Yelled at by a cop

[ACDCROCKS]

Hi all.
I was walking down to Rite aid, as soon as I walked out of my house i saw a lot of people and a cop car. So I gram by camera and run out to take a few pics. The scene was roughly 60 feet away, i took as many shots I could. Cop comes towards me(at the scene ) and told me to stop taking pics. I walk away and he comes back at me and says "i really dont think you want me on my last nerve". Now, I've been into photography and know my rights. I was on public property (side walk corner), safe distance away ( a kid got hurt).
I believe my right is if im on public property, Im allowed to photograph it. I would of argued with the cop but im jsut a kid (19 years old). My orginal plan was to submit these pics like the last scene I photographed and sumbmited to the papaer (The vindicator). So whats the up on this rule?
Thanks

Pics
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/The_CAMERA_KID/IMG_5376.jpg


http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/The_CAMERA_KID/IMG_5386.jpg

[Seefutlung]

You have every right to photograph the scene. The cop could have charge you with disobeying his order ... or that you are contributing to the mayhem ... the presence of the camera elevated an already stressful situation. In which case it is your word against his word ... and "in court" who is the judge/jury gonna believe ... the cop will calmly state that in his professional opinion ... yadda-yada-yadda, based upon a decade of police work ... yadda-yadda-yadda , you were contributing to making an explosive situation worse ... possibly even igniting the scene into violence ... and what are you gonna say against that??? I've spent a lot of time in court rooms ... cops lie in court to protect themselves and their brothers (other cops.) Judges I know say they just "fudge" ...

The cop could have been polite and requested that you stop taking photos because of the "explosive" nature of the stop. But his rudeness would have made me wonder about what was happening and his lack of professionalism. I would have requested to speak to the cop's Watch Commander ... and if he refused then put a call to the Police Station myself and describe what was happening and that you think, due to the cops belligerent and aggressive nature that the cop was covering something up. At least get the cop's name and badge number ... that really p****s them off ... then he'll really come after you ... lol.

Gary

PS- Not that I'm particularly of this, but I once faced a cop in court and called him a liar ... repeatedly (he was a liar) ... I won. I used to be a journalist.
G

[ssim]

You are well within your right to photograph this. Whether it was ethical towards the victims is a whole other discussion. I believe that if the police officer checked the law books you were doing nothing wrong but in all likelihood could find something to charge you with if he was having a bad day.

I hate to break it to you but if you are 19, this I'm only a kid thing that you put in your posts doesn't fly. Welcome to adulthood.

[ACDCROCKS]

You are well within your right to photograph this. Whether it was ethical towards the victims is a whole other discussion. I believe that if the police officer checked the law books you were doing nothing wrong but in all likelihood could find something to charge you with if he was having a bad day.

I hate to break it to you but if you are 19, this I'm only a kid thing that you put in your posts doesn't fly. Welcome to adulthood.


I put im only a kid, 19 becasue I really dont know anything, becasue I really don't, I dont want to act l;iek the rest of teens and think "I know everything" ;).

[DrPablo]

Write to the attorney general's office in your state, get some representative there to put in writing your legal right to photograph things in plain site when standing on public property. Then carry a copy of that letter with you as an insurance policy.

There can be a million reasons why the cop wanted to shoo you away, whether it was out of sensitivity to the people involved or because photos can be discoverable in frivolous lawsuits against cops.

But whatever your rights are, I think having deference to the police is going to serve you better than whatever picture you might capture.

[Mike R]

It could not have been a serious or dangerous situation since he diverted his attention to you. But when I was an EMT, we could never undertand people who photographed other peoples physical and emotional pain.

[Mark_Cohran]

First of all, you have every right to photograph just about anything that is in plain view of the public. Under our system, there are very few things that fall outside of this broad right - there are some, but this isn't one of them. However, if you are not a working journalist, there is the question of whether you should photograph it or not, and if told to stop, how far you should pursue it. As with all things there is the matter of "right" vs. "ethics" and how far you should go to stand on the the principle of exercising your rights. Sometimes the battle isn't worth it (at least individually), but others could argue that everytime an individual meekly concedes to the illegitimate demands of authority, all of us lose a bit of those rights. Just something for you to consider as you continue to receive advice on this subject.

Mark

[tim1960]

First of all, you have every right to photograph just about anything that is in plain view of the public. Under our system, there are very few things that fall outside of this broad right - there are some, but this isn't one of them. However, if you are not a working journalist, there is the question of whether you should photograph it or not, and if told to stop, how far you should pursue it. As with all things there is the matter of "right" vs. "ethics" and how far you should go to stand on the the principle of exercising your rights. Sometimes the battle isn't worth it (at least individually), but others could argue that everytime an individual meekly concedes to the illegitimate demands of authority, all of us lose a bit of those rights. Just something for you to consider as you continue to receive advice on this subject.

Mark


I agree with Mark. However, I don't understand why you took shots of the man and woman who were upset. This, to me, is something that gives photog's a bad name. I would not want someone taking shots of my wife or family that were upset after an accident or whatever.

Use ethics in all you do. Ask yourself would you want someone taking shots like that of your family. I think that you have to be concious of other people and their situation during times like this.

[c71clark]

People take pictures of others in all states of emotions. Tornado survivors walking around their destroyed house, people at funerals, vigils for the dead, cold blooded murder (famous Vietnamese execution pic), etc. Human emotion is evocative, it pull's at us. The recording of this scene might have allowed a viewer to empathize with the pain of the family, and that empathy could lead to them doing something good, like getting laws passed to prevent such tragedy in the future, donating money to the family for medical care, and so on.
Personally, I draw the line at paparazzi behavior. Deciding which side these kind of pictures falls would be up to the photographer. But, never meekly acquiesce to police. Like the other poster said, only emboldens them and makes further abuse possible.

[Seefutlung]

People take pictures of others in all states of emotions. Tornado survivors walking around their destroyed house, people at funerals, vigils for the dead, cold blooded murder (famous Vietnamese execution pic), etc. Human emotion is evocative, it pull's at us. The recording of this scene might have allowed a viewer to empathize with the pain of the family, and that empathy could lead to them doing something good, like getting laws passed to prevent such tragedy in the future, donating money to the family for medical care, and so on.
Personally, I draw the line at paparazzi behavior. Deciding which side these kind of pictures falls would be up to the photographer. But, never meekly acquiesce to police. Like the other poster said, only emboldens them and makes further abuse possible.

As a former photo journalist I agree with Mark on many points. I feel there is a difference between "working" and contributing to someone's misery. I cannot count the number of times I've been heckled by Lookie Loos while I was working at an accident or crime scene. Cries of "Ouuuhhh" and "Man how ghoulish taking pictures ..." I always ignored them but I felt like saying .. "Hey, I have to be here. It's part of my job ... you don't have to be here ... so who's the ghoul?"

The problem arises in determining what is news worthy and the public has a right to know and what is not news worthy and all a photog is doing is adding additional anguish.

Gary

[nicksan]

Nothing I hate more than tha cop on a power trip...

Where I live, they used to pretty much let anyone with half a brain become a cop. Not saying they are all on power trips...probably a few bad seeds that's all. I think you need to be a H.S. graduate now...Yeah...raising the bar...:rolleyes:

[strmrdr]

The first picture you posted ..
What gives you the right to invade their privacy in a moment of stress and post it on the net?
If it had been me you were snapping pictures of and I saw ya I would be real tempted to shove the camera down your throat.
If I ran across the pic after the fact id be real tempted to put you in a world of hurt then snap pictures of your family crying. (not that I would do that to your family but it would be tempting to do so.)

The privacy and copyright laws need a huge change in the US and images like that are the reason.
Everyone should own the copyright to their own image under all conditions.

[pagnamenta]

I've been reading this thread from the beginning for a while, and I have to agree with Mark Cohran. If you're a journalist, then this is in the norm. I think we've turned this into an ethical issue of should you have taken the photos or not when you really want to know your rights.

You do have the right to take photos in public, but what you do with those photos is important. If you intended on sending these to your newspaper, then that's okay. In this country, people in public have no right to privacy, that's why it's called public. I doubt you were just taking photos just to take them, so I'm not worried there.

The police officer shouldn't have treated you like that. Their job is to take control of the situation and as it seems, the situation was under control. He should have politely asked you to stop taking photos and left it at that. I would warn you though, cops have a huge list of things they can give you tickets and warning for. If you were making the situation more dangerous or interfering with anything, they will act the way they think they ought to.

I've always been an advocate for protecting my rights, so I would naturally have taken the photos for the paper and if I would have to, I'd argue with the cop. It's always good to have a friend who's a lawyer.

[Curtis N]

What gives you the right to invade their privacy in a moment of stress and post it on the net?The law does. The courts have repeatedly upheld the notion that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

And I'm glad it does.

Read the posts above yours.
Read them again.

Rights is one thing.

Ethics is another.

I take no pleasure in capturing other people's pain. But if we believe in a free press then we need to support the right to take pictures in public. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but there are costs involved.

[asysin2leads]

You have every right to photograph the scene. The cop could have charge you with disobeying his order ... or that you are contributing to the mayhem ... the presence of the camera elevated an already stressful situation. In which case it is your word against his word ... and "in court" who is the judge/jury gonna believe ... the cop will calmly state that in his professional opinion ... yadda-yada-yadda, based upon a decade of police work ... yadda-yadda-yadda , you were contributing to making an explosive situation worse ... possibly even igniting the scene into violence ... and what are you gonna say against that??? I've spent a lot of time in court rooms ... cops lie in court to protect themselves and their brothers (other cops.) Judges I know say they just "fudge" ...

The cop could have been polite and requested that you stop taking photos because of the "explosive" nature of the stop. But his rudeness would have made me wonder about what was happening and his lack of professionalism. I would have requested to speak to the cop's Watch Commander ... and if he refused then put a call to the Police Station myself and describe what was happening and that you think, due to the cops belligerent and aggressive nature that the cop was covering something up. At least get the cop's name and badge number ... that really p****s them off ... then he'll really come after you ... lol.

Gary

PS- Not that I'm particularly of this, but I once faced a cop in court and called him a liar ... repeatedly (he was a liar) ... I won. I used to be a journalist.
G

Actually, the cop has right to cite him for anything. He was a safe distance from the scene and did not interfere with their duties. He couldn't cite him for "Disobeying a lawful order," because it would not have been a lawful order. ACDC's photo taking did not interfere with the scene or hinder emergency crews from performing their duties.

I have been in Fire and EMS for 16 years. I've seen it all. Neighbors with videos cameras to the actual media. As long as they don't get in our way, I have no problem with them being there. I have even known cases where they've taken the pictures or video from the general public into court. There is a HIPAA law on the books now that prevent public safety providers from disclosing any information as to the identity of the parties involved. That includes actual pictures of the person or even their license plate. The HIPAA law does not prevent the general public from getting these images. I've taken pictures of emergency scenes as a lay person and because I was not involved in the actual patient care, I could post the images as I saw fit. However, I blurred the faces and use the images when I teach. Having the faces visible does not benefit me in any way.

[strmrdr]

The law does. The courts have repeatedly upheld the notion that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

And I'm glad it does.

Read the posts above yours.
Read them again.

Rights is one thing.

Ethics is another.

I take no pleasure in capturing other people's pain. But if we believe in a free press then we need to support the right to take pictures in public. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but there are costs involved.

just because its the law dont make it right,,, and like I said it needs changing.

[Seefutlung]

Actually, the cop has right to cite him for anything. He was a safe distance from the scene and did not interfere with their duties. He couldn't cite him for "Disobeying a lawful order," because it would not have been a lawful order. ACDC's photo taking did not interfere with the scene or hinder emergency crews from performing their duties.

I have been in Fire and EMS for 16 years. I've seen it all. Neighbors with videos cameras to the actual media. As long as they don't get in our way, I have no problem with them being there. I have even known cases where they've taken the pictures or video from the general public into court. There is a HIPAA law on the books now that prevent public safety providers from disclosing any information as to the identity of the parties involved. That includes actual pictures of the person or even their license plate. The HIPAA law does not prevent the general public from getting these images. I've taken pictures of emergency scenes as a lay person and because I was not involved in the actual patient care, I could post the images as I saw fit. However, I blurred the faces and use the images when I teach. Having the faces visible does not benefit me in any way.

Having the "right" to cite ... and getting cited are two different things. The lawfull "right" really only helps after the fact in court. When confronted by over-zealous law enforcement ... "right" really isn't a factor ... see LAPD Amnesty/Citizenship Parade to name a most recent situation envolving a host of cops and crowds of people.

