question of ethics

GooGaBu

GooGaBu

Messages
1,457
Edit My Images
Yes
Here's a question for the sports photographers here.
Where would you draw the line for selling a picture of injury/life threatening situation - instead of refusing to sell due to the nature of the event.

I was at a game last night where a spectator went down and was given emergency cpr at courtside. I got few dozen shots with him on the ground with paramedics trying to get his heart pumping again (with no luck).
The images are very graphic, so there's a reason why I am not posting them here either.

After the game some local media came to ask me to sell few pictures of the events (as there was only me and another tog in that corner).

But for me - I did not think that images of someone close to dying would be something I'd like to sell, so I refused to sell the images. Of course this resulted in loss of money... but still, at least from my point of view. When someone's life is at stake - it is not what I would want to sell.

How about the rest of you... would you have issues selling images like that?

p.s On teh other hand I am slightly contradicting myself as I will write an article about the incident....
 
I can see both sides to this, however personally I'd have done what you did. I wouldn't feel right selling photos of someone actually dying, injuring themselves and making a full recovery, maybe, but not dying!

I'm sure there are people that would, but where there are no real guideline for something like this you've just go to go with your gut instinct, if it wouldn't have felt right, then you did the right thing by not selling them.

Chris
 
Those sort of pics and selling them would pobably put you into Papratzi (cant spell ) class if they are graphic as you say in my book.

Could be very upsetting for his family at an already upsetting time if he was a local man, if he was higher up the legue then local media would probably pass on/sell to Nationals.

Personaly I give you a pat on the back for not selling them you have put humanity and sensitivity first.

As to writing about the incident that is no problem include an action shot if you have one so people remember the good times.
 
In this case with the person dying i think its right not to even display them, also they wouldn't be good publicity shots for the paramedics. If the written article is for a newspaper then i guess that's acceptable.
 
good on you, you did the right thing. Do you know if the other tog sold? Would be intresting to know.
 
depends why i am there.. if commisioned by the local newspaper then I am there to get everything that happens.. everything.. so it would be my job.... it would be the papers decision to publish or not..

if I am there on my own and the decison is do i go out of my way to try and sell the pics then no.. it just wouldnt sit well with me.. money isnt everyhting... however I dont think the same for all situations.. but somoene dying.. a line has to be drawn somewhere...
 
The paper publishing the images has the decision on ethics, not you

There have been plenty of images of death, from wars, protests and the like.. it is the job of a documentary photographer to capture events. It is the job of the newspaper editor to decide what goes out

If they want to buy your images, and publish them, let them
 
I'd have sold them. You're there documenting the event as a journalist, and that may be the most important thing that happened at the event. Bad stuff happens, you capture it, and it's up to the paper if they want to publish or not.
 
Tobers said:
I'd have sold them. You're there documenting the event as a journalist, and that may be the most important thing that happened at the event. Bad stuff happens, you capture it, and it's up to the paper if they want to publish or not.
Click to expand...

hence the first part of my reply... however op is at games for the sport only and under normal use these would be no good to him and he would have to sell to third party
 
I'd divide or rationalise it in another way.

As it was a spectator that collapsed, I would probably do what you have done (with the exception below), as it is not necessary key to the event itself; unless of course you are commissioned for the event by a paper, as mentioned above, in which case you should be covering all the aspects of what happened.

If, however, an injury or fatality occurred that was integral to the sport then my approach would probably be different. I would certainly keep shooting, if only to provide a record and time line of the incident for any later inquiry.

Up until this year my sports photography has mainly been centred around British Eventing, having been involved in the sport for several years. I've worked as an official at a couple of events (non photography) where serious injury has taken place, and in one case a fatality, and it's never pleasant.

Now that I'm trying to build up a professional sideline to my IT business I would like to think that I would be robust enough to do what I was there for; that is to take and sell pictures of the event in question and any associated incidents. The only reserve that I've got, on the other hand, is that I know quite a few of the riders, and that would make it a lot tougher.

