a question on ethics?

CarlukeDave

CarlukeDave

Messages
1,048
Edit My Images
Yes
I got a phone call from a journalist friend yesterday morning to advise that a body had been found in my local town and that the Daily's would be running the story. I went down took some shots of the scene, which involved 2 police officers standing in front of the church with police tape across the front. I sent the images round various media outlets and they were used by a couple of daily's and the BBC.


It transpires that I know the woman who was murdered and her family, I feel sick about the whole thing, I am devastated for her family.

Is there anything unethical or disrespectful about taking this photo?


Dave
 
Nothing unethical about what you did IMO

But sorry that it turned out you know the woman, that is probably what is makeing you feel bad.
 
I dont see anything un-ethical.
At the time you took the shots you were unaware of any connection between you and the victim. You took no shots of the woman concerned and even if you had I still see no issue. Had you known beforehand that you were linked to the victim I am sure your photographs would have been taken with the utmost respect had they actually involved shots of the scene and of the woman, probably more so than those taken by someone else un-connected with the family.

Your photos may help solve the murder, which will be of great help to the family concerned and you.

I am sorry that you knew the person involved and the grief you now feel at losing someone and your sense of loss for the family concerned.

Matt
 
I agree nothing unethical at all - it's your job - made a lot more difficult because you know the person involved - sorry to hear that. If you hadn't taken the pics - someone else would have.
 
I am not a proffessional photgrapher but I dont think you did anything unethical. The photograph was not intrusive or too graphic, just a picture of a place. I'm sorry to hear that you have lost a friend.
 
Dave,

Not a nice situation to be in now. However, you did not know who the deceased was when you took the images, you were doing a job.
Hopefully professionalism as opposed to being a pro will help you get over this otherwise you would never go out to cover another story 'Just in case'.

From my previous experiences of some very traumatic situations you are doing the best thing to get over it by talking. I am sure many other TP'ers will offer similar thoughts.

Ian
 
Interesting that ethics only came into it for you once you realised you knew her. We are all desensitised to a host of (what should be) upsetting images because we see them on the media daily. We often fail to consider the rights or feelings of the people involved, especially how they might view this kind of intrusion. Personally, I don't think there is anything disrespectful about taking photos of the officers at the scene, although had you taken images of the body with an intent to make them public/profit from them, then I'd have to say that this would be unethical.

EDIT: And to those who say things like you are only doing your job, I have to question whether this is ever a valid excuse for unethical behaviour. We are each responsible for our own actions, so passing them off to some other force (e.g. 'professionalism') is really just a way of avoiding responsibility for the choices we make. We nearly always have a choice on ethical matters, even if the most ethical choice results in some kind of loss for us.
 
Nothing unethical about this situation, but I'm afraid that the victim's family and friends (if they know you) may, in their anguish, regard your involvement as unacceptable. It would be best that they didn't know you supplied the images.
 
PhotoTalk said:
Personally, I don't think there is anything disrespectful about taking photos of the officers at the scene, although if you had taken images of the body with an intent to make them public/profit from them, then I'd have to say that this would be unethical.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but there would be absolutely no point in shooting anything more graphic as no-one would ever publish them. What you took Dave was perfectly acceptable.
 
awp said:
I agree with you but there would be absolutely no point in shooting anything more graphic as no-one would ever publish them. What you took Dave was perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

That's not strictly true, unfortunately. There is a market for such images, both in the UK and abroad, although in the UK we tend to show images of death when it relates to wars in foreign countries and the victims are not British. In Japan, they have weekly mags that focus on grisly images of death from news stories - things like the twisted remains of people who have set themselves on fire or people who have been slain with machetes in tribal disputes. There is obviously good money in it for the togs, but imo the togs, the editors and the owners are all acting unethically.
 
look in the end, everybody has to die and people understand that the world cant stop due to the inevitable. i dont think its un ethical and i think you did the right thing, i know it is a disgusting situation.
 
Thanks for the replies, its reassuring to know that the general consensus is that it wasn't disrespectful.

I would never take what I thought was a disrespectful photograph if I knew the person involved or not. I know the image would have been taken by someone else, it has been, a few papers had their own photographers present. I think the issue is with the fact that I do know the victim.

Thanks again for the replies.

Dave
 
PhotoTalk said:
EDIT: And to those who say things like you are only doing your job, I have to question whether this is ever a valid excuse for unethical behaviour. We are each responsible for our own actions, so passing them off to some other force (e.g. 'professionalism') is really just a way of avoiding responsibility for the choices we make. We nearly always have a choice on ethical matters, even if the most ethical choice results in some kind of loss for us.
Click to expand...

Only doing your job is never an excuse for un-ethical behavior, and 'professionalism' is the absolute opposite to what you say. Being a professional is about making money, displaying professionalism is very much about responsibility and ethical behavior and therefore making choices based on the information available at the time.
 