[dekalbSTEEL]

I was at a state park here in Illinois over Memorial Day weekend, and a domsestic disturbance broke out in the parking lot. I called 911. When the police arrived, one of the parties involved was arrested for "resisting arrest" I started shooting while the officers had the offender up against the squad car attempting to handcuff.

A part-time park ranger-type employee came up to me and asked
"Who are you you with?"

I replied " I'm with myself, and I'm in a public place"

That was the end of that conversation.

And I kept shooting.

[ACDCROCKS]

well my original plan (like I said) was to send these into the vindicator, After the cop said stop and get out of here, I couldnt get the names or what happened. But even so, It was my right to take pics.

[Mark_Cohran]

just because its the law dont make it right,,, and like I said it needs changing.

If, as you proposed, everyone had "copyright to their own image" then photography as we know it would simply cease to exist. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with you on this, as do, I think, the vast majority of the voters in this country.

Mark

[ACDCROCKS]

If, as you proposed, everyone had "copyright to their own image" then photography as we know it would simply cease to exist. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with you on this, as do, I think, the vast majority of the voters in this country.

Mark


I agree with you Mark.

[strmrdr]

If, as you proposed, everyone had "copyright to their own image" then photography as we know it would simply cease to exist. I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with you on this, as do, I think, the vast majority of the voters in this country.

Mark
naw only ones that are for it are those that make money off of others image and misfortune.
The voters have had no say in these laws and haven't been asked.
Ask pretty much anyone if its ok to shove a camera in someones face in the aftermath of an accident and sell it for $$ and should it be legal and most will tell ya no.
Most don't support celebrities getting hounded by camera bearing scum either.
I have asked a lot of people that for a class project years ago.
Ask random people what they think of people with big cameras around them.
Perverts would most likely be the first response.
That is the image that photographers have and in some cases have well earned.
Frankly you would be shocked if you did put it up too a vote what kind of restrictions there would be.
Your rights end where mine starts and the right to privacy is fundamental.

[Mark_Cohran]

naw only ones that are for it are those that make money off of others image and misfortune.
The voters have had no say in these laws and haven't been asked.
Ask pretty much anyone if its ok to shove a camera in someones face in the aftermath of an accident and sell it for $$ and should it be legal and most will tell ya no.
Most don't support celebrities getting hounded by camera bearing scum either.
I have asked a lot of people that for a class project years ago.
Ask random people what they think of people with big cameras around them.
Perverts would most likely be the first response.
That is the image that photographers have and in some cases have well earned.
Frankly you would be shocked if you did put it up too a vote what kind of restrictions there would be.
Your rights end where mine starts and the right to privacy is fundamental.

Well, sir, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but frankly, I don't think you understand the intricacies of copyright and what you are suggesting, and how that would impact photography both as a hobby and as a profession, as well as the news industry.

Additionally, there is no codified "right to privacy" and it certainly doesn't exist, and never has, in the public venue.

And no, I wouldn't be shocked at what the ignorant masses would vote into law. Thank goodness we have a system of government, here in the US, that keeps (mostly) the ignorant, superstitious, and just plain stupid from enacting laws. That isn't to say, they haven't been suggested from time to time, but in most cases, wiser head have prevailed or the courts have intervened and protected us from ourselves.

Mark

[c71clark]

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness... and so forth. No mention of privacy in public. But if I understand it correctly, ACDC could only use the pics in editorial publications without getting a model release form. So if he published a book and used the pics, then he could be sued.

[strmrdr]

Well, sir, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but frankly, I don't think you understand the intricacies of copyright and what you are suggesting, and how that would impact photography both as a hobby and as a profession, as well as the news industry.

Additionally, there is no codified "right to privacy" and it certainly doesn't exist, and never has, in the public venue.

And no, I wouldn't be shocked at what the ignorant masses would vote into law. Thank goodness we have a system of government, here in the US, that keeps (mostly) the ignorant, superstitious, and just plain stupid from enacting laws. That isn't to say, they haven't been suggested from time to time, but in most cases, wiser head have prevailed or the courts have intervened and protected us from ourselves.

Mark

Fundamental rights do not need to be codified they are inherent.
Yep there would be some changes in how some people have to do things, a very narrow exception for legitimate news usage would be a good idea.
But posting it on the web and linking it here sure don't meet that test.
Funny how anyone that disagrees with you is "ignorant, superstitious, and just plain stupid".
on that note I'm outa this thread before it gets any nastier.

[nicksan]

On a much lighter note...doesn' that dude look like Joey Buttofuoco?

Anyways, all this talk about "a world of hurt" is childish isn't it?

If you had to throw a punch to every person that ever rubbed you the wrong way, you'd have to have 20 rotator cuff surgeries!

I agree that while taking people under stress isn't the most tasteful thing in the world, you actually see it every single damn day on TV. The news would be boring to watch if it were always about happy stories.

The bottom line is the cop was on a power trip. You put a badge on the guy and all of a sudden he's all amped up to kick some arse. I get that at times with my white lens. You know the "better safe than sorry, you never know if that white lens is a rocket launcher, and I am Mr. Patriot protecting the country that I love" syndrome.

I guess it's better to just chill out...you don't want to end up getting beaten up with the night stick...

[Mark_Cohran]

Fundamental rights do not need to be codified they are inherent.
......
Funny how anyone that disagrees with you is "ignorant, superstitious, and just plain stupid".
on that note I'm outa this thread before it gets any nastier.

Two things I'd like you to note:

1. Your definition of fundamental rights may be different than mine, or my neighbor's or even your neighbors. Who gets do define what are "fundamental rights" and what are not? In our country, it is our legislators, our courts, and our constituition.

2. I didn't say that anyone that disagrees with me is "ignorant, superstitious and just plain stupid." I said that I would not be surprised at what the masses would vote into law and that we have a system that prevents groups that exemplify those characteristics from codifying laws that would impact the rest of us. I'm quite sorry that you took that personally.

Mark

[gjl711]

I keep this card in my bag. I have not had opportunity to need it but I also don't believe in kowtowing to some authority figure just because he/she says so. We are very lucky in this country. We have many rights and unless we fight to maintain we will slowly loose those rights. I don't like what a lot of folks do, but if they are within the law, I fully support their right to continue doing so.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[Karl C]

If it had been me you were snapping pictures of and I saw ya I would be real tempted to shove the camera down your throat.
If I ran across the pic after the fact id be real tempted to put you in a world of hurt then snap pictures of your family crying. (not that I would do that to your family but it would be tempting to do so.)

I'd be very careful with this one. You could find yourself arrested for assault and battery. Just because you don't care for a photographer taking pictures of an emotional scene, in a public place, does not give you the right to assault them. If you dislike what a photographer is doing in this type of situation, ask the police for assistance.

The privacy and copyright laws need a huge change in the US and images like that are the reason.
Everyone should own the copyright to their own image under all conditions.

Sounds like you don't care for some parts of the US Bill of Rights. I happen to like the US Bill of Rights. Even if I don't agree what you've posted, I believe you have the inherent right to your beliefs. Maybe you don't have a problem with our rights slowly being taken away from us but I do. If I wanted to live in a restricted police-state, I would move to China or Cuba or North Korea.

Like Mark posted above, what you deem as inappropriate, I may not. Laws are created by our legislative branch in the US. You don't like something? Write your Congressman.

Be careful for what you wish for - you might actually get it.

I keep this card in my bag. I have not had opportunity to need it but I also don't believe in kowtowing to some authority figure just because he/she says so. We are very lucky in this country. We have many rights and unless we fight to maintain we will slowly loose those rights. I don't like what a lot of folks do, but if they are within the law, I fully support their right to continue doing so.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm



Amen, brother, amen.

[ACDCROCKS]

On a much lighter note...doesn' that dude look like Joey Buttofuoco?

Anyways, all this talk about "a world of hurt" is childish isn't it?

If you had to throw a punch to every person that ever rubbed you the wrong way, you'd have to have 20 rotator cuff surgeries!

I agree that while taking people under stress isn't the most tasteful thing in the world, you actually see it every single damn day on TV. The news would be boring to watch if it were always about happy stories.

The bottom line is the cop was on a power trip. You put a badge on the guy and all of a sudden he's all amped up to kick some arse. I get that at times with my white lens. You know the "better safe than sorry, you never know if that white lens is a rocket launcher, and I am Mr. Patriot protecting the country that I love" syndrome.

I guess it's better to just chill out...you don't want to end up getting beaten up with the night stick...
I had my 20d and 70-200mm2.8 IS.:rolleyes:

[Glenn NK]

The "rights" issue is important, but there is another issue here; it's the matter of "taste" or sensitivity towards others.

The man in the first picture is obviously under stress, and taking someone's picture in this situation simply adds to their stress. Put yourself in his position - would you want him taking your picture?

It's very possible that the police officer was actually concerned about the victims. Two of my friends are retired police officers - both of them would have asked you to desist and not further aggravate the situation.

One question - what good could come of taking the pictures in this situation?

If you see a crime being committed, that's a whole different ballgame. Take videos.

[blackshadow]

just because its the law dont make it right,,, and like I said it needs changing.

Yay - censorship for all, sanitised news that doesn't show the real world... get a grip would you and stop being so holier than thou.

[SOE digital]

Ask pretty much anyone if its ok to shove a camera in someones face in the aftermath of an accident and sell it for $$ and should it be legal and most will tell ya no.

In regards to the original poster, no one stuck any camera in anyones face. You're going off the wall here mate with your opinion.
Without the right to photograph people in misfortune then the entire wold's population would think every thing is peaches and cream, 24/7. Many people who decide to makea difference, donate to charity etc do so out of exposure to real world conditions.
How else are you going to know about starving kids in Ethiopia unless someone expresses their rights to photograph the problem. Statics mean **** all, seeing is believing.

Not everyone who photographs misfortune and pain etc is doing so out of the evil in their heart. If you think this then you're registered on the wrong forums my friend.

[Curtis N]

just because its the law dont make it right,,, and like I said it needs changing.Call your legislator. While you're at it, go ahead and suggest that battery should be legalized, so you can justify what you wrote in your first post.

I see news photogs and videographers cross the line of good taste all too often. I wish they had more sensibility to those victimized by crime or tragic accidents. But I don't think we should take away their right to report the news as they see fit, and I don't think the general public should have fewer rights than the press.

This is fundamental First Amendment stuff you're referring to. It's a cornerstone of our constitution. There are a lot of things wrong with the US laws, but this isn't one of those things.

[Barb42]

The privacy and copyright laws need a huge change in the US and images like that are the reason.
Everyone should own the copyright to their own image under all conditions.

I couldn't disagree more....such changes to our laws would have the unexpected effect of limiting public rights and private rights. The public would be less knowledgable and free speech chilled to a serious extent. Feelings should never be the basis for a law that limits the freedoms of others.

[ACDCROCKS]

If the law was where I couldn't photograph in the public, then whats this thing called America? I really don't care what it is, If its in public I will photograph it. I would be extremely mad if i couldn't.I would go outside, get my fender roc pro 1000, 4x12 cabinet, turn it to volume 8, get the SG and play until the cows come home. Screw the people who want us to loose our rights.

[blackshadow]

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness... and so forth. No mention of privacy in public. But if I understand it correctly, ACDC could only use the pics in editorial publications without getting a model release form. So if he published a book and used the pics, then he could be sued.

What a load of bollocks - using a photo in a book is definitely editorial use.

[Seefutlung]

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness... and so forth. No mention of privacy in public. But if I understand it correctly, ACDC could only use the pics in editorial publications without getting a model release form. So if he published a book and used the pics, then he could be sued.

I reall don't see how a passage from the US Declaration of Independance or the entire Declaration of Independance has any bearing on privacy or photography. The Constitution clearly speaks to the converse of privacy, the public's right to know, in the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

All our rights to photograph in the public arena stem from this Amendment. Our photoghraphic rights are an extension/inclusion of our right to free speech. This democracy is based upon the First Amendment, which is why it is ranked number one. Once you start abridging the First Amendment you begin to undermine the foundation of our democratic republic. (Which is why laws like the Patriot Act require close scrutiny by us as well as our elected officials.

Gary

PS- Without a release, ACDC could do whatever he dreams of with the photos with the exception of using them for a commercial enterprise or product endorsement (and of course one cannot mispresent the people in the photos.) He could publish an book, an expression of your art, and include those pixs within the book and be fully protected by law. He couldn't silk screen the image without permission on T-Shirts and sell the shirts ... now you're selling clothing which is a commercial enterprise.
G

[strmrdr]

Call your legislator. While you're at it, go ahead and suggest that battery should be legalized, so you can justify what you wrote in your first post.

