose images were submitted for the NIST WTC
Investigation. If you know a photographer whose images were submitted
to NIST, please notify them of this notice.

FOIA lawsuits were filed for these records on May 28, 2009 and June
15, 2009. Therefore, time is of the essence in processing this request.
If we do not receive a response from you within 10 working days from
the date of publication of this Federal Register notice, your images
might be released to the FOIA requester.

Dated: August 11, 2009.
Katharine Gebbie,
Director, Physics Laboratory.
[FR Doc. E9-19535 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-13-P

[Myriad]

Interesting. It sounds as though there's a bit of an oversight in the relevant laws: the government is constrained not to release information from private sources when the information itself is of competitive commercial value, but there's no law similarly taking into account the value of the actual form of presentation of the information, e.g. the copyrights on images.

So, if these images were released, would they come with copyright restrictions still attached? If so, the FOIA requesters might receive copies but still be subject to action by the copyright holders if they post or share the images.

If not, then clearly a case could be made on the basis of impairing the government's
ability to obtain similar information in the future. If contributing such images to such an investigation ultimately strips the photographer's copyright (or even if it doesn't, but de facto means the government must give out free copies to anyone who requests them), that clearly could discourage photographers from providing their images to future investigations.

Many of the photographers in this case probably have no intentions to profit from their images and will not object to their release, but many others are professionals. I suspect that NIST will honor any specific requests to withhold them based on the impairing future ability argument. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the New York Times' legal department right now.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Horatius]

So, if these images were released, would they come with copyright restrictions still attached? If so, the FOIA requesters might receive copies but still be subject to action by the copyright holders if they post or share the images.




This is what I'd expect. I work with patents, and every now and then, you see an application that contains something (like a bit of computer code), that is also subject to copyright. There's usually a disclaimer attached that indicates that while the government is permitted to reproduce the code as a part of the patent specification, all other rights are reserved to the owners of the code. I don't see why this would be different. Such a balance would serve the public interest, in making FOIA requests for such details possible, while also preserving the value to the original copyright holder for all other uses.

[A W Smith]

three of those requests are from attorneys representing Consolidated Edison.
only a single request from truthers Gourley and his gang

James Gourley request starts at page 5 of the pdf and is an amusing read.



they don't want to pay more than $500 for duplication and other costs
They will buy and send NIST an empty hard drive to facilitate data storage
Gourley and his merry band of "academics" have scores "peer reviewed":rolleyes: published papers in "mainstream peer reviewed scientific journals":rolleyes: and that they are "researchers". not commercial scam artists. So they want an exemption from excessive duplication costs.




http://wtc.nist.gov/FOIA/FOIArequests09_15_42_63_88.pdf

[LashL]

And ConEd's requests have probably become moot, since its litigation against the Port Authority was completed by way of summary judgment in late July.

[A W Smith]

And ConEd's requests have probably become moot, since its litigation against the Port Authority was completed by way of summary judgment in late July.


The Con Ed request was received by Nist nov 08. so if summary judgerment was in july It moved pretty quickly through the courts. It looks like the building data they are requesting pertains specifically to the steel and shop drawings with detailing performed by Frankel Steel. So Is there pending litigation between Con Ed and Frankel Steel?

[LashL]

The Con Ed request was received by Nist nov 08. so if summary judgerment was in july It moved pretty quickly through the courts. It looks like the building data they are requesting pertains specifically to the steel and shop drawings with detailing performed by Frankel Steel. So Is there pending litigation between Con Ed and Frankel Steel?


The ConEd v. Port Authority lawsuit was actually commenced in 2002 and there were multiple parties but Frankel Steel was not one of them (and it would have been if it was being sued in connection with the collapse of WTC7). I also checked a list of all of the cases on PACER involving ConEd in the Southern District of New York and none of them involve Frankel Steel.

Here's a copy of the (lengthy) docket report (http://legaltainment.googlepages.com/ConEddocket.doc) in the ConEd v. PA matter.

[jaydeehess]

So what is the chatter on the TM sites about this?

Let me guess;

-Some will welcome this and claim its a victory for their side, illustrating how their movement has pushed and pushed and made the bigbadgov't take notice and respond to their calls.

- Some will be saying something akin to, " yeah, just watch which ones, and how many, mysteriously still need to be withheld......!!1!!11!!"

-Others will be claiming outright that some pictures that have never been acknowledged as existing will remain 'disappeared' and those are the really incriminating photos. (ie. the videos containg irrefutable evidence of the explosive demolitions used in WTC 7)

[DGM]

I just spoke to a friend of mine who supplied (and was later returned to him) a video. He refused to grant permission for the release due to the fact that the tape was his last communication (he was on the phone with his wife, on tape) with her and it's his own private memorial. They agreed, and thanked him for all he had done.

[Klimax]

I just spoke to a friend of mine who supplied (and was later returned to him) a video. He refused to grant permission for the release due to the fact that the tape was his last communication (he was on the phone with his wife, on tape) with her and it's his own private memorial. They agreed, and thanked him for all he had done.

Understandable and unlike other things,this is not needed by public...
(Truther should be kept from it anyway,you know why.)

[jaydeehess]

That is similar to one of the reasons why cockpit voice recordings are rarely released to the public.

Transcripts may get released and news org's may create a dramatization based on the transcripts but the families of the crew do not need to hear the actual last words of their loved ones played out over and over again on TV. The families of the passengers need not hear any screaming from the cabin that might get picked up by the mic.

This is one reason why images or audio might be with held, though it has nothing to do with how the owner would be harmed financially.

[Mangoose]

While the Moussaoui trial was underway, I saw a couple interviewed on MSNBC who submitted a video to the trial of people falling to their deaths from the WTC, videotaped from a nearby building (the Marriott hotel, I think it was, but I'm not sure). I don't remember much from the interview, but I am sure that they said that they did not want it publicly released. So when I found it in the trial exhibits put online, I was quite surprised. And subsequently, it was plastered on Youtube and elsewhere.