I think that all images created with photography, no matter how used, start life as photographs. Technically, the pix in a book are lithographic prints, not photographs. Still, most, myself included use the term "photograph" as a way to refer to the composition that is reproduced in the book (even if it is not technically a photographic print), and not to technically refer to the exact print in the book. In common use, the term has a broader use than simply "a picture made by exposing a light-sensitive surface", and I do not have a big problem with this, though I prefer the term "picture". If we are being more specific as to the exact prints in the exact book, we say reproductions or litho prints, etc. Either way, no matter the type of print, photographic or litho, the status as fine art remains for the pix in the book, IMO. They are there to be appreciated as pictures in and of themselves, not to sell a product or promote a cause.
This is exactly why I prefer to use the term "pictures" (...and why I called them "shots" in my post).
Agreed. So then does a reproduction rise to fine art because an essentially similar concept is presented, even though it may be for educational or illustrative purposes? Does a coffee table book (images for it's own sake) contain fine art, whilst "The Negative" (images for education or illustration that were originally intended as art, but serve a different purpose in the book) does not?