I see news photogs and videographers cross the line of good taste all too often. I wish they had more sensibility to those victimized by crime or tragic accidents. But I don't think we should take away their right to report the news as they see fit, and I don't think the general public should have fewer rights than the press.

This is fundamental First Amendment stuff you're referring to. It's a cornerstone of our constitution. There are a lot of things wrong with the US laws, but this isn't one of those things.

stepping back in for a second...
I said I would be tempted not that I would do so,, I was using it too describe a feeling.
because so many of them do step over the line that's why a change in the law is needed.
That's what laws are for when people cant or wont act in an acceptable way society passes laws and sets punishments for those that break them.
As far as the 1st goes there are tons of restrictions on the books already, the first isn't a licence to do whatever you want and hurt people in the process.

[Seefutlung]

The "rights" issue is important, but there is another issue here; it's the matter of "taste" or sensitivity towards others.

The man in the first picture is obviously under stress, and taking someone's picture in this situation simply adds to their stress. Put yourself in his position - would you want him taking your picture?

It's very possible that the police officer was actually concerned about the victims. Two of my friends are retired police officers - both of them would have asked you to desist and not further aggravate the situation.

One question - what good could come of taking the pictures in this situation?

If you see a crime being committed, that's a whole different ballgame. Take videos.

Often, one never knows until after the fact ... ask Rodney King, ask the victims at Kent State, the German concentration camps, the American concentration camps, images from every continent have moved people to action ... whether it be righting a wrong action or helping a righteous action.

It has been found that images leave a greater and more lasting impression than the written word. Who here remember a quote from the Vietnam War ... who hasn't forgotten the ARVN General killing the VC suspect in downtown Saigon or the naked children screaming as they run up the road from their napalmed village.

Your retired police friends could and probably would have "requested" that the photog cease ... but they had no right to demand the photog stop.

Gary

[Glenn NK]

If the law was where I couldn't photograph in the public, then whats this thing called America? I really don't care what it is, If its in public I will photograph it. I would be extremely mad if i couldn't.I would go outside, get my fender roc pro 1000, 4x12 cabinet, turn it to volume 8, get the SG and play until the cows come home. Screw the people who want us to loose our rights.


Of course it's your right to take the pictures; that's not in question.

Read my first post and think about it. Then tell me if you would be happy having your picture taken under these circumstances.

And keep in mind that your rights and freedoms don't include infringing on the rights of others, so turning up the volume on the Fender isn't one of your rights or freedoms.

[Seefutlung]

... As far as the 1st goes there are tons of restrictions on the books already, the first isn't a licence to do whatever you want and hurt people in the process.

Laws are written for the greater good of society. Far more and greater good for our country has occurred and is attainable through a free and open society than by protecting the feelings of a few over the public's right to know and the public's need to know.

Gary

[Glenn NK]

Often, one never knows until after the fact ... ask Rodney King, ask the victims at Kent State, the German concentration camps, the American concentration camps, images from every continent have moved people to action ... whether it be righting a wrong action or helping a righteous action.

It has been found that images leave a greater and more lasting impression than the written word. Who here remember a quote from the Vietnam War ... who hasn't forgotten the ARVN General killing the VC suspect in downtown Saigon or the naked children screaming as they run up the road from their napalmed village.

Your retired police friends could and probably would have "requested" that the photog cease ... but they had no right to demand the photog stop.

Gary

Were these not photographs of illegal activities or photos that revealed indignities to fellow humans?

Were they not photos that revealed wrongs being committed?

Did they not have some value to humanity?

I'm not questioning ACDC's right to take the photos, he certainly has the right. But was he "righting a wrong or helping a righteous action"?

[ACDCROCKS]

Of course it's your right to take the pictures; that's not in question.

Read my first post and think about it. Then tell me if you would be happy having your picture taken under these circumstances.

And keep in mind that your rights and freedoms don't include infringing on the rights of others, so turning up the volume on the Fender isn't one of your rights or freedoms.

I'll behonest, i woulnt care, i wouldnt be paying attention to the photog. When I get hurt in a emergency-stressfull sitiuation, my mindraces for help and ignores everything thing else. That photog isnt hurting me, Im more worried about if my friend, or daughte, son will live and be ok. You know what I mean? Im not trying to be a smart a**, thats how I am. Course other people are different. Anyone else like this? When I sliced my finger I when I was 14, I was afraid of dieing from possibly cutting my vain. I would like there to be a photog there, that way I could ask him to call a ambulance or help me out.

[Glenn NK]

I'll behonest, i woulnt care, i wouldnt be paying attention to the photog. When I get hurt in a emergency-stressfull sitiuation, my mindraces for help and ignores everything thing else. That photog isnt hurting me, Im more worried about if my friend, or daughte, son will live and be ok. You know what I mean? Im not trying to be a smart a**, thats how I am. Course other people are different. Anyone else like this? When I sliced my finger I when I was 14, I was afraid of dieing from possibly cutting my vain. I would like there to be a photog there, that way I could ask him to call a ambulance or help me out.

Wouldn't you rather have had a friend with a phone than with a camera?

Were your pictures to help the distressed father?

[ACDCROCKS]

Wouldn't you rather have had a friend with a phone than with a camera?

Were your pictures to help the distressed father?


I was refering that photog as a random person walking by.

[ACDCROCKS]

[quote=

And keep in mind that your rights and freedoms don't include infringing on the rights of others, so turning up the volume on the Fender isn't one of your rights or freedoms.[/quote]


Watch me;)
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/The_CAMERA_KID/roc1.jpg

[MaDProFF]

Use a bigger lens next time so further away :)

Though personally I think it is rather distasteful using a situation to elevate yourself at the expense of someone maybe dieing on the street, Cannot say if I was that person lieing on the floor and saw a person taking loads of photos, I be too happy, 60 foot is not that far away, and maybe they did say something to the Police/Cop to remove you, what are your rights then???

[ACDCROCKS]

Use a bigger lens next time so further away :)

Though personally I think it is rather distasteful using a situation to elevate yourself at the expense of someone maybe dieing on the street, Cannot say if I was that person lieing on the floor and saw a person taking loads of photos, I be too happy, 60 foot is not that far away, and maybe they did say something to the Police/Cop to remove you, what are your rights then???


Bigger lens? I always had that 1200mm L in mind lmao. But do I need it No. Irregaurdless, I would move further away, which would then be on My property even though little to view... They can only move you so far, I should of stayed their and photographed something else, like a sign, in the same spot, just 12 feet away on a different corner. Then what can he do? Nothing, it would be Illegal, Right? Im not photographing the people? Yep Im a prick you might say, Im 18 and hard headed, I heard things about this country on certain dates and whats going on, I don't really like it. Call me patriotic, or crazy, but I don't want to loose more rights. Tommorow I will go down town and photograph randomly, everything, including every police car activity to see what they are doing, of course on public property, and just the POLICE OFFICER. Im a douche I know. I don't care, I like revenge by photographing a cop, twirling his or her mind,wasting my tax dollars. Call me a paparazzi, or idiot,after all my 2nd cousin is Christian Slaterhe's paparazzed all the time. I will call a lawyer tommorow to clarify my rights as a photographer, then I go from their. I will streatch my rights, and be that prick to excersise them to be that "gerk", but guess what? Im being a true american by using my rights and not to use them...haha I sound crazy but I hate it when people tell me what I cant do when I can legally. I might even make a article in the newspaper to be even more a douche, no, not about the hurt person, but about the cop. And I will print out that broshure to keep handy. Sorry mods if this is political, but it's containg the rights of the photographer, I don't mean any harm.

[Karl C]

The Constitution clearly speaks to the converse of privacy, the public's right to know, in the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

All our rights to photograph in the public arena stem from this Amendment. Our photoghraphic rights are an extension/inclusion of our right to free speech. This democracy is based upon the First Amendment, which is why it is ranked number one. Once you start abridging the First Amendment you begin to undermine the foundation of our democratic republic. (Which is why laws like the Patriot Act require close scrutiny by us as well as our elected officials.

Gary

Thank you for the great post, Gary! Exactly what needed to be said.

because so many of them do step over the line that's why a change in the law is needed.
That's what laws are for when people cant or wont act in an acceptable way society passes laws and sets punishments for those that break them.
As far as the 1st goes there are tons of restrictions on the books already, the first isn't a licence to do whatever you want and hurt people in the process.

I think you really need to re-read Gary's post above. Whether or not you like it, the First Amendment is the cornerstone of the Constitution. Like I mentioned previously, you're on a very slippery slope. When the few (ie, minute minority) begin advocating the Government to start abridging the Constitution to remove the rights of an overwhelming majority, when does it stop?

By the way, who was "hurt" by ACDC taking the photos he did? He was recording an emotional event. I, along with many other photographers, would do the same. If those individuals took exception to his actions, they should've politely asked him to stop. Simple as that.

Laws are written for the greater good of society. Far more and greater good for our country has occurred and is attainable through a free and open society than by protecting the feelings of a few over the public's right to know and the public's need to know.

Gary

Exactly. Ethics of photography aside, this is a fundamental aspect of our country. Unfortunately, many citizens tend to forget this.

[AlexMN]

Watch me;)
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g146/The_CAMERA_KID/roc1.jpg

Hey, your amp only goes up to 10, you should get one that goes to 11!

Alex

[ACDCROCKS]

Hey, your amp only goes up to 10, you should get one that goes to 11!

Alex

At Volume 5* I can be heard 2 blocks away, you tell me lol.:lol:. I'll turn it up once everyone forgets that I complained about the dogs barking in my area. Once that happens they'll let their dogs bark, I'll put the amp out and crank it to 8 or 9. I can't stand constand dog barking. (examle 4 hours). Nothing like a little solo (15 minutes) at 5am in the morning.

[nicksan]

At Volume 5* I can be heard 2 blocks away, you tell me lol.:lol:. I'll turn it up once everyone forgets that I complained about the dogs barking in my area. Once that happens they'll let their dogs bark, I'll put the amp out and crank it to 8 or 9. I can't stand constand dog barking. (examle 4 hours). Nothing like a little solo (15 minutes) at 5am in the morning.

Yeah, crank out those AC/DC tunes...that'll give me nightmares for days.
(Like visitng Sam Ash with no ear plugs...;))

[ACDCROCKS]

Yeah, crank out those AC/DC tunes...that'll give me nightmares for days.
(Like visitng Sam Ash with no ear plugs...;))
Try Pink Floyd and SRV my friend:rolleyes:

[nicksan]

Try Pink Floyd and SRV my friend:rolleyes:

OK, Yeah, crank out those Pink Floyd and SRV tunes...that'll give me nightmares for days. (Like visitng Sam Ash with no ear plugs...);););)
Couldn't resist...
(Mad props to SRV...:-))

[ACDCROCKS]

OK, Yeah, crank out those Pink Floyd and SRV tunes...that'll give me nightmares for days. (Like visitng Sam Ash with no ear plugs...);););)
Couldn't resist...
(Mad props to SRV...:-))

lol...God rest his sould.

[Sathi]

That sucks for you man. I had problems with the police taking pictures of the state capital after 9/11. I'm not sure how good cops are in Ohio but in NewYork they can be very sketchy. Its all 'yes sir' and 'no sir' no matter how in the right you are lest you find cuffs on your wrist and drugs being pulled out of your back pocket that wern't there a minute ago. From the sound of it though the cop you were dealing with probably was not to be talked back to. Big difference between what is mandated by law and what can actually happen to you on the street if you get on their bad side.

[ACDCROCKS]

That sucks for you man. I had problems with the police taking pictures of the state capital after 9/11. I'm not sure how good cops are in Ohio but in NewYork they can be very sketchy. Its all 'yes sir' and 'no sir' no matter how in the right you are lest you find cuffs on your wrist and drugs being pulled out of your back pocket that wern't there a minute ago. From the sound of it though the cop you were dealing with probably was not to be talked back to. Big difference between what is mandated by law and what can actually happen to you on the street if you get on their bad side.

Heres my philosphy on repecting people, you have to earn it. And with most people I automatcially give people respect. As far as the drug thing, don't forget that the police force needs police cars ever so often, and who votes on that?:lol:.

[ACDCROCKS]

I found out what happened at the scene today. The crackhead son ran over his sister because she didn't give him money. Nah, this aint news worthy, it's ownly attempted murder, let alone a crack head. Should Of I photogrpahed it? yes, It should of been put in the news paper like I planed, and I still might to just let people know whast going on in the local community.

[blackshadow]

I found out what happened at the scene today. The crackhead son ran over his sister because she didn't give him money. Nah, this aint news worthy, it's ownly attempted murder, let alone a crack head. Should Of I photogrpahed it? yes, It should of been put in the news paper like I planed, and I still might to just let people know whast going on in the local community.

