Photographer's Code of Ethics Vs Subject's privacy. I would really like some answers.

[jowensphoto]

Nice Shepherd sign in the background!

 

[KmH]

Interesting thread...something I have been wondering: my daughter competes in cheer ( what a money hungry racket that is!!!) and suddenly I am not allowed to photograph her at competitions. What!?!? I had been for years!!! But NOW they have a photographer come in and force me to buy her prints online. IF she gets a pic of my daughter and I'm sure it won't be in the middle of the cartwheel she mastered just before competition that I am soooo proud of. How can they ban me from photographing MY daughter and force me to pay them??? Oh I'm so frustrated! Is there any way around this?

It would help if your profile indicated what country you are in. The internet is international, but laws aren't.

Way around this? If you are in the USA - Not if the event is on private property.

There is no way they can force you to buy the other photographers photos, however they can make those photos your only option.

If you want to fight back, find out if the photographer is giving the organisers/sanctioning body kickback $$$'s. Though quite common in youth sports, in most other businesses giving and accepting kickbacks gets people tossed into jail.

 

[gsgary]

Next time they point the camera at you punch them they won't do it again

 

[Village Idiot]

Nice Shepherd sign in the background!

That "fell" off the metal posts that were originally holding it up... :mrgreen:

 

[Overread]

For crying out loud... its fraking. Don't you guys watch Battlestar Galactica????

Frak (expletive) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hehehe

Pfft I prefer Frell or Frelling -- Farescape > BSG (the new one)

 

[IByte]

No BSG for me Robert Chicken and Venture Brothers.

 

[imagemaker46]

As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it. I was covering a tragic car accident years ago and was asked by the police if I was planning on shooting any pictures of the kids that died in the van, they burned to death, it was news and I was working for a newspaper. I respected the rights of these kids and their parents and friends, and didn't shoot any pictures. Being asked by the police had nothing to do with it, as I had already decided not to.

I have no time for the "professionals" that chase the rich and famous, they are the sleaze that bring photographers down, they don't have any respect for anyone, and are the first to scream about their rights as photographers. Half of them using iphones.

I take my profession seriously and respecting people is part of it.

 

[tirediron]

As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it. I was covering a tragic car accident years ago and was asked by the police if I was planning on shooting any pictures of the kids that died in the van, they burned to death, it was news and I was working for a newspaper. I respected the rights of these kids and their parents and friends, and didn't shoot any pictures. Being asked by the police had nothing to do with it, as I had already decided not to.

I have no time for the "professionals" that chase the rich and famous, they are the sleaze that bring photographers down, they don't have any respect for anyone, and are the first to scream about their rights as photographers. Half of them using iphones.

I take my profession seriously and respecting people is part of it.

Thank-you! Without a doubt one of the best posts ever made on this forum!

 

[usayit]

As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it.

In certain parts of the US (being purposely vague), police may restrict immediate access to an accident scene to any photographer (including press) that has been cornered off from public. This does not restrict photography taken from outside of the controlled area into the accident scene. I have read many times that this action has been contested with claims of 1st amendment rights. The judge usually sides with the police and arresting officer. Whether or not it is the proper interpretation of freedom of press is beyond the scope of my response.... simply it hasn't been contested and won enough to make it a trend.

Something to consider... ethics and morality have little to do with legality (exactly the way it should be). The two are mixed up quite often in such discussions. For example, it may be ethically wrong to take those accident photos but it may be perfectly legal. Also consider if one's career/job is on the line. Whether or not a photographer takes said photos is highly dependent on personal needs vs moral compass. Kevin Carter for example took a Pulitzer Prize winning photo that eventually haunted him for the rest of his life. It may have been morally wrong and I certainly don't agree with the actions he took after the shutter was tripped. On the other hand it brought attention to the situation in Sudan.


I'm all for image-maker's response but its not a simple situation and to me sounds off topic (a bit pretentious IMO).... comparing an accident scene to the OP's predicament of being annoyed by his annoying friends with their annoying cameras.

 

[imagemaker46]

Kevin Carter's photo did impact alot of people and draw attention to the Sudan, I think it is a brilliant image, would I have shot the same thing if I were in the same situation, I'm not sure, would I have just walked away after feeling good about myself. He was living in a bad place in his life at the time and it was a combination of things that finally drove him to suicide. While I agree the photos of kids burned alive in the back of a van is news, I saw it as morally wrong to shoot the photos. I was one of the first people on the scene, it happened on some backroads and and the reporter I had with me knew a back way in. This also happened in 1979, to this day, I could describe to you, draw a picture of where eveything was, it wasn't something I ever wanted to see again. Why should the parents have to see that, if the images were printed, and the paper I was working for probably would have, I got raked over the coals by the news editor for not having those photos. I knew where his moral ethics were located. By today's rules the whole scene would have been restricted.

My response was to point out the difference between professional respect and not directed at children with iphones. I thought adding a professional side to a topic about the ethics of photographers would make sense. I'm not sure why it comes off as sounding pretenious, making a statement as a professional, I show respect to the people I deal with, that's the way it should be, and something that is being lost in today's world.

The topic should have been more along the lines of "My idiot friends with iphones have no respect and invade my personal privacy" Using the word photographer in this case is incorrect as I don't regard iphone users as photographers, regardless of how good the cell phone is.

 

[Village Idiot]

As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it. I was covering a tragic car accident years ago and was asked by the police if I was planning on shooting any pictures of the kids that died in the van, they burned to death, it was news and I was working for a newspaper. I respected the rights of these kids and their parents and friends, and didn't shoot any pictures. Being asked by the police had nothing to do with it, as I had already decided not to.

