a question of ethics

Last weekend I was traveling in my car with a friend when three emergency
vehicles passed us. A couple of minutes later we encountered the same
vehicles at the site of an accident. An SUV was on it's roof about 15 feet
off the shoulder of the highway. We stopped and got out and I took my
camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle. There were plenty of
first responders on hand, and I did not see any of the injured, though, from
the looks of things there were probably some very serious injuries
sustained. After I took only one picture someone (not a police officer or
the fireman, but a civilian) asked me who I was with. I think he initially
thought I was a professional photographer, but he soon concluded correctly,
that I was not, and he would not allow me to take any more pictures.

My friend, to my total surprise, agreed with him.

Some of the most moving photographs ever taken have been of subjects that
show death and destruction. Two examples that come to mind are from the
Vietnam war: 1. the photograph of the young Vietnamese girl running nude
down the highway after having being burned by napalm. and 2. the Viet Cong
official who was shot in the head from point blank range during the Tet
Offensive in 1968.

I am in no way comparing my pictures to the one mentioned above, but my
question is how does one determine when it is ok to shoot pictures of events
that cause immense grief to others? I'm sure that if the mother of the
little Vietnamese girl saw the photographer take the photo of her daughter
she would have been extremely upset, but that photo had a powerful impact in
this country.

I will appreciate any and all responses. Good, bad, or otherwise. Thanks.

Robert A. Cunningham wrote: brevity snip
An SUV was on it's roof about 15 feet
off the shoulder of the highway. We stopped and got out and I took my
camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle.

After I took only one picture someone (not a police officer or
the fireman, but a civilian) asked me who I was with. I think he initially
thought I was a professional photographer, but he soon concluded correctly,
that I was not, and he would not allow me to take any more pictures.

What does "wouldn't allow" mean?

I've shot a few crashes with cops on the scene. Staying out of "the
way" no official has ever said squat to me. A couple of the drivers
told me not to take pictures of their crash and my reply was, off the
top of my head the first time, "Sorry. If you don't want pictures
taken you should crash in the privacy of your own home".

You are a "freelance" or "independant" photographer. Nobody who shoots
for a living is going to pay the slighest bit of attention to any
non-official request to stop shooting in a public venue. And it's very
unlikely any official will order you to stop shooting, they will tell
you to move.

Your first responsibility is to render aid. Once that has been
fulfilled you are within your rights to shoot. You may capture some
evidence intregal to a later investigation... or a salable pic.

The Shooter's Credo: It's easier to receive forgiveness than
permission. And far more expedient.
-----

- gpsman

Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
Last weekend I was traveling in my car with a friend when three emergency
vehicles passed us. A couple of minutes later we encountered the same
vehicles at the site of an accident. An SUV was on it's roof about 15 feet
off the shoulder of the highway. We stopped and got out and I took my
camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle. There were plenty of
first responders on hand, and I did not see any of the injured, though, from
the looks of things there were probably some very serious injuries
sustained. After I took only one picture someone (not a police officer or
the fireman, but a civilian) asked me who I was with. I think he initially
thought I was a professional photographer, but he soon concluded correctly,
that I was not, and he would not allow me to take any more pictures.

Disclaimer: U.S. perspective...rules may vary in other places:

Unless you were on private property, he did not have the authority to
tell you that you could not take the pictures.

My friend, to my total surprise, agreed with him.

Most people consider this kind of photography invasive, even when it
isn't.

Some of the most moving photographs ever taken have been of subjects that
show death and destruction. Two examples that come to mind are from the
Vietnam war: 1. the photograph of the young Vietnamese girl running nude
down the highway after having being burned by napalm. and 2. the Viet Cong
official who was shot in the head from point blank range during the Tet
Offensive in 1968.

Both of those were photographed and published in a journalistic manner
and for journalistic purposes. It changes the rules. Even so, the
newspapers I read don't publish photos of horrific crash scenes any
more, or at least bury them beyond page 2.

For most non-journalistic (and non-evidentiary) purposes, there are
serious legal ramifications to using photos of recognizable people
without a model release. These issues generally do not extend to
property, but in some limited situations may. I don't think an
overturned, smashed-up car would count.

Was the person objecting to you taking pictures at all, or taking
pictures while rescue personel were still actively working the scene?

I am in no way comparing my pictures to the one mentioned above, but my
question is how does one determine when it is ok to shoot pictures of events
that cause immense grief to others?

I am sure there are those from one end of the spectrum to the other.
For some people, it is *never* OK. For others, it is OK to photograph
anything (such as the cold blooded murder of a spy you mentioned
above).

When my grandmother died (about 30 years ago), an adult cousin of mine
took a Polaroid snapshot of granny in the casket. People were
outraged. But today, they pass around a very old photo of her
grandfather. I have virtually proven that it was a "death portrait,"
where the deceased was sat up, effectively strapped in place, and
photographed. Those who objected to granny's Polaroid have no problem
with great-great grandpa's death portrait.

The differences are many, but one of the big ones was the purpose. My
cousin wanted a picture of his grandmother, but wasn't willing to
persue getting a copy of one of the very many that were taken in her
lifetime. Death portraits were popular at a time when photography
almost always involved a professional, and was relatively expensive.
Families would sometimes have them done when no other photo of Papa
existed.

If you were shooting the scene for a series on drunkeness (whether for
journalistic or artistic purposes), I would not object - assuming drunk
driving turned out to be a factor in the collision. If you were
shooting it in order to add to a collection of gory scenes for your
Halloween haunted house, I might.

Austin

"gpsman" wrote in message
ps.com...
Robert A. Cunningham wrote: brevity snip
An SUV was on it's roof about 15 feet
off the shoulder of the highway. We stopped and got out and I took my
camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle.