I'd say you have missed the boat to get the photo published in the paper - it would be past its use by date on the news cycle.

[ssim]

I found out what happened at the scene today. The crackhead son ran over his sister because she didn't give him money. Nah, this aint news worthy, it's ownly attempted murder, let alone a crack head. Should Of I photogrpahed it? yes, It should of been put in the news paper like I planed, and I still might to just let people know whast going on in the local community.

Sounds like it has already made the news. I agree with blackshadow that the window of opportunity has passed. You never know when you are shooting what you have. The images that you did post here though didn't really tell the story that you have now.

Do you have a writer that you can team up with. I know a freelance photographer in a larger city of 1 million plus and he teamed up with a freelance writer and they submitted complete articles to some of the local papers. They got picked up every now and then initially but it became more frequent when as the editors came to know them.

[SkipD]

Do you have a writer that you can team up with. I know a freelance photographer in a larger city of 1 million plus and he teamed up with a freelance writer and they submitted complete articles to some of the local papers. They got picked up every now and then initially but it became more frequent when as the editors came to know them.The ideal situation for a PJ photographer is to be able to write his/her own copy. Based on posts here, it seems to me that Paul would need some work to get to this level but that would be a superb goal for him to work towards.

[ssim]

it seems to me that Paul would need some work to get to this level but that would be a superb goal for him to work towards.
That is why I was suggesting a cooperative approach.

[ACDCROCKS]

Live and learn ae?

[Croasdail]

ACDC..... going completely against what those have told you, the cop may very well have been in his rights to have you removed from the scene. Having shot tons of explosive situations myself, one thing you can count on is when a camera shows up, people act differently. It either enrages, or people start acting up for the camera. If he was the only person on scene, and trying to maintain the calm, you getting in close enough where it was starting to impact peoples tempers - like the one shot you showed - is effecting the cops ability to keep things calm before backup arrived. A police line had not yet been established and so he was going it alone. You were not credentialed media, he didn't know you or your intentions. He didn't know if you know how to carry yourself. Additionally, there are plenty of states that do have laws where you are not allowed to do anything that keeps an officer of the law from being able to do his job. If you were causing him to have to spend time keeping track of you rather then the actual crime here, he has the right to ask you to remove yourself ... it happens all the time. At that point you just need to move to a vantage point where you are not causing a distraction, but keep shooting. The important issue is were you drawing attention to yourself and keeping him from doing his job. It would come down to your word, and inexperienced "kid" taking shots he hopes to sell, versus a cop who does this day in and out. Unless this cop has a history of issues with the press....you loose. The issue is not if you had the right to photograph, you did. The issue was were you creating a situation that created an environment where the cop could not do his job and keep the situation safe for all. That trumps your right to be in their face taking shots. Keep shooting, just do it so your not bringing attention to yourself.

[BillMarks]

ACDCROCKS: You inflate your own importance. No one needs another image of others' pain. And as an adult, you need to learn to balance your darker impulses (which we all have), which you mask with mentions of your rights, with the ethical treatment of others. Legal is not always ethical. Personal tragedies deserve a qualitatively different treatment than public tragedies. If you came across a government official buying crack, or being arrested, THAT'S newsworthy. A family's tragic scene is not. It might feed the morbid imulses that keep reality TV shows on the airwaves, but it is not important. It might make you feel cool for "getting the shot" but it was done so at the expense of the feelings of other human beings already wrapt with anguish. Maybe some day, when you find yourself in a horrible personal moment, a photog will start clicking away at you and you will understand. Sure, now you will say "let them, i won't care." But when you are in that moment, you will.

[Seefutlung]

ACDCROCKS: You inflate your own importance. No one needs another image of others' pain. And as an adult, you need to learn to balance your darker impulses (which we all have), which you mask with mentions of your rights, with the ethical treatment of others. Legal is not always ethical. Personal tragedies deserve a qualitatively different treatment than public tragedies. If you came across a government official buying crack, or being arrested, THAT'S newsworthy. A family's tragic scene is not. It might feed the morbid imulses that keep reality TV shows on the airwaves, but it is not important. It might make you feel cool for "getting the shot" but it was done so at the expense of the feelings of other human beings already wrapt with anguish. Maybe some day, when you find yourself in a horrible personal moment, a photog will start clicking away at you and you will understand. Sure, now you will say "let them, i won't care." But when you are in that moment, you will.

I strongly disagree that you can/should determine the news worthiness of any story based upon your personal feelings. There are many factors which dictate a story's news worthiness. While a drug related family tragedy may not be news worthy in a place like New York City ... it may be news worthy in a community in which drugs are uncommon. I can add quite a number of additional factors which all revolve around the five Ws of Who, What, Where, When and Why of every story (journalism 101) ... but you get the drift. Any one of the Ws may be cause for news worthiness (see Paris Hilton for "Who".)

In a perfect world, subjective personal feelings and opinions are not meant to determine news worthiness of a story. The objectivity of the news editors, and in most cases the collective objectivity news editors at the daily budget meeting, will determine the news worthiness of a story.

Gary

PS- So who is inflating who's importance ... one who allows a team of professionals to objectively determine the news worthiness of a story ... or the person who lets his own personal/subjective/bias opinion(s) determine the news worthiness of a story?
G

[Photodawg1]

I put im only a kid, 19 becasue I really dont know anything, becasue I really don't, I dont want to act l;iek the rest of teens and think "I know everything" ;).


OMG! Can I adopt you? Wow 1st teenager ever with that attitute. If you work for the newspaper get them to give you some I.D. so when you come upon another opportunistic event like this, you can confidently say you are covering it for such and such news agency...just make sure that they know you may occassionally cover unplanned events for them, so if you meet Mr. Mean-Cop again they will have your back.
Linda

[ayman86]

this is a bit off topic but a few months back, my backyard fence caught on fire while everyone was sleeping. my neighbors woke us up and called 911. the first thing i did after i saw the fire was take my p&s camera and take pics of the fire. lol.

when the firefighters came, took a couple pics of the truck, etc. it the highlight of the day

[ACDCROCKS]

this is a bit off topic but a few months back, my backyard fence caught on fire while everyone was sleeping. my neighbors woke us up and called 911. the first thing i did after i saw the fire was take my p&s camera and take pics of the fire. lol.

when the firefighters came, took a couple pics of the truck, etc. it the highlight of the day
insurance? or fun? That would be kinda cool seeing. It's like "that deff wasn't like that before".

[ACDCROCKS]

ACDC..... going completely against what those have told you, the cop may very well have been in his rights to have you removed from the scene. Having shot tons of explosive situations myself, one thing you can count on is when a camera shows up, people act differently. It either enrages, or people start acting up for the camera. If he was the only person on scene, and trying to maintain the calm, you getting in close enough where it was starting to impact peoples tempers - like the one shot you showed - is effecting the cops ability to keep things calm before backup arrived. A police line had not yet been established and so he was going it alone. You were not credentialed media, he didn't know you or your intentions. He didn't know if you know how to carry yourself. Additionally, there are plenty of states that do have laws where you are not allowed to do anything that keeps an officer of the law from being able to do his job. If you were causing him to have to spend time keeping track of you rather then the actual crime here, he has the right to ask you to remove yourself ... it happens all the time. At that point you just need to move to a vantage point where you are not causing a distraction, but keep shooting. The important issue is were you drawing attention to yourself and keeping him from doing his job. It would come down to your word, and inexperienced "kid" taking shots he hopes to sell, versus a cop who does this day in and out. Unless this cop has a history of issues with the press....you loose. The issue is not if you had the right to photograph, you did. The issue was were you creating a situation that created an environment where the cop could not do his job and keep the situation safe for all. That trumps your right to be in their face taking shots. Keep shooting, just do it so your not bringing attention to yourself.


I strong disagree with you, the cop would be more worried about the situtation with the INJURED person rather than a photog. A few photogs said this before on this post and said before that I had a right, and I still do. What will be our next right taken away? There allready taking the right away of smnokers. Im not a smoker, but hey, let them smoke. Stop sitting and stand up for your rights.

[BillMarks]

I strongly disagree that you can/should determine the news worthiness of any story based upon your personal feelings. There are many factors which dictate a story's news worthiness. While a drug related family tragedy may not be news worthy in a place like New York City ... it may be news worthy in a community in which drugs are uncommon. I can add quite a number of additional factors which all revolve around the five Ws of Who, What, Where, When and Why of every story (journalism 101) ... but you get the drift. Any one of the Ws may be cause for news worthiness (see Paris Hilton for "Who".)

In a perfect world, subjective personal feelings and opinions are not meant to determine news worthiness of a story. The objectivity of the news editors, and in most cases the collective objectivity news editors at the daily budget meeting, will determine the news worthiness of a story.

Gary

PS- So who is inflating who's importance ... one who allows a team of professionals to objectively determine the news worthiness of a story ... or the person who lets his own personal/subjective/bias opinion(s) determine the news worthiness of a story?
G

I think you are confusing news worthiness with "what will sell."

And did I miss something? Is ACDC a photojournalist who was on assignment at the scene of the tragedy? I thought he was just a nosy neighbor with a camera.

Clearly what goes into a news paper or a broadcast news show is always based on someone's feelings--namely, the editor's.

We all live in a world ruled by subjectivity. It's the nature of our interaction with the world we live in. Personally, I think that is precisely what makes life so interesting. So forget your idea of a "perfect world." Your perfect world can, thankfully, never exist. And if you really believe that news editors are objective, well I won't go there...

Regardless of what constitutes news worthiness to news outlets, there is the issue of what people really need to know and how that information is conveyed to them.

Yes--people in that community benefit from knowing that a crackhead lives in their community and that he ran over his sister.

So how is this information best conveyed. From an ethical point of view, we should use the method that conveys the most information while providing the least harm to innocent parties related to the incident. The photo, interestingly enough, conveys little relevant information and has the potential to cause a great deal of distress in the making. It might "sell" but that's not a very good reason to do something that harms others.

[BillMarks]

I strong disagree with you, the cop would be more worried about the situtation with the INJURED person rather than a photog. A few photogs said this before on this post and said before that I had a right, and I still do. What will be our next right taken away? There allready taking the right away of smnokers. Im not a smoker, but hey, let them smoke. Stop sitting and stand up for your rights.

My 13 year-old has more sense than you do. Yes, you have a right. But being an adult means recognizing when the feelings of others trump your right at that point in time. I think the cop was just trying to help you grow up...

And let them smoke? Should I be allowed to spray lethal chemicals in your face? Should I stand up for that right? If you know yourself well enough to realize you know nothing you are old enough to realize it is YOUR responsibility to learn how to act as an adult. Sure, the adults in your life while you were growing up did you a grave disservice by letting you end up where you are now--maturity-wise. But you are a grown man now. It's up to you to fix what they messed up. Conider focusing on that before "standing up for your rights." :rolleyes:

[ACDCROCKS]

My 13 year-old has more sense than you do. Yes, you have a right. But being an adult means recognizing when the feelings of others trump your right at that point in time. I think the cop was just trying to help you grow up...

And let them smoke? Should I be allowed to spray lethal chemicals in your face? Should I stand up for that right? If you know yourself well enough to realize you know nothing you are old enough to realize it is YOUR responsibility to learn how to act as an adult. Sure, the adults in your life while you were growing up did you a grave disservice by letting you end up where you are now--maturity-wise. But you are a grown man now. It's up to you to fix what they messed up. Conider focusing on that before "standing up for your rights." :rolleyes:


So if your son was kid napped by that same crack head that you didn't know about, what would you do then? You would say gee I wish I would of known about this guy, anythig would help!" No, I think the cop was trying to feel all "mighty" and powerfull being a small town. Maturity wise? :lol:. So anyone whos a photojournalist aren't mature, let alone patriotic. Im SORRY. IM SORRY if I PHOTOGRAPHED a scene that could influence the community and do something good. Im SORRY that im not a alcohloic, or pot head or drug dealer like the rest of my class. IM SORRY. IM sorry that im trying to do good, but pricks like you make people don't do this, you make them try feel like sh*t. But, you know what, screw you pal, I beleive I can make a difference. As far as them having feelings, I'll tell you a story. My friends came over to have a little concert last year, and we would notice him playing with his nose, hacking HORRIBLY. I knew it, we all knew it. My back neighbor is a pot head aswell. I was still in high school, a few of my class mates did crack, let alone 90% pot. In fact a class mate of mine DIED from drugs.So I knew he was doing crack. If I knew, his family would have to atleast have a sign. Don't you see? I honestly don't get it when some one tries to do get and tries to make a diffrernce, there will always be that prick that saya "wtf were you thinking? You don't try to help"

[ayman86]

insurance? or fun? That would be kinda cool seeing. It's like "that deff wasn't like that before".

for fun. here is a pic
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7130/img1558js4.th.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1558js4.jpg)

[ErikT72]

A couple of opinions that are probably worth what I'm being paid for them :

1) Personal attacks and name calling do nothing to advance this conversation, and the amazingly high quality of these forums suffers when things degenerate to that level

2) It seems almost 100% clear that ACDC had a legal right to press the shutter that day. I would venture to say that it's a fact. Whether or not he was ethical in doing so is purely a matter of opinion. One's opinion (mine included) does not magically become fact when typed out on the internet. If you don't feel that a situation like this should be photographed, you have the right to not photograph the next similar situation you run across.

