REACH emergency medical helicopter (NSFW)

[mooimeisie]

Right to Privacy

Everyone is guaranteed a reasonable expectation to privacy. This means that photographing a victim of an accident or violence while he/she is being attended to by a medic would probably be considered a violation of his/her right to privacy despite being in a public place. On the other hand, photographing people doing normal street activities is legal.

The above was taken from a thread on this forum, Articles of Interest.

I believe that in the first two photos the main focus seems to be of the rescue workers and the work they are doing. The third one doesn't really do much for me. I feel sorry for the woman being in such a vulnerable position and not being able to speak for herself.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Right to Privacy

Everyone is guaranteed a reasonable expectation to privacy. This means that photographing a victim of an accident or violence while he/she is being attended to by a medic would probably be considered a violation of his/her right to privacy despite being in a public place. On the other hand, photographing people doing normal street activities is legal.

The above was taken from a thread on this forum, Articles of Interest.

I believe that in the first two photos the main focus seems to be of the rescue workers and the work they are doing. The third one doesn't really do much for me. I feel sorry for the woman being in such a vulnerable position and not being able to speak for herself.

Agreed.

 

[Hellhound]

Everyone is guaranteed a reasonable expectation to privacy. This means that photographing a victim of an accident or violence while he/she is being attended to by a medic would probably be considered a violation of his/her right to privacy despite being in a public place.

You're confusing this with 4th Amendment search and seizure issues. There is no law against photographing a person in the circumstances described.

 

[Captain IK]

If I understand correctly, the debate on this thread is a moral one not a legal one.
That being said, I believe as a photog you have to be able to sleep at night. If you capture an image and have questions about whether it should be published or not...perhaps it shouldn't.
I would not have published the 3rd shot in the OP, but see no problem with publishing the shot of deceased girls foot being covered by the emergency personnel.
I think you can be a good photog and a respectable one at the same time.

...no offence directed at the OP.

 

[JE Kay]

On the other hand, photographing people doing normal street activities is legal.

In Canada actually it is illegal to just snap photos of someone on the street without their permission unless it's in the commission of 'news gathering', as in this instance where an accident and helicopter extraction would be considered news worthy for submittal. If you're shooting a street scene and people are around that's legal as well, but you can't single someone out and just shoot them, well you can but if they see you and want to make a stink about it you can get in serious trouble.

There was a case a number of years ago in TO where a photographer was charged with assault for following a girl along the street shooting as she walked somewhere. He said he was scouting, the police disagreed and he was charged. If he had been photographing a water fountain and she walked past and was in the shot, there is no issue with that. You have to use your head sometimes when photographing people.

Myself I have no problem simply asking if I can shoot someone I see on the street if they look interesting or whatever. I'll give them my card, if they say no I move on.

I have no problem with the OP shots. :thumbup:

 

[stsinner]

Nice pics, Dan.. It's a shame you have to endure the whiners and haters of freedom.. You see the equivalent of a bra on beach all the time, albeit in pastels and pretty colors and called a bikini top.. I don't think your pictures are out of line at all, but depict a rescue very nicely. I wish I had my camera with me on the life flights I've been a part of.

Also, it's interesting one poster thought you'd be interested in the laws of Canada when your location says Cali.. I actually had no idea they lacked freedom to that extent, but it's irrelevant, anyway.

 

[Hooligan Dan]

That being said, I believe as a photog you have to be able to sleep at night.

I can tell you that if a person has problems sleeping after seeing and shooting things like this than they shouldn't a photojournalist. I've seen horrors far worse than this and I have no doubt I will see others even worse than those.

It's not photographing it and wondering if the shot should run that you'll lose sleep over. It's just seeing that kind of thing in person. It's knowing your photo may be the way a person finds out a friend has died. It's knowing that your job is to photograph a scene where a mother has found out her kid has died. That's why you'll lose sleep.

I am however glad this has sparked such a vigorous debate.

 

[adamwilliamking]

It all depends actually. She may not have been coherient or even conscious to know that she was being loaded into a helicopter.. and if she wasn't then she wouldnt be able to tell it was her.

Im sorry but that just sounds ridiculous. If that were you, you would know, regardless if you were awake or asleep when the photo was taken.
Barring serious brain damage.

 

[250Gimp]

Also, it's interesting one poster thought you'd be interested in the laws of Canada when your location says Cali.. I actually had no idea they lacked freedom to that extent, but it's irrelevant, anyway.

JE Kay was merely pointing out that things are a bit different in Canada, as I am sure they are in other parts of the world. The fact that the OP is from California doesn't factor in when you read the entire thread.

As for my opinion of the original pics....I don't have any problems with them.

Cheers

 

[flea77]

Nice pics, Dan.. It's a shame you have to endure the whiners and haters of freedom.. You see the equivalent of a bra on beach all the time, albeit in pastels and pretty colors and called a bikini top.. I don't think your pictures are out of line at all, but depict a rescue very nicely.

I think there is a huge difference between intentionally dressing to present yourself on the beach in a bikini and having your shirt cut off by paramedics. This woman obviously has absolutely no control over how she was presented to the camera, and that I think is the crux in my view. I would personally run either of the first two, and not the third. That is just me. I think my freedom to shoot her picture ends when her freedom to object or cover herself is removed.

Allan

 

[JE Kay]

I actually had no idea they lacked freedom to that extent

Are you serious?!! We have way more freedom when it comes to what and where and how we shoot in Canada. That comment is absolutely hilarious!

Hell, I've read countless and countless threads from people in the US being harassed, tossed from public places for merely pointing their camera at some building or other perceived security sensitive structure.

As for photographing private citizens in the US in public places without consent in the manner I described? I can assure you those laws exist in your country as well in various forms in various states.

Lacked freedom compared to the US, god that's the funniest **** I've read in a long time, thanks man.... :lmao:

 

[stsinner]

Are you serious?!! We have way more freedom when it comes to what and where and how we shoot in Canada. That comment is absolutely hilarious!

Hell, I've read countless and countless threads from people in the US being harassed, tossed from public places for merely pointing their camera at some building or other perceived security sensitive structure.

As for photographing private citizens in the US in public places without consent in the manner I described? I can assure you those laws exist in your country as well in various forms in various states. Wrong

Lacked freedom compared to the US, god that's the funniest **** I've read in a long time, thanks man.... :lmao:

Did I mention America anywhere in my post or make a comparison in any way? Grow up.

And you're wrong about not being able to photograph anyone you want in public in America. It's absolutely legal unless they tell you that you may not or ask you to stop.. The pictures you took before they asked you to stop, however, are yours.

 

[SouthEastFirePhoto]

Hey Everyone. I had to way in on this one. I am a fire service photographer and shoot freelance for several online news sources as well as a fire service newspaper and I can tell you that in that venue this image would not even be considered an issue. The legalities of it are clear but the way people feel about it are very different no matter where you go.

I always try and protect the identities of people in situations like this but sometimes it is very difficult to do. I always go for the best shot and if the editor feels it is too questionable, it won't get run. Maybe that is the wrong approach but that is what I have done and it works well enough for me right now.

I have many images of people that maybe didn't want me to take of them and never ever have I lost sleep over it.

That being said, to the OP, great set of images!!

 

[Hooligan Dan]

I'm reading through the comments and I get the impression that many of you think we ran the third photo for the story. To clear things up, the third photo has been seen here and here alone. It was not published with the newspaper story in otherwise.

 

[stsinner]

Hey Everyone. I had to way in on this one.

Good post, and just for future reference, it's, "weigh-in.."