After I took only one picture someone (not a police officer or
the fireman, but a civilian) asked me who I was with. I think he
initially
thought I was a professional photographer, but he soon concluded
correctly,
that I was not, and he would not allow me to take any more pictures.

What does "wouldn't allow" mean?

I've shot a few crashes with cops on the scene. Staying out of "the
way" no official has ever said squat to me. A couple of the drivers
told me not to take pictures of their crash and my reply was, off the
top of my head the first time, "Sorry. If you don't want pictures
taken you should crash in the privacy of your own home".

You are a "freelance" or "independant" photographer. Nobody who shoots
for a living is going to pay the slighest bit of attention to any
non-official request to stop shooting in a public venue. And it's very
unlikely any official will order you to stop shooting, they will tell
you to move.

Your first responsibility is to render aid. Once that has been
fulfilled you are within your rights to shoot. You may capture some
evidence intregal to a later investigation... or a salable pic.

The Shooter's Credo: It's easier to receive forgiveness than
permission. And far more expedient.
-----

- gpsman


I agree. If it is a public venue and you are not interfering with the
police activity, I know of no legal prohibition about taking photos. There
is no presumption of privacy when an event takes place in public, however
embarrassing it might appear to the participants.

Unfortunately, some cops suffer from "Wyatt Earp Syndrome," and they think
that they can define peoples' civil rights, simply by virtue of their tin
badges. But that is another topic.

We stopped and got out and I took my
camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, and don't actually believe in
what follows, but I'd be interested your or others' responses to it.

What you don't make clear in your post is why you started taking pictures.

The average car wreck isn't that interesting a subject, and nor are
injured or distressed people, unless you're recording a news event for a
local paper. Which presumably you weren't?

Why did you want to take photos of the scene? Without an obvious and
sensible reason, one might conclude that's you're a weirdo who considers
his photos of destruction, injury and potentially death some part of
your "art."

AustinMN wrote: A good overview of the situation.

I would only make one comment.

" For most non-journalistic (and non-evidentiary) purposes, there are
serious legal ramifications to using photos of recognizable people without a
model release. "

While that is true, in most situations where the photographer is on
public property and not photographing someone who would normally expect
privacy (like using a long telephoto to photograph someone in their home) or
today in the case of children, there are few issues.



--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

gpsman wrote:
Robert A. Cunningham wrote: brevity snip
An SUV was on it's roof about 15 feet
off the shoulder of the highway. We stopped and got out and I took my
camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle.

After I took only one picture someone (not a police officer or
the fireman, but a civilian) asked me who I was with. I think he initially
thought I was a professional photographer, but he soon concluded correctly,
that I was not, and he would not allow me to take any more pictures.

What does "wouldn't allow" mean?

I've shot a few crashes with cops on the scene. Staying out of "the
way" no official has ever said squat to me. A couple of the drivers
told me not to take pictures of their crash and my reply was, off the
top of my head the first time, "Sorry. If you don't want pictures
taken you should crash in the privacy of your own home".

You are a "freelance" or "independant" photographer. Nobody who shoots
for a living is going to pay the slighest bit of attention to any
non-official request to stop shooting in a public venue. And it's very
unlikely any official will order you to stop shooting, they will tell
you to move.

Your first responsibility is to render aid. Once that has been
fulfilled you are within your rights to shoot. You may capture some
evidence intregal to a later investigation... or a salable pic.

The Shooter's Credo: It's easier to receive forgiveness than
permission. And far more expedient.


Hi...

I can't help asking...

What ever happened to "the golden rule"?

Take care.

Ken

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:03:41 GMT, Ken Weitzel
wrote:



I can't help asking...

What ever happened to "the golden rule"?

It has been replaced with the
Brass Rule.

In article om,
"gpsman" wrote:


What does "wouldn't allow" mean?

I've shot a few crashes with cops on the scene. Staying out of "the
way" no official has ever said squat to me. A couple of the drivers
told me not to take pictures of their crash and my reply was, off the
top of my head the first time, "Sorry. If you don't want pictures
taken you should crash in the privacy of your own home".

You are a "freelance" or "independant" photographer. Nobody who shoots
for a living is going to pay the slighest bit of attention to any
non-official request to stop shooting in a public venue. And it's very
unlikely any official will order you to stop shooting, they will tell
you to move.

Your first responsibility is to render aid. Once that has been
fulfilled you are within your rights to shoot. You may capture some
evidence intregal to a later investigation... or a salable pic.

The Shooter's Credo: It's easier to receive forgiveness than
permission. And far more expedient.
-----


Your remarks are sensitive and sensible. Although I decided to do
something else with my life, my education was in journalism, and this
topic was discussed often. I would simply add that I usually know
intuitively when it is okay and when it is not.

Robert A. Cunningham wrote:
Last weekend I was traveling in my car with a friend when three emergency
vehicles passed us. A couple of minutes later we encountered the same
vehicles at the site of an accident. An SUV was on it's roof about 15 feet
off the shoulder of the highway. We stopped and got out and I took my
camera and started taking pictures of the vehicle. There were plenty of
first responders on hand, and I did not see any of the injured, though, from
the looks of things there were probably some very serious injuries
sustained. After I took only one picture someone (not a police officer or
the fireman, but a civilian) asked me who I was with. I think he initially
thought I was a professional photographer, but he soon concluded correctly,
that I was not, and he would not allow me to take any more pictures.

If you were out of the way of all official personnel, and there was no
aid you could possibly render, and you were not standing on private
property, you were within your legal rights.

But ethics? Morals? Too much of a judgement call. No right answer
that'll apply to everyone.

So, what motivated you to stop and shoot?

--
John McWilliams