Now back to our regularly scheduled name calling/high-horse lectures....

[Glenn NK]

So if your son was kid napped by that same crack head that you didn't know about, what would you do then? You would say gee I wish I would of known about this guy, anythig would help!" No, I think the cop was trying to feel all "mighty" and powerfull being a small town. Maturity wise? :lol:. So anyone whos a photojournalist aren't mature, let alone patriotic. Im SORRY. IM SORRY if I PHOTOGRAPHED a scene that could influence the community and do something good. Im SORRY that im not a alcohloic, or pot head or drug dealer like the rest of my class. IM SORRY. IM sorry that im trying to do good, but pricks like you make people don't do this, you make them try feel like sh*t. But, you know what, screw you pal, I beleive I can make a difference. As far as them having feelings, I'll tell you a story. My friends came over to have a little concert last year, and we would notice him playing with his nose, hacking HORRIBLY. I knew it, we all knew it. My back neighbor is a pot head aswell. I was still in high school, a few of my class mates did crack, let alone 90% pot. In fact a class mate of mine DIED from drugs.So I knew he was doing crack. If I knew, his family would have to atleast have a sign. Don't you see? I honestly don't get it when some one tries to do get and tries to make a diffrernce, there will always be that prick that saya "wtf were you thinking? You don't try to help"


Read what you said above - again.

Phrases like "pricks like you" and "screw you pal", don't advance your cause - they hurt it.

Convince us that your response is mature and deserves respect.

[Croasdail]

I strong disagree with you, the cop would be more worried about the situtation with the INJURED person rather than a photog. A few photogs said this before on this post and said before that I had a right, and I still do. What will be our next right taken away? There allready taking the right away of smnokers. Im not a smoker, but hey, let them smoke. Stop sitting and stand up for your rights.

Well, when you have been doing this just a bit longer, and been in a few more situations, perhaps you will understand a little better what can happen in group situations when a camera comes into play. A more seasoned photographer would have known either how to stay out of view and not draw attention, or to get in there and let everyone know who he was and why he was doing it, to put everyone at ease. And if you really don't think photographers get told when and where they can shoot from at police scenes... you really haven't been around the game very much. Most know well enough to keep their distance and where they fit into the scene... some don't. Again, no one said you can't shoot, you just can't disrupt the scene and create an issue by your presence.... camera or no camera.

You say your are 19 and don't know about these situation... but your not coming off very much that way..... your confidence in yourself is still very well intact dispite what others who actually do this professionally tell ya.

[Karl C]

Well, when you have been doing this just a bit longer, and been in a few more situations, perhaps you will understand a little better what can happen in group situations when a camera comes into play. A more seasoned photographer would have known either how to stay out of view and not draw attention, or to get in there and let everyone know who he was and why he was doing it, to put everyone at ease. And if you really don't think photographers get told when and where they can shoot from at police scenes... you really haven't been around the game very much. Most know well enough to keep their distance and where they fit into the scene... some don't. Again, no one said you can't shoot, you just can't disrupt the scene and create an issue by your presence.... camera or no camera.

You say your are 19 and don't know about these situation... but your not coming off very much that way..... your confidence in yourself is still very well intact dispite what others who actually do this professionally tell ya.

Personal attacks, name-calling, and emotional invective aside, Croasdail is correct. I believe the best method in a emotionally-charged situation, such as a traffic accident with injuries, is to keep a low-profile when shooting especially if the photog is strictly an amateur. It's just good common sense.

This is an emotional issue for many and we all have strong opinions. Some here are PJ's or professional photogs and others are not. I don't believe this discussion is centered on the legality of photography or rights of photogs but ethical issues and considerations.

If the photog is a paid-professional or PJ, it's their job to record events. The ethical grey area surrounding an amateur in an identical situation is murkier. When in doubt, error on the side of caution.

[BillMarks]

So if your son was kid napped by that same crack head that you didn't know about, what would you do then? You would say gee I wish I would of known about this guy, anythig would help!" No, I think the cop was trying to feel all "mighty" and powerfull being a small town. Maturity wise? :lol:. So anyone whos a photojournalist aren't mature, let alone patriotic. Im SORRY. IM SORRY if I PHOTOGRAPHED a scene that could influence the community and do something good. Im SORRY that im not a alcohloic, or pot head or drug dealer like the rest of my class. IM SORRY. IM sorry that im trying to do good, but pricks like you make people don't do this, you make them try feel like sh*t. But, you know what, screw you pal, I beleive I can make a difference. As far as them having feelings, I'll tell you a story. My friends came over to have a little concert last year, and we would notice him playing with his nose, hacking HORRIBLY. I knew it, we all knew it. My back neighbor is a pot head aswell. I was still in high school, a few of my class mates did crack, let alone 90% pot. In fact a class mate of mine DIED from drugs.So I knew he was doing crack. If I knew, his family would have to atleast have a sign. Don't you see? I honestly don't get it when some one tries to do get and tries to make a diffrernce, there will always be that prick that saya "wtf were you thinking? You don't try to help"

Ah--the "Savior Complex." Your photos of the scene lead to a halt in the crime of your community. Yeah you!! Do you wear a cape when you shoot?

For one thing, there are other ways I could know about the incident if I lived in the area. Most newspapers have a crime blotter section (sans grieving family grab shots by local photoheros). And there is that thing called word of mouth... Those methods of information serve the public without intruding on the involved party's moment of grief.

You are likely projecting your desires of power onto the officer.

How did you go from my comments about your obvious lack of maturity to the conclusion that photojournalists are immature and unpatriotic?! Were there photojournalists on the scene? No? I rest my case...

I'm sure you have many fine qualities, ACDC. It's just that good judgment and ethical behavior don't appear to be on the list. You put your own gratification above the feeling of others--as evidenced by the photos you made. You justify it to yourself by dreaming that you were attempting to stop crime in your neighborhood. But how many of your neighbors participate in this forum?

And please be clear on one fact. I'm not making you feel like crap. I'm just pointing out that your behavior is unethical and selfish. You feel like crap because you realize what I pointed out about YOUR behavior is true. And that's a good sign. It means you have the capacity to recognize what you did wrong. Only time will tell if you choose to act in a way that will make you feel better about yourself in the future.

And indeed, you can make a difference. Want to reduce crime in your neighborhood? Join or start a neighborhood watch group. We have a watch captain on every block in our neighborhood and crime is down over 80% in my neighborhood. It is one of the most effective ways to get crime to move out. The sad part about your photos is that by looking at them you wouldn't know a crime even took place.

Ah, now it becomes clear. So you had a friend who was using crack and you didn't tell his parents--or anyone--he needed help. I think you need to deal with the guilt you feel about that. If you have access to a social worker or school psychologist, seeing one of them would help a lot.

Now speaking of your friends, THAT'S who you should stand up to. THAT'S how you can make a real difference. Cut yourself some slack for being a kid and not comprehending the fact that your friends can die from drugs. But now that you know, be the change you want to see in the world. Do your best, try your hardest to stand up to and convince your friends that do drugs to stop. If they won't listen to you tell their parents--even an "anonymous tip" to the parents would help as parents are sometimes blind to that sort of thing--because they don't want to see it or deal with it. Yeah, you might lose a friend or two--but they will still be alive. You risk losing them forever if you don't help...

[BillMarks]

A couple of opinions that are probably worth what I'm being paid for them :

1) Personal attacks and name calling do nothing to advance this conversation, and the amazingly high quality of these forums suffers when things degenerate to that level

2) It seems almost 100% clear that ACDC had a legal right to press the shutter that day. I would venture to say that it's a fact. Whether or not he was ethical in doing so is purely a matter of opinion. One's opinion (mine included) does not magically become fact when typed out on the internet. If you don't feel that a situation like this should be photographed, you have the right to not photograph the next similar situation you run across.

Now back to our regularly scheduled name calling/high-horse lectures....

Since when are ethics a matter of opinion?! :rolleyes:

[ErikT72]

Since when are ethics a matter of opinion?! :rolleyes:

How's the air up there Bill?
Please, do continue to educate the masses on how to live right. I need to go take some pictures. :rolleyes: right back at ya big guy.

[Seefutlung]

I think you are confusing news worthiness with "what will sell."

And did I miss something? Is ACDC a photojournalist who was on assignment at the scene of the tragedy? I thought he was just a nosy neighbor with a camera.

Clearly what goes into a news paper or a broadcast news show is always based on someone's feelings--namely, the editor's.

We all live in a world ruled by subjectivity. It's the nature of our interaction with the world we live in. Personally, I think that is precisely what makes life so interesting. So forget your idea of a "perfect world." Your perfect world can, thankfully, never exist. And if you really believe that news editors are objective, well I won't go there...

Regardless of what constitutes news worthiness to news outlets, there is the issue of what people really need to know and how that information is conveyed to them.

Yes--people in that community benefit from knowing that a crackhead lives in their community and that he ran over his sister.

So how is this information best conveyed. From an ethical point of view, we should use the method that conveys the most information while providing the least harm to innocent parties related to the incident. The photo, interestingly enough, conveys little relevant information and has the potential to cause a great deal of distress in the making. It might "sell" but that's not a very good reason to do something that harms others.

"I think you are confusing news worthiness with "what will sell." "

No I am not. Nothing in my post speaks of selling. Once again you are stretching, inserting comments which are not there and switching the subject matter because you are wrong. What I wrote was based upon more than a decade of news work experience ... you are obviously writing out of ignorance and lack of knowledge of how news is gathered ... I am presenting fact ... you, once again, fiction to support the wrong statement (s)you made earlier.

I feel that our points have been made and I will no longer waste my time arguing and debating points with ignorance ... what's the point ... this isn't about enlightenment but rather it's all about you winning regardless of the legitimancy of your arguements.

[Croasdail]

Seefutlung - I am with ya on this, and at the same time I am not.

Couple of things here. There is a big difference between street photography and photojournalism. Unfortunately with the news media outlets with their call for images from the public, the bar between the two is getting blurred with more of the street photography creeping in. Not that street photography is bad, but it has another purpose.

Photojournalism has a special mandate to tell a story... capture something of the newsworthiness of the event. ACDC's first shot almost makes this bar, but is compromised by the fact that the gentleman's attention is on the photographer. Indirectly, ACDC has impacted and influenced the scene. Not always avoidable. But to make the image news worthy, it would need a caption like Mr. xxxx and Ms. xxxx console their daughter, xxxxxx, as she awaits medical treatment after being hit. You almost don't see the daughter laying there. A better images would be the people giving care to the daughter. But still, both papers I did daily work for would publish images relating to a domestic violence/dispute only in the most rare circumstances. I only do sports wire work now, so I couldn't tell you if my locals would pick this up. But I haven't seen them post Domestic Violence shots, so I my guess would be no. The second image just shows the back of a cop, and a fire truck. There is no story in the image.

ACDC, if something is going on in your community that you feel is important to convey, by all means do it. In scenes like this, lay low so you don't raise the attention and get popped by an upset dad trying to protect his daughter and family from a photographer. Capture the scene as it unfolds without becoming part of it. On the other hand, if you were to want to do a photo essay of the drug use in your community, I would not do it secretly. The only thing that will get you in more trouble with the drug crowd will be sneaking around taking pictures of them... it could have very dire results. Rather let them know what the story is you are trying to tell, and you will be surprised how many of them will want their story told.

Some snap shots become great works of photojournalism. That is being in the right place, at the right time, with the right equipment, and a little luck. Day to day journalism takes a lot of planning about how your going to approach a subject. This was a good start. Just take lessons learned and apply them to your next opportunity.

[Seefutlung]

Croasdail-

To be honest I really don't see any significant differences between our postings. And I agree on your critique of the shots ... I was thinking that in a community where drug related incidences were rare, ACDC's shot may just run. I see a few stories here, firstly- family tragedy, secondly- drug related incident, thirdly- feature stories ... even in our nicer neighborhoods drugs are creeping in, education/reminder to be aware of these signs of drugs usage in the family ... in the neighborhood, update on what the police are doing to keep drugs out of the community and how neighbors can help each other and the community, et cetera.

