REACH emergency medical helicopter (NSFW)

[stsinner]

Hey, Dan, what exactly is REACH? I noticed that it's kind of a ghetto helicopter for life flighting people.. Our choppers out of Boston open with huge double-doors from the rear and are like an ambulance inside size-wise... They're loading her from the side in your pics, which must be a pain in the rear..

Boston Angels... WOOT!!!!

 

[Hooligan Dan]

Reach is an independent system. We have Life-Flight too which is a little more on the scale of the chopper in your shots.

 

[JE Kay]

Did I mention America anywhere in my post or make a comparison in any way

K, whatever... So why make a point of commenting on it then? It was another reference point to an issue that does span boarders where media rights are concerned. And how do you know what others are interested in reading about? You make that call for everyone do you? :mrgreen:

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

It's absolutely legal unless they tell you that you may not or ask you to stop..

Ya, that's what I said... That's what consent means, that you may shoot photographs, without consent means no you can't. And just because you don't get caught or called out on photographing someone without consent doesn't mean it's legal.

 

[stsinner]

And just because you don't get caught or called out on photographing someone without consent doesn't mean it's legal.

It IS legal until that right is taken away by the subject.. You ARE AUTHORIZED to shoot whatever you want on public property until that right is revoked by the subject. It's not a matter of getting caught.

That may be what you meant, but the way you said it sounded my like you need to be granted authorization before shooting anyone in public in Canada.

My mistake if I interpreted your post wrongly.

 

[skieur]

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

I wrote the quoted article. There is indeed no law against photographing a person in the circumstances above, but judges have nevertheless ruled that such shots invade the privacy of the victim and if the photographer publishes such shots he can be held liable.

skieur

 

[skieur]

It IS legal until that right is taken away by the subject.. You ARE AUTHORIZED to shoot whatever you want on public property until that right is revoked by the subject. It's not a matter of getting caught.

That may be what you meant, but the way you said it sounded my like you need to be granted authorization before shooting anyone in public in Canada.

My mistake if I interpreted your post wrongly.

That is not legally correct either. In both Canada and the US, you can take a shot of anyone in a public place where there is no reasonable expectation to privacy. That right can ONLY be revoked if you are on private property by the owner or his representative.

skieur

 

[Hellhound]

I wrote the quoted article. There is indeed no law against photographing a person in the circumstances above, but judges have nevertheless ruled that such shots invade the privacy of the victim and if the photographer publishes such shots he can be held liable.

skieur

I didn't read the quoted article. I was responding to what I correctly or incorrectly perceived as a misconception on the part of one poster or another--one that seemed to equate photographing someone with publishing their photograph. It would appear that you and I have no disagreement, other than perhaps a minor one regarding the use of the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy." I acknowledge that my experience with this phrase is mainly related to the 4th Amendment.

 

[Hellhound]

Here's one of my old ones from over three decades ago of a motorcycle crash victim (bad quality scan of bad quality newsprint; all of my negatives from back then were lost in a flood). It differs from the photo in question--in terms of quality of composition, obviously, but also due to the fact that it's a male and there's no view of underwear. Still, the guy was in critical condition at the time of publishing (unknown as to his eventual outcome), and it's graphic enough that his family would no doubt be upset, especially if he went on to die. Interestingly, I had another (much better) one rejected the following week that showed just one bare foot of a drowning victim sticking out from under the tarp they'd temporarily covered him with. Different paper, different standards.

 

[photo guy]

As far as I remember dating back to 2009, if the person(s) face is able to be identified, the person is identifiable and the photo is not to be shown unless edited to not show the face or identifing marks

 

[EIngerson]

I think it's poor form to post the pic with no top on. If you have to post NSFW from someones tragedy, it's probably not cool.

The other two are tasteful and accurately depicting the mood.