At the end of the day you have to do what you feel comfortable with, and more importantly, can live with.
 
Les Key said:
Those sort of pics and selling them would pobably put you into Papratzi (cant spell ) class
Click to expand...

Really? I'd have classed it as along the same lines as a photo journalist.. if you look at the World Press Photo competition, there are many images of death, and close to death (and indeed, murder) featured in there.. and that is further from paparazzi than my pet dog!

I'd have sold them, it's my job.. I record life, and should the call come, death too.
 
So Phil would you have been happy seeing a photo of a member of your family plastered in the papers, laying there dying?. I'm sure I wouldn't.

As far as I am concerned people who sell or make a profit from this sort of thing are the lowest of the low.

Sorry buts that's how I feel.
 
Richard King said:
The paper publishing the images has the decision on ethics, not you

There have been plenty of images of death, from wars, protests and the like.. it is the job of a documentary photographer to capture events. It is the job of the newspaper editor to decide what goes out

If they want to buy your images, and publish them, let them
Click to expand...

There is a difference between death during a war, protest etc is that it has political implications, it has a story to tell that is more than blatent voyeurism
 
As I was taught in my First Aid training when the trainer was answering the question whether you should treat someone who is bleeding badly and you don't have gloves. The answer was, "it's a moral decision for you and you only, there is no right or wrong. I know what my decision would be"

Different situation but the same theory can be applied. I know what I would do, but that doesn't make it right or wrong.
 
AFC said:
So Phil would you have been happy seeing a photo of a member of your family plastered in the papers, laying there dying?. I'm sure I wouldn't.

As far as I am concerned people who sell or make a profit from this sort of thing are the lowest of the low.

Sorry buts that's how I feel.
Click to expand...

It isn't the kind of picture that is going to get plastered across a newspaper anyway, especially if the victim is clearly visible and identifiable.. yes, even local rags have hearts too. Naturally, butting in to get a nice 10mm shot of the victim and therefore further endangering his life would be deplorable, but being a fly on the wall? Is that bad? Really?

It is your responsibility as a photographer to record history, if you want to opt out and censor the world as you see it through your eyes then fair enough, but please don't dare condemn those of us who would. Have a look through this (NOT FOR THE SQUEEMISH!) and tell me if that photographer is the lowest of the low? A man was murdered. Wrongly or rightly.. another question of ethics.

It's not always about the money, it's about telling the story.. things happen, people want to know about it. Morbid or not. I am presuming you are not a press photographer?

You don't have to apologise for how you feel, I'm certainly not :)
 
Last edited:
purpleclouds said:
It isn't the kind of picture that is going to get plastered across a newspaper anyway, especially if the victim is clearly visible and identifiable.. yes, even local rags have hearts too. Naturally, butting in to get a nice 10mm shot of the victim and therefore further endangering his life would be deplorable, but being a fly on the wall? Is that bad? Really?

It is your responsibility as a photographer to record history, if you want to opt out and censor the world as you see it through your eyes then fair enough, but please don't dare condemn those of us who would. Have a look through this (NOT FOR THE SQUEEMISH!) and tell me if that photographer is the lowest of the low? A man was murdered. Wrongly or rightly.. another question of ethics.

It's not always about the money, it's about telling the story.. things happen, people want to know about it. Morbid or not. I am presuming you are not a press photographer?

You don't have to apologise for how you feel, I'm certainly not :)
Click to expand...

Let the photographers take the pictures and let the editors/publishers make the moral decisions.
 
GooGaBu said:
p.s On teh other hand I am slightly contradicting myself as I will write an article about the incident....
Click to expand...

Having read all the replies I'm drawn to your PS.

It's fascinating how the written word somehow escapes criticism yet a great writer strives to create an 'image' for the reader.

I'd take the shot - no question about it as that's what a photographer does.