Although the photos don't tell the story ... the man's anguish speaks volumes and in a proper context could be an effective use of art for any/some of the above related stories.

Yes it is a tragedy, and yes the man is clearly upset ... but if his image and story can directly or indirectly help others avoid a similar tragedy ... then the greater good of society has been served at the expense of an individual.

One of the hardest things in reporting are the tragic stories. Although ACDC's photos did evolve around personal tragedy ... but there are lessons to be learned/reinforced for the general public. Depending on the marketplace and the type of media, the story generated by this tragedy could be sensationalist or sensitive. Regardless, of how it is written, new worthiness should be determined by experienced professionals, not by the personal feelings/bias' of untrained individuals.

Gary

[BillMarks]

How's the air up there Bill?
Please, do continue to educate the masses on how to live right. I need to go take some pictures. :rolleyes: right back at ya big guy.

No need to feel embarrassed. And my feet are planted firmly on the ground. Ethics are not relative. Some people use the notion of relative ethics to rastionalize unethical behavior. But relative ethics is the foundation of anarchy. If I get to choose what is ethical for me--irrespective of others--and you get to choose what is ethical for you, the notion of ethics becomes meaningless. Kind of like your response...

[BillMarks]

"I think you are confusing news worthiness with "what will sell." "

No I am not. Nothing in my post speaks of selling.

Not literally. But it is clear that the foundation of your beliefs is that the subjective opinions of others called editors is what defines newsworthiness. And editors are motivated--at least in part--by what sells (as their jobs depend on selling ad space). Maybe (likely) editors hide this aspect of their decision process from journalists. But having worked in the advertising business for decades, it is rather easy for a large ad sponsor to guide the content of a news outlet.

Once again you are stretching, inserting comments which are not there and switching the subject matter because you are wrong. What I wrote was based upon more than a decade of news work experience ... you are obviously writing out of ignorance and lack of knowledge of how news is gathered ... I am presenting fact ... you, once again, fiction to support the wrong statement (s)you made earlier.

Do you understand the meaning of the phrase "I think you are______," even a tiny bit?

I feel that our points have been made and I will no longer waste my time arguing and debating points with ignorance ... what's the point ... this isn't about enlightenment but rather it's all about you winning regardless of the legitimancy of your arguements.

I'm glad you will no longer use ignorance as a means of debating my points--although you seem to have used ignorance in debating only one of my points--and a tangential point at that...

[Croasdail]

Not literally. But it is clear that the foundation of your beliefs is that the subjective opinions of others called editors is what defines newsworthiness. And editors are motivated--at least in part--by what sells (as their jobs depend on selling ad space). Maybe (likely) editors hide this aspect of their decision process from journalists. But having worked in the advertising business for decades, it is rather easy for a large ad sponsor to guide the content of a news outlet.

Actually the job of the editor is to find the right image that explains the story the best - not the most sensational. Trust me, the archieves of the media and wire services are filled with images that would tantilize even the most conservative sole, but they remain unpublished because the step beyond what is tasteful and needful. There is a lot of restraint being shown by even the most lurid publishers. They are not publishing the most exciting of what they have.

[BillMarks]

Croasdail-


Although the photos don't tell the story ... the man's anguish speaks volumes and in a proper context could be an effective use of art for any/some of the above related stories.

Yes it is a tragedy, and yes the man is clearly upset ... but if his image and story can directly or indirectly help others avoid a similar tragedy ... then the greater good of society has been served at the expense of an individual.



The man's anguish is likely due to him seeing ACDC taking photos of their tragedy. So photojournalists are now supposed to create the anguish they photograph? Interesting approach to job security...

And if the storiless photos can't help others? That is part of the issue here, too. Are these pitifully poor (from a journalistic POV) images going to do anything but feed ACDC's adolescent ego? He is clearly aware of the problem of drug use and fails to act on it even with his friends--behavior that led to tragic consequences of it own.

So, as I pointed out before: As an adult bystander, one needs to consider why one wants to "document" such scenes and the impact of doing so on others.

[BillMarks]

Actually the job of the editor is to find the right image that explains the story the best - not the most sensational. Trust me, the archieves of the media and wire services are filled with images that would tantilize even the most conservative sole, but they remain unpublished because the step beyond what is tasteful and needful. There is a lot of restraint being shown by even the most lurid publishers. They are not publishing the most exciting of what they have.

And what does this point have to do with any I made? Are you suggesting that editors' jobs are not related to ad sales and that their decisions are completely void of any self interest? Even the central character of what is referred to by many as the New Testement succumbed to actions based on self interest. :rolleyes:

I think your problem is that you are trying to overgeneralize my comments--which are nuanced--and interpret them in a way that is black vs. white.

[Seefutlung]

Actually the job of the editor is to find the right image that explains the story the best - not the most sensational. Trust me, the archieves of the media and wire services are filled with images that would tantilize even the most conservative sole, but they remain unpublished because the step beyond what is tasteful and needful. There is a lot of restraint being shown by even the most lurid publishers. They are not publishing the most exciting of what they have.

AND --- All of the major market newpapers that I am aware ... the advertising department and the editioral department are completely separated. In all my years in news ... never have I seen a situation when a story or photo ran because it sold more papers. In fact I've never even heard a serious conversation regarding "... selling more papers".

What sells papers is timeliness (scoops) and articles geared at the needs/sensitivities of the particular marketplace, all wrapped up with accurate and fair reporting.

I used to play fast pitch softball. One of star pitchers worked for the LA Times advertising department ... I didn't know that until the third or fourth game ...

Gary

[BillMarks]

AND --- All of the major market newpapers that I am aware ... the advertising department and the editioral department are completely separated.

Yes--the department are. But do you really think editors are unaware of the relationship between circulation and their job? Wake up and smell the coffee dude.:rolleyes:




In all my years in news ... never have I seen a situation when a story or photo ran because it sold more papers. In fact I've never even heard a serious conversation regarding "... selling more papers".

Then you were very sheltered, indeed. Or maybe you just didn't pick up on how the terms "relevance," "timeliness," and so on, were used...;)

[Croasdail]

All I know is from experience, and while advertisers might not always like what you do, they did not yeild enough power to have the papers I worked for compromise their editorial content based, less alone photographs, based on who was or wasn't going to advertise. The sure fire way for a paper to loose it's creditbitliy is to pander to it's advertisers.

After leaving paper work, I ended up in global marketing for a fortune 100 company with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars. Sure there were times we did not renew advertising with a group that had "unfarely" portrayed our company in a just way... but we never tried to influence or cause any kind of conflict of interest. And we particularly do not prevent any organization from gathering news.

So rollie eyes all you want, but yes, what makes it into print is the responsibility of the editors of any publication. They are charged and paid for their years of experience and the quality of their very subjective judgement of what is to make it into print. And every day they balance the need to make money with the what society in general feels is appropriate.

I had pictures and the name of the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case nearly from the beginning. But out of disgression, they were withheld, because as a society in sexual abuse and assult cases we don't release that kind of information. It was only after the courts released that information, that the media began to make this information available. It was available on bloggs on the internet as well way before the courts released it, so it isn't like we were with holding anything that if someone really wanted to know, couldn't find out. But ethically, and through our own judgement of what is right and decent, we still did not release that information - or produce any pictures. Could we have sold a whole heck of a lot more being able to scoop the others by releasing this information.... yep. Advertising sales would have been brisk. But it didn't happen.

But pulling back up to ACDC, many were unhappy he was shooting this event period. He has every legel right to capture the news regardless of his intent. But if he wants to be a or work like a photojournalist, he needs to learn that in the process of gathering images he needs to be sensitive to the situation he is opperating in. Sometimes the cops will tell you to back off. You need to know when that is. If you don't, you find yourself tangled in messes like this....

http://www.imaginginfo.com/article/article.jsp?id=2168&siteSection=3

[Karl C]

Sorry but I just have to ask...

Hey Bill, what exactly is your background and experience in the news media? Are you a current or former photojournalist? Photo editor? Editor?

Are you or have you ever been professionally employed by a news organization? If so, in what capacity?

If the basis of your arguement is that newspapers/editors only publish stories that provide maximum profit, please provide us your background so your credentials are established.

Gary and Croasdail and others have already posted their experience.

It's only fair you do the same, right?

[Croasdail]

Yes--the department are. But do you really think editors are unaware of the relationship between circulation and their job? Wake up and smell the coffee dude.

make that two of us that needs to smell the coffee.... and what paper is it that you worked for that you have this intense knowledge of?

edit: Sorry Karl... you beat me to it. Cheers!

[BillMarks]

Do you guys actually read any of the words I spend timetyping here?

I said I worked in the advertising business--not the media. And having worked for advertising agencies (2 of the largest in the world) for over 2 decades, I saw the power of the ad dollar. Of course advertisers cannot dictate what is shown/reported on. But they can influence how things get reported on and where it shows up in the paper. They have similar influence on TV and radio.

I said editors are influenced by issues related to circulation--not that they only publish stories that provide maximum profit. To believe that editors do not consider profits at all when making decisions (and this is not to say that the profit aspect of a story/photo will always be acted upon) is naive at best.

And thank you, Croasdail, for agreeing with my point: there are times when we, as a society, decide not to exercise our rights as afforded by the Constituton. This decision can be made at the level of an individual, as well. To the extent individuals take it upon themselves to voluntarily waive these right--when society would decide not to act upon them anyway--it saves editors that much time and effort.

I never claimed ACDC was not allowed to take the shots he took--just that he should examine his true motives and weigh the feelings of others into his decisions in the future.

Croasdail, you say all you know is from experience. In the future, you might want to consider expanding what you know via the experince of others as it will broaden your view.

[Karl C]

Do you guys actually read any of the words I spend timetyping here?

I said I worked in the advertising business--not the media. And having worked for advertising agencies (2 of the largest in the world) for over 2 decades, I saw the power of the ad dollar. Of course advertisers cannot dictate what is shown/reported on. But they can influence how things get reported on and where it shows up in the paper. They have similar influence on TV and radio.

Thanks for the background information. I've read the thread but didn't memorize or remember everything that has been written. I apologize for missing your earlier post with background information.

[BillMarks]

Thanks for the background information. I've read the thread but didn't memorize or remember everything that has been written. I apologize for missing your earlier post with background information.

No problem Karl.

Being on the side doing the influencing is a very different perspective than being on the end that is being influenced. It's not surprising that someone on the media end--at a level below the editors--would not see the influence.

[short5]

I don't have the energy to read this entire thread but as a person who shoots spot news I felt the desire to coment...

just because its the law dont make it right,,, and like I said it needs changing. Yes lets make a law for everything you don't like:rolleyes:

But even so, It was my right to take pics. Yes it was and next time step over to where the general public is standing and keep shooting. "sir I am not trying to disrespect you or interfere but I have the right to stand here with the public and take pictures". If the officer wants to escalate it from there it is a judgment call how to proceed but you will probably have enough shots by then.

naw only ones that are for it are those that make money off of others image and misfortune.
. It is called reality, some want to see it and feel it not have it brushed under the carpet and censored


And no, I wouldn't be shocked at what the ignorant masses would vote into law. Thank goodness we have a system of government, here in the US, that keeps (mostly) the ignorant, superstitious, and just plain stupid from enacting laws.
Amen, We would be in a mess if we passed laws based on the emotional whims of the general public

If it had been me you were snapping pictures of and I saw ya I would be real tempted to shove the camera down your throat.
If I ran across the pic after the fact id be real tempted to put you in a world of hurt then snap pictures of your family crying. . You seem to be an emotional person that reacts to your emotional whims.
Everyone should own the copyright to their own image under all conditions.
Brilliant:rolleyes:, I am assuming you don't watch the news but can you imagine what we would see under those conditions? If a politician is caught lying or doing something illegal they would just say that only text could be disseminated. If a criminal was caught in the act and wanted notices were put out they could say no using their personally copyrighted image.
Emotion is a powerful influence on humans don't let it cloud reality and common sense. There is of course ethics and decency to be considered in journalism but not blanket censorship based on the fallacies of emotion.

[Croasdail]

Do you guys actually read any of the words I spend timetyping here?

I said I worked in the advertising business--not the media. And having worked for advertising agencies (2 of the largest in the world) for over 2 decades, I saw the power of the ad dollar. Of course advertisers cannot dictate what is shown/reported on. But they can influence how things get reported on and where it shows up in the paper. They have similar influence on TV and radio.