Captain Morgan said:
Only doing your job is never an excuse for un-ethical behavior, and 'professionalism' is the absolute opposite to what you say. Being a professional is about making money, displaying professionalism is very much about responsibility and ethical behavior and therefore making choices based on the information available at the time.
Click to expand...

We are in broad agreement, so the semantics seem an unnecessary distraction from the message imo. Meaning is always a matter of dispute and since I didn't define either 'professional' or 'professionalism', I'm not quite sure how you can claim to know your meaning is the absolute opposite of 'my' meaning. :lol:
 
PhotoTalk,

That we are in broad agreement is good. The problem with forum post is that everybody sees what they see in the written word without all the other clues that make up conversation. My main tenant is that you cannot pass anything off as 'professionalism' as professionalism involves many things including behavior, choices, ethics and responsibility.

I'm not quite sure how you can claim to know your meaning is the absolute opposite of 'my' meaning
Click to expand...

If what I wrote truly upset you then please accept my apologies.
 
Captain Morgan said:
That we are in broad agreement is good. The problem with forum post is that everybody sees what they see in the written word without all the other clues that make up conversation. My main tenant is that you cannot pass anything off as 'professionalism' as professionalism involves many things including behavior, choices, ethics and responsibility.

If what I wrote truly upset you then please accept my apologies.
Click to expand...

No need to apologise, I wasn't upset in the least. I just wasn't sure what the point of your post was. Thanks for explaining :thumbs: (Btw, since semantics and other aspects of linguistics have now been raised, I think you probably meant to say 'tenet' rather than 'tenant' :)).
 
:lol:
 
i don,t think it was direpectful but i do think you should contact any one who knows you took the photo,s, and just a little apology to them, if they were upset by it. also point out you did,nt realise at the time who it was. sorry it was someone you knew. :'(
 
No, I don't think i's disrespectful at all. I think i've seen your pic on 2 websites and it's actually quite tastefully done.
 
life isnt simple...some things are done because they need done
you acted properly for the information you had at the time
 
Maybe (and I guess a lot depends on the situation) you could put the proceeds of the images into a charity related to the death? That may set your own mind at rest that you did not profit from the situation? The family need not know about it unless you feel they should.

Condolences to you and the family and friends left behind.
 
PhotoTalk said:
We are in broad agreement, so the semantics seem an unnecessary distraction from the message imo. Meaning is always a matter of dispute and since I didn't define either 'professional' or 'professionalism', I'm not quite sure how you can claim to know your meaning is the absolute opposite of 'my' meaning. :lol:
Click to expand...

Sorry to take it off topic but I did a dissertation for my degree on the word "Meaning". It is strange and as pointed out it can be taken in many different ways.

As for the post itself. Sorry to hear about your loss. Take the time to mourn and let what happened pass thoroughly or it might become an issue later on in life. Dealing with the loss of friends and loved ones is a tough part of life. Seek assistance if you need to. There is no shame in talking to someone about it. Take that as first hand advise.
 
ladysue said:
I am not a proffessional photgrapher but I dont think you did anything unethical. The photograph was not intrusive or too graphic, just a picture of a place. I'm sorry to hear that you have lost a friend.
Click to expand...

This comment perfectly sums up my own feelings. That you do have doubts about the situation I think proves that you do have a strong sense of professional ethics.
 
Dave,

I Teach Ethics.

It woulld seem that it was only after you sent the pictures that you discovered that you knew the woman.

Therefore at that poiint you took the images there was no consious intent to take pictures and presumebly profit from the death of somone you knew.

Let me ask you- had this been a 'Jane Doe' would you be feeling the same?

If you were asked to do the same again and take a picture of a desceased person unkown to you would you do it?

If the answer to the above questions is yes than the guilt you are feeling is more to do with seeing somone you knew who is now sadly dead, it's called loss

If on the other hand you took the pictures in the full knowledge that you knew the person , then , you may have to justify your actions to the family and may want to inform the police that you knew her , ( this might be a good idea anyway ) especially if she died in suspicius circumstances.

Hope this helps
 
Thanks again to everyone for replying.

As Gary said, the police have confirmed that there are no suspicious circumstances and that she died of hypothermia (the removal of her clothes can be put down to a condition called "paradoxial undressing" that occurs when someone is suffering from hypothermia).

Cheers

Dave
 
You took the pictures without knowing who it was, obviously you didn't take any of the deceased. To be frank (cause I'm bad at words right now) the way you're feeling IMHO is just your way of grief and knowing that in some point you had a part in the events for the family (ie, it's you who took the photos, the papers that they see will have your photos, the family will no doubt know or find this out) and you're possibly upset and unsure how to feel about that.

I'm sorry to learn of your loss. TBH I don't think you did anything unethical to your morals, as you were happy to take and distribute the images prior to knowing who the deceased was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top