Man Caught Trying to Sell Book of Boston Bombing Press Photographs on Amazon


The Boston Marathon bombing was a horrific event that took three lives and left more than 170 people injured; the idea that somebody would try to profit from that is unthinkable. And yet, someone already has.

Only one day after the bombings, a man by the name of Steve Goldstein used numerous photos from The AP, Getty Images and The New York Times without permission in order to create and sell an eBook titled “The Boston Bombings First Photos” on Amazon.

According to the NPPA, former association president Bob Carey first spotted the book on Amazon and downloaded it to see if it “was as disgusting as it appeared:”

I was correct. The poorly done layout and lack of any copy other than Goldstein’s copyright page for the book confirmed my opinion. Goldstein was obviously looking to make money on photos from a tragedy with no regard for the photographers’ rights.

The ebook went for $8 per download until Carey brought it to the attention of the infringed-upon parties, who collectively got in touch with Amazon and Goldstein. Lawyers from The New York Times itself even got involved, immediately sending Goldstein a cease-and-desist letter.

For their part, Amazon pulled the book from its catalog within an hour, and Goldstein responded with a significantly inadequate “We will stop the use of the photos that you mention. Sorry for the use without permission.”

(via PDNPulse via Phoblographer)

  • Jeff Bridges

    >Steve Goldstein

    No shock there.

  • -

    People should profit, not like they will make it worst, but I agree, this shouldn’t be done with the photographies other people made.

  • Jpolatin

    Is that what you said when Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine, when itzhack Perlman played the violin etc.? No shock there.

  • Jeff

    I may get some negative feedback for this but…Though I agree that this “book” was done in poor taste to try and profit off of this tragedy, and through I completely agree with copyrights of photographs (and believe this guy should give an account for both infringements), the statement in the first paragraph, ” the idea that somebody would try to profit from that is unthinkable,” is somewhat funny….isn’t this the very thing all the photojournalists did the second they took pictures and uploaded them to their papers & magazines?

  • Jake

    You’re mostly correct, except for the few – probably *very* few – photographers out there who genuinely use photojournalism as a means of spreading information and awareness first, with the idea of making a profit much further down on the list, especially if they aren’t even professionals.

  • Jake

    Really? That’s the route you’re taking? Can we just ban this anti-semite SoB’s IP from this site and not give him the dignity of acknowledging his idiocy?

  • madmax

    “the idea that somebody would try to profit from that is unthinkable” … Hahaha! And war photographers don´t sell their pictures?… and film makers?… writers?… journalists? … politicians?

  • eraserhead12

    I guess the main difference is, for photojournalists that is literally their profession. for this guy, he’s just some internet troll looking to make a few quick bucks through theft and exploitation.

  • madmax

    Jeff, I totally agree. I published my answer without having read yours…

  • Vincent

    This guy is racist towards Jews, not semites. Semites include Arabs amongst others. Just saying.

  • Jake

    You’re absolutely right, and I’m usually more careful about that distinction. But calling Jews a “race” isn’t exactly accurate either, considering how racially diluted and widespread we are.

  • Bristol

    Either this guy is upvoting himself or bigoted Petapixel users have given me 7 reasons so far to stop reading this website.

  • Duke Shin

    >greentext format on petapixel

    Hello, /p/tard brethren.

  • bob cooley

    Actually calling the Jewish people a “race” is completely inaccurate. They are an ethnoreligious culture. The nazis called them a race to justify their agendas starting in pre-war Germany. It made for easier propaganda then saying “this ethnoreligious culture is your enemy”, and the nazis were heavy on the idea of racial purity.

    and full disclosure, I’m catholic raised of German and English descent, so don’t go there…

  • Erik Lauri Kulo

    I was meaning to quote “…the idea that somebody would try to profit from that is unthinkable.” and say what a ridiculous statement that is considering that’s what newspapers does, photographs and so on. But clearly, I was too late.

  • Jake

    Yeah, by “not exactly accurate,” I was diplomatically trying to say what you just said. I know a ton of people who still think of Jews as a race, despite the fact that we haven’t been a racially-uniform people since the Diaspora 2000 years ago.

  • Jeff

    1st, i’m not knocking photojournalists….it’s their job to take pics and get paid to do so. and that is ok!

    2nd, i would argue that they were probably thinking hey i need to get this shot to the “boss” so i can get paid, and again, this is not bad because it is what they do. and whoever gets the shot there first gets paid first.

    3rd, not even sure how the connection between your statement about them thinking profits for the company and no pics and just text in articles comes together so i’ll just let that one be.

    4th, this was just a light hearted chuckle at a funny wording of a statement!

  • Aaron Toon

    Interesting that you might say that Jeff, I was about to say the exact same thing. Basically, I think the media are upset that someone wrongfully used their photo’s… but to accuse him of profiting from the Boston bombings is going a little too far given that, like you rightfully pointed out, they are just about doing the same thing.

  • Anthony Benjamin

    Mr Goldstein is just another person wanting to profit from this appalling event. The Boston Globe share price and the photographer’s bank balance and “fame” have all been boosted by this mortography. The idea that a photojournalist “needs” to photograph a limbless terror victim to “tell the story” is pathetic as it assumes that we can’t imagine what a bomb does to human beings. You can tell a bomb story without showing us the the colour of the victim’s eyes. It’s called a long shot but then that probably conflicts with the money shot.

    Let us remember that another photojournalist shot a man about to be killed by a subway train. Are we happy that he was doing his job and showing us what a man about to die looks like? If such photographers came across a street rape would they be justified in taking pictures, selling them to a publisher who sells them to the public who put them on Twitter just because they can?

    The sound of the established media crying, “Nobody can profit from Boston but us” is faintly amusing.


  • James

    To think that people and corporate entities do not profit from tragedy is ludicrous. Yes, photojournalists are just doing their jobs.. but when they are photographing a tragedy, then their job is to profit from a tragedy. Let’s make sure we take into account photojournalists who are not on the payroll and profit from piece work. They are literally looking for newsworthy scenes to shoot and profit off of. I am not saying that they have malicious intent, but to ignore the fact that there are a whole pile of people/companies/corporations who profit from these events is just that; ignorance. Even the company who built the $500k multi imaging camera that helped capture the suspect in the boat is profiting off the Boston bombings.

  • ken