I have no time for the "professionals" that chase the rich and famous, they are the sleaze that bring photographers down, they don't have any respect for anyone, and are the first to scream about their rights as photographers. Half of them using iphones.

I take my profession seriously and respecting people is part of it.

If everyone share your views we wouldn't have photos as influential as this,

Along with many other images that people would consider tragic and possibly "wrong" to have been photographed.

The world isn't full of unicorns and rainbows.

 

[Overread]

Yes we would - the monk set out to set himself on fire as part of protest. It was a clear visual message being sent and is nothing at all similar to people being accidentally burned and killed in a car crash. Right or not is a question we each have to come to our own views upon, but I'd say - horrible as it is - that not photographing the monk would have been the greater wrong than to take the photo - taking and distributing the photo directly allowed his efforts to multiply.

 

[imagemaker46]

As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it. I was covering a tragic car accident years ago and was asked by the police if I was planning on shooting any pictures of the kids that died in the van, they burned to death, it was news and I was working for a newspaper. I respected the rights of these kids and their parents and friends, and didn't shoot any pictures. Being asked by the police had nothing to do with it, as I had already decided not to.

I have no time for the "professionals" that chase the rich and famous, they are the sleaze that bring photographers down, they don't have any respect for anyone, and are the first to scream about their rights as photographers. Half of them using iphones.

I take my profession seriously and respecting people is part of it.

If everyone share your views we wouldn't have photos as influential as this,

Along with many other images that people would consider tragic and possibly "wrong" to have been photographed.

The world isn't full of unicorns and rainbows.

I don't believe I asked anyone to share my views, I just stated my personal opinion. The photo of the monk is not the same as a photo of 5 dead children in the back of a van. There have been hundreds of photos shot over the decades similar to the image of the monk, and there will be hundreds more shot.

No the world is not full of rainbows and unicorns, just village idiots.

 

[Village Idiot]

Yes we would - the monk set out to set himself on fire as part of protest. It was a clear visual message being sent and is nothing at all similar to people being accidentally burned and killed in a car crash. Right or not is a question we each have to come to our own views upon, but I'd say - horrible as it is - that not photographing the monk would have been the greater wrong than to take the photo - taking and distributing the photo directly allowed his efforts to multiply.

What about this well known photo by Michael Yon?

The fatally wounded Iraqi girl was innocent and never asked to have her life ended by terrorist? Is this so much different because she wasn't killed in a car wreck?

There's many more news worthy photos like this out there. It's a journalist's responsibility to report the news and not sensor it.

As a professional, I respect what people say to me, if they don't want photos shot of them I won't do it. I was covering a tragic car accident years ago and was asked by the police if I was planning on shooting any pictures of the kids that died in the van, they burned to death, it was news and I was working for a newspaper. I respected the rights of these kids and their parents and friends, and didn't shoot any pictures. Being asked by the police had nothing to do with it, as I had already decided not to.

I have no time for the "professionals" that chase the rich and famous, they are the sleaze that bring photographers down, they don't have any respect for anyone, and are the first to scream about their rights as photographers. Half of them using iphones.

I take my profession seriously and respecting people is part of it.

If everyone share your views we wouldn't have photos as influential as this,

Along with many other images that people would consider tragic and possibly "wrong" to have been photographed.

The world isn't full of unicorns and rainbows.

I don't believe I asked anyone to share my views, I just stated my personal opinion. The photo of the monk is not the same as a photo of 5 dead children in the back of a van. There have been hundreds of photos shot over the decades similar to the image of the monk, and there will be hundreds more shot.

No the world is not full of rainbows and unicorns, just village idiots.

You didn't ask anyone to share your views, but you sure don't seem to mind judging people that have different views.

The people jumping from the WTC weren't protesting anything and those are considered newsworthy photos.

There's other plenty of newsworthy photos of innocent people, young and old, that would not be taken if we had an army of journalist such as yourself. If you have a weak stomach or think that anything disturbing should not be shown to the public, you're probably better off doing family photography and not journalism.

And you're pretty clever. I never realized anyone could ever come up with a personal attack using my screen name. Oh the irony! :er:

 

[imagemaker46]

So as an IT professional you have been in these photo situations many times, I'm sure. Why don't you just drag up all the images you know of that will back your statements. I have worked in this business for a long time, I've been though and seen things that I wish I hadn't. Some of my best friends have gone through death and destruction, during the Gulf wars. My dad spent time in Viet Nam as a Canadian photographer covering part of the conflict, he was in Israel during the 6 Day war, where his hearing was damged because of the tank fire. I talk to these photographers and know what they have gone through, we have discussed the moral and ethical reasons for why, and why not shoot pictures, and at the end of the day I still have great respect for their choices. Don't pretend to understand my business,or who I am, how many times you had guns pointed at you because you were taking pictures?

I don't have a weak stomach, but tell me, if they were your chidren, ages 10-18, five of them, in the back of a van filling a chain saw with gas, and someone lights a cigarette, basically blowing the inside of the van to pieces along with the kids, and you watched them being carried out one by one, charred black, with limbs missing. As a parent would you want to see that? As a human being with compassion, would you want to see that? I expect if they were your children, you wouldn't have a problem with it though, afterall it's just a photo, and it is news. Am I wrong?

This debate could continue to go on forever, and I'm not prepared to discuss what is wrong and what is right about some photos. There are some things that I personally don't think need to be seen, but you believe that everything is fair game, that is the obvious difference between us, there are times when not shooting, is correct.