Getty Images called out for hosting controversial images in its library

Messages
766
Name
Darryl
Edit My Images
No
Came across this thread on Twitter, it's quite something, a Twitter user has called out Getty (and Magnum for that matter, but only Getty responded as far as I can tell) for some seriously questionable images hosted in its image repository, resulting in the "resignation" of Getty's CEO.

It quite a read: Twitter thread
 
It might help if you described the images content beyond 'seriously questionable'

For disclosure the twitter thread is about images depicting child prostitution.
 
It might help if you described the images content beyond 'seriously questionable'

For disclosure the twitter thread is about images depicting child prostitution.

That's Getty's description, there's no such thing as "child prostitution."
 
Without seeing the pictures in their entirety and in the context of their use, there's no way to evaluate this. As an example: a picture of a young person about to inject themselves might appear to be about the use of an illegal drug - until you're told that this is a diabetic who is taking their Insulin.
 
Without seeing the pictures in their entirety and in the context of their use, there's no way to evaluate this. As an example: a picture of a young person about to inject themselves might appear to be about the use of an illegal drug - until you're told that this is a diabetic who is taking their Insulin.

I believe the tags on the images, as Phil pointed out, was "child prostitution," can you infer another meaning from that?
 
I’m still processing this.

Is there any justification for images of this nature to be commercially available in the public domain? From a documentary / activism perspective there’s maybe more justification for such images, in the right context, to highlight issues that should be challenged and drive change. Magnum relies on selling its stories and photographs to fund its own operations, however it clearly has little control over whose hands the photographs fall into and the context they are used - it could be a pedophile or an NGO / charity whose objectives are at the opposite end of the spectrum. Or maybe there is no justification at all? Clearly they need to be much more careful over how they make images like this available on the web, if at all.

Getty though - at best that’s just commoditising suffering, at worst, well I’ve not seen the images but they do sound unsavoury. I think the compete lack of documentary context doesn’t help, but there again how critical is that when there is unrestricted - but costly access - to photographs of this nature. There is the argument that worse stuff than this can be found on the internet, I suppose the fact that an organisation like Getty is peddling this stuff is troubling.

My opinion may change though.
 
I believe the tags on the images, as Phil pointed out, was "child prostitution," can you infer another meaning from that?
I can infer no useful meaning unless I have seen the material in context.
 
I’m more worried that the twitter op must have googled the term “child prostitution“ to find this out in the first place.
Surely images showing this are acceptable in the realms of editorial as long as the children aren’t actually naked in the images. Ie the ones of kids on the streets in Thailand. Yes it’s not right it happens, but it does and should be documented so it can be widely brought to attention and be stopped.
 
Many years ago, I knew a young woman whose business card carried the job title "stripper". While this confused some people into thinking she was implying a form of entertainment, her actual business was refurbishing wooden furniture. Back in the 1970s this generally required the removal of paint (or stripping). Most people got the joke and appreciated it.

Context is everything. Before being offended, it is best to get all the facts.
 
Context is everything. Before being offended, it is best to get all the facts.

In an ideal world, yes, but in the shrill social media obsessed reactionary world many live in now anything can be taken out of context and literally and used to destroy a career and make it difficult for the target to work again.

On the subject of troubling photographs, I do think that at times suffering needs to be documented and seen as a part of the exposure and hopefully justice process but I do think that how troubling pictures are distributed and viewed needs to be controlled if that's possible.
 
Magnum got caught up in this too:


It's one thing taking photographs of child rape victims (sex worker/prostitute is far too euphemistic) in a documentary context, but why would DAH be in the room with one who's topless? Show the contact sheet or the rest of the slides. I'm saying this as someone who has bought many prints from Magnum's square print sales, and I'm waiting for a book and print of Harvey's to arrive since I actually love his work, but seeing this story pop up over the last few days has really put out my excitement. I've seen far too many pervy old white men with Filipina children in Manila while visiting my relatives, and the description of the photo just raises so many red flags.

Finally, there's an accepted way of documenting this topic that's sensitive to those involved. Survivors don't need to be reminded of their traumas, they certainly don't need their identities broadcast to the world at large, those Pulitzers and World Press Photo awards aren't going to do **** for them. Report the places to the relevant authorities so a photographer's presence actually makes a difference in their lives instead of perpetuating such a parasitic cycle.
 
Many years ago, I knew a young woman whose business card carried the job title "stripper". While this confused some people into thinking she was implying a form of entertainment, her actual business was refurbishing wooden furniture. Back in the 1970s this generally required the removal of paint (or stripping). Most people got the joke and appreciated it.

Context is everything. Before being offended, it is best to get all the facts.

What a load of clap trap, you're comparing illegality with a mild misunderstanding.
 
you're comparing illegality with a mild misunderstanding.
As you seem to be interested in winning a non-existent argument, I think it best if I ignore you from now on.
 
That's Getty's description, there's no such thing as "child prostitution."


Stop trying to be a smart arse. It may have been reclassified as CSE in 2003 in England and Wales, but it still exists.
 
Getty have swept up vast collections of images. it would be inconceivable if they did not include many thousands that might be considered unacceptable or illegal today.
.As an important historical collection it would be entirely appropriate to keep them for future academic study. or perhaps times when images are considered quite differently to today.
 
Stop trying to be a smart arse. It may have been reclassified as CSE in 2003 in England and Wales, but it still exists.
Hold on, who rattled your cage?

I put that up because it is true, I feel like I speak from a little experience, being an ex-police officer, I feel Getty’s use of that term harks back to a time when it was acceptable, it is not, not in any circumstance.
 
Of course there is such a thing As "Child Prostitution" It is not legal but it exists, and always has.
Samuel Pypes in his diary recounts his transactions with them on London Bridge. In that time it was perfect legal and considered more "Safe"
To day it is illegal in most countries but is still to be found. mostly controlled by criminals.
It is highly dangerous to suppose that because it is illegal that it does not exist.
Things do not go away that easily.
Few Prostitutes are masters of their own lives. even where Prostitution is legal.
 
Hold on, who rattled your cage?

I put that up because it is true, I feel like I speak from a little experience, being an ex-police officer, I feel Getty’s use of that term harks back to a time when it was acceptable, it is not, not in any circumstance.


The UK is one of the few countries in the world that have removed the term 'child prostitution' from their statute.

It exists. It happens. To my mind it is even worse than CSE.

As for my experience - I worked on one of the worse massed cases of CSE/Child prostitution in the country back in 2012/13.
 
I hope it is long prison time for the ones involved and incidentally I just wouldn't mind to see the company disappear from the web not only because of this but also for destroying the stock market for all of us.
 
The latest on Magnum/DAH:


It's very thorough and well worth a read. Props to the women who came forward at great personal cost. Magnum's silence and complicity over the years is appalling.
 
Thankfully I have never seen 'Twitter'.

I think the first 4 letters describe those that do perfectly.
:)

Oh dear. How silly and wrong IMO.

It really depends where you look and what at. Labelling it all and those who frequent like that is really like grouping together all those who read books or watch TV. Especially if you haven't seen it.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear. How silly and wrong IMO.

It really depends where you look and what at. Labelling it all and those who frequent like that is really like grouping together all those who read books or watch TV. Especially if you haven't seen it.

You don't do 'humour' do you?
 
Back
Top