 

[rdtagman]

Old thread, but an interesting subject. As individuals, we get to choose what is pleasing - what is not, what is acceptable - what is not. These forums survive because of photo posting and C & C. One person likes soft focus, the next doesn't, and so on. From a personal perspective, the two shots remaining on the post (third removed before I got here) are appropriate to show emergency responders doing their job. Having been at those scenes for many years, one of the "housekeeping" details I taught new firefighters was to clean the scene of personal reminders of tragedy. For every fatality on the highway, there will be family members visiting the site soon afterwards. I always had my firefighters remove any blood that might be visible on the roadway/ground before we left. Not a department policy, just what seemed right. I'm a strong First and Second Amendment believer, but try to be strong at what really makes sense at the same time. Again - personal preference. Good comments in this thread.

 

[imagemaker46]

There is nothing wrong with the photos at all. If the photos had of been graphic in nature, lots of blood etc, then they would not have ended up being printed. These ones, for lack of a better word are, tasteful. They show the scene, rescue, but not the woman's face. These are news related photos, nothing more or nothing less. I've shot photos at accidents and crime scenes that were never printed, there was no reason, but they did simply record the scene, and there were times when I wouldn't shoot what I saw, not even as a record, some images are better left un-recorded.

 

[dakkon76]

The local spanish paper drips with blood with the shots they show. It depends on the paper. I think people should be able to see what a accident really looks like and would understand what Ems, Police and so on see everyday and maybe would understand there point of view when it comes to enforcing safety issues. As long as viewer know what there gonna get when they read a paper photos like these should be ok.

I remember a few years back there was a story about a girl who was driving a Porsche through a toll gate, 2007 I think. Anyway, the car had hit a divider and split it down the middle as it was going over 100 mph. Consequently, the young girl who was driving (16 y/o IIRC) was also split down the middle. There were some very graphic photos of this that had been leaked by one of the officers. They showed her head peeled in half down the middle. It looked like something out of a body works display only done with a hatchet and not cleaned up. Chunks of blood, bone, hair, and brain matter. The problem was... her parents heard about those photos. Granted, it was their choice to look... but they did look. Imagine that image haunting you the rest of your life.

The moral of the story- regardless of whether or not the victim is "identifiable" is sometimes irrelevant. If you're posting pictures of a specific accident right after it's occurred, you risk showing them to someone who was associated with the victim. That's not to say that these photos are doing that... but just to point out that just because you can't see someone's face doesn't mean that it's alright (ethically, if not legally) to post these types of pictures.

 

[imagemaker46]

The local spanish paper drips with blood with the shots they show. It depends on the paper. I think people should be able to see what a accident really looks like and would understand what Ems, Police and so on see everyday and maybe would understand there point of view when it comes to enforcing safety issues. As long as viewer know what there gonna get when they read a paper photos like these should be ok.

I remember a few years back there was a story about a girl who was driving a Porsche through a toll gate, 2007 I think. Anyway, the car had hit a divider and split it down the middle as it was going over 100 mph. Consequently, the young girl who was driving (16 y/o IIRC) was also split down the middle. There were some very graphic photos of this that had been leaked by one of the officers. They showed her head peeled in half down the middle. It looked like something out of a body works display only done with a hatchet and not cleaned up. Chunks of blood, bone, hair, and brain matter. The problem was... her parents heard about those photos. Granted, it was their choice to look... but they did look. Imagine that image haunting you the rest of your life.

The moral of the story- regardless of whether or not the victim is "identifiable" is sometimes irrelevant. If you're posting pictures of a specific accident right after it's occurred, you risk showing them to someone who was associated with the victim. That's not to say that these photos are doing that... but just to point out that just because you can't see someone's face doesn't mean that it's alright (ethically, if not legally) to post these types of pictures.

I have to agree with this situation, I went to an accident many years ago working for a paper, some kids had been burned to death in a van, I arrived via a short cut before the coroner and when they started to take the kids out, I didn't shoot any frames, they were photos that didn't need to be seen by anyone, the reporter I was with was throwing up in the ditch. I still see those images in my head, the entire scene, this was 30 years ago. The desk editor gave me crap for not having those pictures, I explained the situation to him and then told him what an a-hole he was for even asking about it. I made the right decision. Not every photo has to be shot.

 

[Snyder]

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.

False, that theory would fail. Look up Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.