Once it's in the hands of the powers that be then that's up to them.
 
Good to see various points in the answers - and I agree that a difference between a picture of dying in combat zone in a war is totally different to a supporter dying in a sporting event (that's why this was originally posted in the sports section).

I was not covering the event on any single papers behalf - but as normal in my cases. It was for various papers - and they had ordered a X amount of images each. The question from the local paper was just on the spot question.
AS for the event - it was an International game, so there was interest in international level into the game as well.

Few of my clients did report the incident (on small note in teh end of the article) and included an image of the fans singing/jumping during the game. In which I had identified the person who was carried out. I think this for me was a 'friendlier' way to report the incident.

Of course every photographer has the right to choose what to send onwards (except if they work for a client and have promised all images from the event) to their clients. And this was my choice in the this case - and I know for a fact that I feel more comfortable with myself for not selling the images..

Thanks for commenting and giving opinions on this one..
 
At least you took the photo - always take the photo - whether you release it or not is a question for later on and only you can answer that...

Giving them to the paper and saying "It's their decision now" is evading responsibility.
The PicEd will simply say "I have a duty to publish as I was given the images, it was the photographer's decision to hand them to me so it's not my responsibility to withold them".

You take the photos - you decide whether to send them out... You. Not the PicEd, not the publisher, you.

But take the Photos.
 
I was at a dressage event t'other day (side saddle as it happens)
one of the riders managed to fall off the wrong side and land heavily, on her back, on the edging fence
ambulance called, back-board, the works
after it all quitened down, someone asked me if I had managed to get the pictures
I was quite surprised as I had stopped taking when I saw her go down

btw - it was her husband!

I suppose
a) find out what actually went wrong?
b) insurance claim?

:shrug:
 
I agree with Rob, take the picture, then decide. A lot of 'togs were criticised after 9/11 but their images have documented what actually happened, rather than our only recourse being to memory. I can see where you're coming from as this tragedy was incidental to the event, rather than part of it. I'd say the Hillsborough photos needed to be taken but not published on the front page like they were. As other people have said, at the end of the day it's your decision and you have to live within your own code of ethics.
 
AFC said:
So Phil would you have been happy seeing a photo of a member of your family plastered in the papers, laying there dying?. I'm sure I wouldn't.

As far as I am concerned people who sell or make a profit from this sort of thing are the lowest of the low.

Sorry buts that's how I feel.
Click to expand...



x2

Having had my father collapse & die in front of me in a public place & trying to get his heart regoing for 10 minutes with CPR whilst waiting for an ambulance with people standing around looking & little or no help apart from an off duty nurse right at the end, I would be mortified if pictures had appeared of the "event".

It is morally wrong to consider making money out of a situation like this.

End of- no argument
 
Last edited:
OneOffDave said:
I agree with Rob, take the picture, then decide. A lot of 'togs were criticised after 9/11 but their images have documented what actually happened, rather than our only recourse being to memory. I can see where you're coming from as this tragedy was incidental to the event, rather than part of it. I'd say the Hillsborough photos needed to be taken but not published on the front page like they were. As other people have said, at the end of the day it's your decision and you have to live within your own code of ethics.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you agree that the visual impact heightened the publics emotions, and therefore helped achieve the goal of safer football though?

Words in a column, are words in a column, as shocking as they may be but we are visual creatures, we use our eyesight as our first response to most situations. Whether it's a loud bang, or putting your hand on something hot.. you always look at it first before physically reacting. Might only be a split second, but you do...
 
purpleclouds said:
Wouldn't you agree that the visual impact heightened the publics emotions, and therefore helped achieve the goal of safer football though?

Words in a column, are words in a column, as shocking as they may be but we are visual creatures, we use our eyesight as our first response to most situations. Whether it's a loud bang, or putting your hand on something hot.. you always look at it first before physically reacting. Might only be a split second, but you do...
Click to expand...