I said editors are influenced by issues related to circulation--not that they only publish stories that provide maximum profit. To believe that editors do not consider profits at all when making decisions (and this is not to say that the profit aspect of a story/photo will always be acted upon) is naive at best.

And thank you, Croasdail, for agreeing with my point: there are times when we, as a society, decide not to exercise our rights as afforded by the Constituton. This decision can be made at the level of an individual, as well. To the extent individuals take it upon themselves to voluntarily waive these right--when society would decide not to act upon them anyway--it saves editors that much time and effort.

I never claimed ACDC was not allowed to take the shots he took--just that he should examine his true motives and weigh the feelings of others into his decisions in the future.

Croasdail, you say all you know is from experience. In the future, you might want to consider expanding what you know via the experince of others as it will broaden your view.

Abosulely amigo... I am all ears. But I would advise likewise. I have only been in the media and then product marketing with a 9 figure ad budget for 21 years on three continents. You experience and exposure simply doesn't match with my own. I am sure we both have more to learn.

Cheers.

[BillMarks]

Abosulely amigo... I am all ears. But I would advise likewise. I have only been in the media and then product marketing with a 9 figure ad budget for 21 years on three continents. You experience and exposure simply doesn't match with my own. I am sure we both have more to learn.

Cheers.

It's about quality of experience, not quantity... If you've never been on the side that influences, it makes sense you wouldn't know it happens. I'm glad I could broaden your horizons.

[Steve Parr]

Maturity wise? So anyone whos a photojournalist aren't mature, let alone patriotic.

I don't believe anyone said that...

IM sorry that im trying to do good, but pricks like you make people don't do this, you make them try feel like sh*t. But, you know what, screw you pal...

Of course, it's hard to conclude that someone is "mature" when they respond like this. In fact, it suggests exactly the opposite.

Regardless of what you were trying to accomplish; aside from all the "good" you were trying to do, nobody's going to give you the time of day when you react like that...

[ACDCROCKS]

I don't have the energy to read this entire thread but as a person who shoots spot news I felt the desire to coment...

Yes lets make a law for everything you don't like:rolleyes:

Yes it was and next time step over to where the general public is standing and keep shooting. "sir I am not trying to disrespect you or interfere but I have the right to stand here with the public and take pictures". If the officer wants to escalate it from there it is a judgment call how to proceed but you will probably have enough shots by then.

It is called reality, some want to see it and feel it not have it brushed under the carpet and censored

Amen, We would be in a mess if we passed laws based on the emotional whims of the general public

You seem to be an emotional person that reacts to your emotional whims.

Brilliant:rolleyes:, I am assuming you don't watch the news but can you imagine what we would see under those conditions? If a politician is caught lying or doing something illegal they would just say that only text could be disseminated. If a criminal was caught in the act and wanted notices were put out they could say no using their personally copyrighted image.
Emotion is a powerful influence on humans don't let it cloud reality and common sense. There is of course ethics and decency to be considered in journalism but not blanket censorship based on the fallacies of emotion.

I would of, but If iremeber correctly he got rid of them too

[Southswede]

Hey, your amp only goes up to 10, you should get one that goes to 11!

Alex

He's too young. He won't get it.;)

[Southswede]

ACDC..... going completely against what those have told you, the cop may very well have been in his rights to have you removed from the scene. Having shot tons of explosive situations myself, one thing you can count on is when a camera shows up, people act differently. It either enrages, or people start acting up for the camera. If he was the only person on scene, and trying to maintain the calm, you getting in close enough where it was starting to impact peoples tempers - like the one shot you showed - is effecting the cops ability to keep things calm before backup arrived. A police line had not yet been established and so he was going it alone. You were not credentialed media, he didn't know you or your intentions. He didn't know if you know how to carry yourself. Additionally, there are plenty of states that do have laws where you are not allowed to do anything that keeps an officer of the law from being able to do his job. If you were causing him to have to spend time keeping track of you rather then the actual crime here, he has the right to ask you to remove yourself ... it happens all the time. At that point you just need to move to a vantage point where you are not causing a distraction, but keep shooting. The important issue is were you drawing attention to yourself and keeping him from doing his job. It would come down to your word, and inexperienced "kid" taking shots he hopes to sell, versus a cop who does this day in and out. Unless this cop has a history of issues with the press....you loose. The issue is not if you had the right to photograph, you did. The issue was were you creating a situation that created an environment where the cop could not do his job and keep the situation safe for all. That trumps your right to be in their face taking shots. Keep shooting, just do it so your not bringing attention to yourself.


As a street cop, I thank you for posting this and understanding what may be at stake on a scene!

[Southswede]

I strong disagree with you, the cop would be more worried about the situtation with the INJURED person rather than a photog. A few photogs said this before on this post and said before that I had a right, and I still do. What will be our next right taken away? There allready taking the right away of smnokers. Im not a smoker, but hey, let them smoke. Stop sitting and stand up for your rights.

You can "strongly disagree" all you want. He's right with his post. As for the "next" right being taken away? The Second Amendment is under attack daily, in America.....

[Southswede]

Its all 'yes sir' and 'no sir' no matter how in the right you are lest you find cuffs on your wrist and drugs being pulled out of your back pocket that wern't there a minute ago.



You could always say: "these aren't my pants!" ;)

[ACDCROCKS]

All I know is from experience, and while advertisers might not always like what you do, they did not yeild enough power to have the papers I worked for compromise their editorial content based, less alone photographs, based on who was or wasn't going to advertise. The sure fire way for a paper to loose it's creditbitliy is to pander to it's advertisers.

After leaving paper work, I ended up in global marketing for a fortune 100 company with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars. Sure there were times we did not renew advertising with a group that had "unfarely" portrayed our company in a just way... but we never tried to influence or cause any kind of conflict of interest. And we particularly do not prevent any organization from gathering news.

So rollie eyes all you want, but yes, what makes it into print is the responsibility of the editors of any publication. They are charged and paid for their years of experience and the quality of their very subjective judgement of what is to make it into print. And every day they balance the need to make money with the what society in general feels is appropriate.

I had pictures and the name of the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case nearly from the beginning. But out of disgression, they were withheld, because as a society in sexual abuse and assult cases we don't release that kind of information. It was only after the courts released that information, that the media began to make this information available. It was available on bloggs on the internet as well way before the courts released it, so it isn't like we were with holding anything that if someone really wanted to know, couldn't find out. But ethically, and through our own judgement of what is right and decent, we still did not release that information - or produce any pictures. Could we have sold a whole heck of a lot more being able to scoop the others by releasing this information.... yep. Advertising sales would have been brisk. But it didn't happen.

But pulling back up to ACDC, many were unhappy he was shooting this event period. He has every legel right to capture the news regardless of his intent. But if he wants to be a or work like a photojournalist, he needs to learn that in the process of gathering images he needs to be sensitive to the situation he is opperating in. Sometimes the cops will tell you to back off. You need to know when that is. If you don't, you find yourself tangled in messes like this....

http://www.imaginginfo.com/article/article.jsp?id=2168&siteSection=3
Thanks for that post it says "Photographers are permitted to record what they can see from public property, Harrison's attorney, Martin, said Friday, as long as that property is not cordoned off bPhotographers are permitted to record what they can see from public property, Harrison's attorney, Martin, said Friday, as long as that property is not cordoned off by crime scene tape"

hmmm.

[SuzyView]

I have a hard time with this very topic. Here in VA, there are always things going on. As a photographer, I am restricted from many areas, especially the White House due to National Security issue. Taking that on the macro level, with local happenings, people don't want their accidents or dirty laundry aired to the world. I have seen people take out their camera phone like they were guns in a holster, but we can't take out our DSLR's with zoom lenses on them. It's unfair, but there it is. I don't ever take pictures of accidents with my camera. People are so intimidated by the long lenses. I agree that we should be protected by the law, but in the heat of the moment, anything can happen and I don't want someone, even a cop to throw my 5D across the street because I wouldn't put it away. He might get sued, but I don't want the hassle. And I know people are going to disagree with me, but I'm not 19, I've been around a lot and sometimes, it's easier to just walk away.

[NetDep]

You could always say: "these aren't my pants!" ;)

Goes right along with -- "Hey, that ain't my dope!" Sorry -- just made me chuckle.

[Croasdail]

It's about quality of experience, not quantity... If you've never been on the side that influences, it makes sense you wouldn't know it happens. I'm glad I could broaden your horizons.

The point here dude is that even when an olive leaf is extended, you still have to try to put in that last little thing. You have no idea to the quantity nor the quality of my experience, nor my education... therefor any judgement on your part to that extent is baseless. That, and this whole train of thought has nothing to do with whether ACDC should be out playing journalist selling pictures of his parents neighbors to the media.

ACDC - I posted that link to let you know even seasoned journalist get too close to that line of what they can and can't do form time to time. This chap fortunately is a seasoned pro, has a industry association that is backing him, and can clearly point to the fact that he was just doing his job. I doubt you have the same financial backing he has to wage this fight, nor any basis for claiming you are a journalist of any kind. Being right is one thing, having the resources to prove you are right is another. Without some backing, this is a fight I really don't think you want to test. Sometimes being smart is better then being right. Once you get married, you'll figure that one out. The point is this guy ended up needing an attorney... you got the funds for that?

If you are trying to make a name for yourself, trying doing so outside of your own neighborhood.

[BillMarks]

The point here dude is that even when an olive leaf is extended, you still have to try to put in that last little thing. You have no idea to the quantity nor the quality of my experience, nor my education... therefor any judgement on your part to that extent is baseless. That, and this whole train of thought has nothing to do with whether ACDC should be out playing journalist selling pictures of his parents neighbors to the media.

Then why do you keep bringing up this trian of thought? And the extent to which you use poor grammar, misspell words and use bastardized idioms (like extending an olive leaf (it's extending an olive branch)) all give clues to you education and experience.

This chap fortunately is a seasoned pro, has a industry association that is backing him, and can clearly point to the fact that he was just doing his job.

Not sure you've heard the latest on this, but "doing one's job" does not absolve one from ethical bahavior. This point was made famous at the Nurenburg trials after WWII.

Being right is one thing, having the resources to prove you are right is another.

And knowing when to act ethically--even if it means waiving your rights--is the mark of a mature individual.

[Steve Parr]

(like extending an olive leaf (it's extending an olive branch)) all give clues to you education and experience.

I love when people attempt to criticize the "education" of someone else, but then goes on to put parentheses inside of parentheses. You should use brackets inside of parentheses.

I mean, everybody knows that.

:rolleyes:

Seriously, personal attacks like yours do nothing to progress a discussion, and are indicative of your having nothing constructive left to add...

[Steve Parr]

Then why do you keep bringing up this trian of thought? And the extent to which you use poor grammar, misspell words...

Not sure you've heard the latest on this, but "doing one's job" does not absolve one from ethical bahavior. This point was made famous at the Nurenburg trials after WWII.

Hehehehehe... I'm dyin' here...

:lol:

[thekid24]

Wow I remember when this thread was started, it was so simple.

Now we got all kinds of politicians...I mean photographers giving their help.

Anyone that has just joined the thread on this page, here is a rundown. In a "This Thread In Thirty Seconds" way

- O.P.: Check out these photos I took of an accident and the cop was mad at me, Im 19
- Random Member (R.M.): Those are not ethical.
- O.P.: Im just a kid, the cop was mad at me he shouldnt do that.
- R.M.: The cop was just doing his job.
- R.M.: Something about a Fender turned up
- R.M.: Im a P.J. and it should be done this way
- R.M.: Who said your way was the right way
- O.P.: *some name calling*
- R.M.: Now, now no name calling
- R.M.: Another politic....I mean photog chimming in.
- O.P.: Oh great another poli....I mean photog chimming in.
- R.M.: The cop was doing his job correctly
- R.M.(A police officer): Thats how we do things too.
- R.M.: yada yada yada....yada yada.....yada
- R.M.: But your yada yada is not yada yada yada yada.
- R.M.: Hehehe look at the typos (Even though its not a spelling bee/grammer forum)

Edit: Forgot this part.

This is the POTN way.

"The photos show some real emotion, both from the police and victims but the headlight from the motorcycle in the background is 'distracting' and you migh want to clone out the lady on the left. Lighting is 'spot on' though, nice 'pp'."

:p

[blackshadow]

Then why do you keep bringing up this trian of thought? And the extent to which you use poor grammar, misspell words

Pure gold!!!

[blackshadow]

Hehehehehe... I'm dyin' here...

:lol:

Me too Steve!