I made exactly the same comment in a similar thread to this a month or so ago. I think it was one about a dead baby in South Africa.

I feel that as a photographer who is there to document the event (not just the game in this sense - the event. Crowd trouble, celebrities etc.) I would have taken the photos. I would have submitted them to my employers, and they would perhaps have sent them to the newspapers. However, they would have thought long and hard about whether to send them. Just like the PicEds at papers would think whether they wanted to publish.

I'm there to document the event...not to make a moral/ethical decision about what should be published and what should be censored (and this IS censorship).
 
purpleclouds said:
Wouldn't you agree that the visual impact heightened the publics emotions, and therefore helped achieve the goal of safer football though?

Words in a column, are words in a column, as shocking as they may be but we are visual creatures, we use our eyesight as our first response to most situations. Whether it's a loud bang, or putting your hand on something hot.. you always look at it first before physically reacting. Might only be a split second, but you do...
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should rephrase that, some of the photographs that were published at the time were extremely graphic and a number have never been republished, esp those taken of the identification 'process'. Taking 9/11 as an example, the 'falling man' photo serves to represent all those who died that way, I've not seen in any public arena any of the images that exist of the damage done to and by the bodies when they hit the ground. There are images and there are images and how those are used should take thought and consideration.

The devastatingly shocking footage of the Bradford fire is frequently used in fire safety training as it's one of the strongest ways of getting over the concept of something most of use will never encounter so I think it is always a matter for careful consideration of all the aspects including will over-exposure de-sensitise the populace.
 
But the falling man was not a close up & the Bradford fire (& I have seen the video) is not in close up as such even though you can plainly see some of the police etc trying to get to the stand.

Is there an arguament to be made for how recognisable a person is within the shots? The OP was at a sporting event & in close proximity to the collapsed person.

I do however think that i know the answers that i will get to my post!
 
johnb said:
x2

Having had my father collapse & die in front of me in a public place & trying to get his heart regoing for 10 minutes with CPR whilst waiting for an ambulance with people standing around looking & little or no help apart from an off duty nurse right at the end, I would be mortified if pictures had appeared of the "event".

It is morally wrong to consider making money out of a situation like this.

End of- no argument
Click to expand...

To see it as a money making situation would be quite rightly, questionable. The death of a human is a sad occurrence on every situation.

To see it as recording history however, is another matter. As I laid out in my response, respecting the safety and visual anonymity of the individual in question is paramount. There is no need for a shot of his dying face. But record the event. Always.
 
Last edited:
OneOffDave said:
Perhaps I should rephrase that, some of the photographs that were published at the time were extremely graphic and a number have never been republished, esp those taken of the identification 'process'. Taking 9/11 as an example, the 'falling man' photo serves to represent all those who died that way, I've not seen in any public arena any of the images that exist of the damage done to and by the bodies when they hit the ground. There are images and there are images and how those are used should take thought and consideration.

The devastatingly shocking footage of the Bradford fire is frequently used in fire safety training as it's one of the strongest ways of getting over the concept of something most of use will never encounter so I think it is always a matter for careful consideration of all the aspects including will over-exposure de-sensitise the populace.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you will never see images of the bodies after they'd hit the ground. They don't exist. Remember, the towers collapse will have destroyed any opportunity for such a photograph. Should the opportunity have been available, do you think no one would have taken a picture? Somebody would have done. Would it have ever seen the light of day? Who knows? It's impossible to say.
 
why did you take the images if you were not going to post them here or sell them - seems like your moral and ethical standards are of the same level as a pap. therefore you should have sold them which makes you a bit of a chump lol
 
POAH said:
why did you take the images if you were not going to post them here or sell them - seems like your moral and ethical standards are of the same level as a pap. therefore you should have sold them which makes you a bit of a chump lol
Click to expand...

:shrug::bang:

In theory, that makes every single amateur member on here a pap..

Edit - Oh.. post here. Sorry. My mistake.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top