[Glenn NK]

ACDC is eighteen years old, he lives in the neighbourhood, he is not photojournalist, and his motivation for taking the images (other than it is his right to do so) is not clear, at least to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Possibly he (like many of us) would have a morbid interest in this type of happening, and wanted to get a "cool shot" that would be one of a kind and impressive.

The police officer (already handling a very difficult situation if the son actually ran over his sister), sees an 18 year old (looks like a kid to the police officer), and assumes that the kid taking shots will simply make things worse.

ACDC then comes here, complaining that his rights were violated - I think they probably were.

But his comments like "a prick like you", and "screw you pal" to another forum member, should have caused more than a few of us to have some doubts about his maturity, and about his motivation for taking the pictures. I wondered if the mods would step in after that post.

Then I read another not terribly mature comment from ACDC; "I would go outside, get my fender roc pro 1000, 4 x 12 cabinet, turn it to volume 8, get the SG and play until the cows come home. Screw the people that want us to lose our rights".

What would anyone else conclude from these utterings? I'm assuming that you've all read them.

[ACDCROCKS]

ACDC is eighteen years old, he lives in the neighbourhood, he is not photojournalist, and his motivation for taking the images (other than it is his right to do so) is not clear, at least to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Possibly he (like many of us) would have a morbid interest in this type of happening, and wanted to get a "cool shot" that would be one of a kind and impressive.

The police officer (already handling a very difficult situation if the son actually ran over his sister), sees an 18 year old (looks like a kid to the police officer), and assumes that the kid taking shots will simply make things worse.

ACDC then comes here, complaining that his rights were violated - I think they probably were.

But his comments like "a prick like you", and "screw you pal" to another forum member, should have caused more than a few of us to have some doubts about his maturity, and about his motivation for taking the pictures. I wondered if the mods would step in after that post.

Then I read another not terribly mature comment from ACDC; "I would go outside, get my fender roc pro 1000, 4 x 12 cabinet, turn it to volume 8, get the SG and play until the cows come home. Screw the people that want us to lose our rights".

What would anyone else conclude from these utterings? I'm assuming that you've all read them.


About calling a former member a prick, and saying screw you pal. I said to one member, and their is a reason for that. He said that his 13 year old son has more sense than me. I don't like when people say idiotic things like that, he deserved it. Do I say to every one? No. I don't like it when people walk over me. When I say something like that it obviously has to have some meaning behind it, and anger to create it. Was it right for him to say it? I don't think. All i did was photograph a scene and a policeman told me to stop taking pics and I left. Whats so immature about this? I didn't argue, I left quietly. What is so immature about this? I came here to ask a question, im not doing it in a angering way. Read my last line on the original post "So whats the up on this rule? Thanks". It was a simple question. So yes, he still deserves to be called a prick. As far as turning up my amp to volume 8, the main reason* is becasue the dogs in my neighborhood won't be kept quiet at 4:30 in the morning. You try going to sleep when your neighbor has 7*, yes seven dogs in a normal size city lot. It's inhumane, I know.I tired talking to the neighbor, I tried calling the police. Nothing, so, I'll make some noise Another thing is a lot of my neighbors let their dogs loose, aswell as cats. The cats pee on my car, walk on my car, pee on the houe, mess on the property, same as dogs. I was surrounded by growling dogs on my property. I tried everything, time for my fun. No, I won't do it at 4:30AM, but around 7pm. Like I said, I don't like to be walked on all over, you make noise,I make noise, you imsult me, I insult you. Simple as that, but it takes a lot of that to happen iorder to do something, becasue Im a nice guy.

[Nanscombe]

Hi All,

I think that the maturity angle comes in where someone 'acts like a prick', you know 'he is a prick' but you bite your tongue and don't 'call him a prick'. We can probably all spot them.

ACDC was asked to stop taking photos, and he did.

IMHO, the primary motivation for taking a photograph is to capture a moment before it passes, it may be that it is only later that you decide what to do with it.

As for the right to smoke in the UK, come the 1st of July 2007, it will be unlawful to smoke in any enclosed public space or workplace. There goes another 'right', curtailed for our own good, or maybe the good of everyone else.

I may be a non-smoker, but I didn't have a problem with areas for those who do.

Regards
Nigel

[ssim]

Like I said, I don't like to be walked on all over, you make noise,I make noise, you imsult me, I insult you. Simple as that, but it takes a lot of that to happen iorder to do something, becasue Im a nice guy.
This is where people are calling your maturity into question. There is a time to turn the other cheek and be larger than the other person. Was there a better way of responding than with the language that you used. Certainly, but you chose the low road which is why you are being questioned. If you read through this forum you will not find that tone of language used very much at all and very seldom directed at one individual.

If the domestic animals in your neighborhood are an issue for you and you have talked to the authorities I am to assume that they are within the confines of the local laws. Rather than trying to antagonize the neighbors would it not be better to approach other neighbors and take the issue to you local city/town council for amendments.

I don't question your right to take the photos, legally you were probably well within your rights. It is the subsequent handling of the issue here that leads me to think that you to learn some demeanor in dealing with situations. If you react like this in person you are apt to get into trouble.

[Southswede]

Goes right along with -- "Hey, that ain't my dope!" Sorry -- just made me chuckle.


I have actually had people saqy that to me! (These aren't my pants) It usually go something along the lines of: that's not mine. Well it was in your pocket. These aren't my pants...it is good for a laugh though.

[SkipD]

Like I said, I don't like to be walked on all over, you make noise,I make noise, you imsult me, I insult you. Simple as that, but it takes a lot of that to happen iorder to do something, becasue Im a nice guy.That is a very childish way to react.

You need to learn to speak with a civil tongue but still get your point across - in private when needed.

To punish the other neighbors with your noise because of one neighbor's noisy animals is a very immature move on your part. About all it would accomplish is to get you on the xxxx list of all the neighbors and possibly get you a ticket from the local police.

[Southswede]

About calling a former member a prick, and saying screw you pal. I said to one member, and their is a reason for that. He said that his 13 year old son has more sense than me.


So you, naturally felt the compulsion to prove him right! ;)

[ACDCROCKS]

That is a very childish way to react.

You need to learn to speak with a civil tongue but still get your point across - in private when needed.

To punish the other neighbors with your noise because of one neighbor's noisy animals is a very immature move on your part. About all it would accomplish is to get you on the xxxx list of all the neighbors and possibly get you a ticket from the local police.

If the police won't do anything about dogs barking 4 hours straight, with 7 in the yard, dogs running loose as well as cats,w hat will they do about me playing guitar? They can't even solve the 6 murders they had in recent years. they don't care, trust me. It's not immature, just revenge. I tried taking it the mature route, but no one cares. Now if I was in the rich neighborhood, it would of been taken care of in seconds.

[SkipD]

If the police won't do anything about dogs barking 4 hours straight, with 7 in the yard, dogs running loose as well as cats,w hat will they do about me playing guitar? They can't even solve the 6 murders they had in recent years. they don't care, trust me. It's not immature, just revenge. I tried taking it the mature route, but no one cares. Now if I was in the rich neighborhood, it would of been taken care of in seconds.The revenge idea is very immature.

You don't seem to care about your other neighbors and the way they would feel about you if you created even more noise that would bother them.

If you wanted to handle the situation with the animals in a mature way, you would get the other neighbors together and deal with the situation as an organization. If the majority of the neighborhood working as a team cannot get the police to act, then it would be time to take the situation a little higher - possibly involving an attorney or a local television station's news team.

There's always another solution if it's just you that's bothered by your neighbor(s) and you cannot resolve the problem. Simply move out of the neighborhood.

[ACDCROCKS]

The revenge idea is very immature.

You don't seem to care about your other neighbors and the way they would feel about you if you created even more noise that would bother them.

If you wanted to handle the situation with the animals in a mature way, you would get the other neighbors together and deal with the situation as an organization. If the majority of the neighborhood working as a team cannot get the police to act, then it would be time to take the situation a little higher - possibly involving an attorney or a local television station's news team.

There's always another solution if it's just you that's bothered by your neighbor(s) and you cannot resolve the problem. Simply move out of the neighborhood.


That was thought upon but they are all the same, seriously. They don't care , they all act upon one eachother. It'sd like "well Bob lets his cats run loose, I'll let mine g, I always wanted to do it, then the next neighbor gets the same way. Once that is established their is a community. Once the hillbilly community is established it can't be destroyed. They will say "it's not my cat, its not my dog, go ask some one else. why should I care about them? News team? They dont cover such small events. I live 2 miles from Youngstown, they have "better" things to cover. It's kinda hard to move out of the neighborhood when you can't afford it. When you can't afford it, nor will some one buy sicne in a bad neighborhood. Not even the police like coming down in this area.You simply do soemthign simply and smartly.

[BillMarks]

About calling a former member a prick, and saying screw you pal. I said to one member, and their is a reason for that. He said that his 13 year old son has more sense than me.

But he does.

I don't like when people say idiotic things like that, he deserved it.

I think your perspective needs a tune-up.


I don't like it when people walk over me.

Pointing out your lack of maturity isn't "walking over you." It's pointing out things about yourself you should consider changing as you enter adulthood.


When I say something like that it obviously has to have some meaning behind it, and anger to create it. Was it right for him to say it? I don't think. All i did was photograph a scene and a policeman told me to stop taking pics and I left. Whats so immature about this? I didn't argue, I left quietly. What is so immature about this? I came here to ask a question, im not doing it in a angering way. Read my last line on the original post "So whats the up on this rule? Thanks". It was a simple question. So yes, he still deserves to be called a prick.

The point was that my 13 year-old would have the sense NOT to take the photos in the first place. He would have judged photographing the scene insensitive to those involved in the tragedy, and moved along.


As far as turning up my amp to volume 8, the main reason* is becasue the dogs in my neighborhood won't be kept quiet at 4:30 in the morning. You try going to sleep when your neighbor has 7*, yes seven dogs in a normal size city lot. It's inhumane, I know.I tired talking to the neighbor, I tried calling the police. Nothing, so, I'll make some noise Another thing is a lot of my neighbors let their dogs loose, aswell as cats. The cats pee on my car, walk on my car, pee on the houe, mess on the property, same as dogs. I was surrounded by growling dogs on my property. I tried everything, time for my fun. No, I won't do it at 4:30AM, but around 7pm. Like I said, I don't like to be walked on all over, you make noise,I make noise, you imsult me, I insult you. Simple as that, but it takes a lot of that to happen iorder to do something, becasue Im a nice guy.

LOL

[BillMarks]

I tried taking it the mature route, but no one cares. Now if I was in the rich neighborhood, it would of been taken care of in seconds.

Now THAT is something worth exposing--the economics of law enforcement (the verb, not the noun).

But if you think no one cared when you took it the mature route, wait until you try the immature route. People will care--but not about the thing you want them to care about. All they will care about is having you thrown out of the neighborhood.

I have a neighbor with a loud dog that barks a lot. If it is before 10PM, there is no ordinance against it. He is good about getting the dog in before 10 so about all one can do is chalk it up to city life. If you want peace and quite, live in the middle of a rural area.

[Ray Garcia]

I was on vacation in Cleveland walking down the street with my daughter when we heard sirens and a car chase ended about a block in front of us. I had my camera and popped off a few shots of the cops taking the driver at gun point.
An unmarked car pulled up with two cops in it. They flashed their badges and asked who I was with. I told them "freelance". They said I couldn't take the shots and I told them I was on public property. He looked at my feet and said I was standing in a private parking lot so I took one step onto the sidewalk and said "How's that"? and he drove away.
ACDC was within his legal rights. Legally......Ethically, how many of us have seen photos of people in pain, in accidents, fires etc and knew the photog was snapping pics instead of offering aid? It's not the first time it's been done. And I don't care about barking dogs or the smoking laws in the UK......that's another forum.
"Can't we all just get along?"

[Seefutlung]

I was on vacation in Cleveland walking down the street with my daughter when we heard sirens and a car chase ended about a block in front of us. I had my camera and popped off a few shots of the cops taking the driver at gun point.
An unmarked car pulled up with two cops in it. They flashed their badges and asked who I was with. I told them "freelance". They said I couldn't take the shots and I told them I was on public property. He looked at my feet and said I was standing in a private parking lot so I took one step onto the sidewalk and said "How's that"? and he drove away.
ACDC was within his legal rights. Legally......Ethically, how many of us have seen photos of people in pain, in accidents, fires etc and knew the photog was snapping pics instead of offering aid? It's not the first time it's been done. And I don't care about barking dogs or the smoking laws in the UK......that's another forum.
"Can't we all just get along?"

Ray, how many have you seen? No guessing or assuming allowed.

I really can't recall clearly seeing that happening, although I know it has ... and I used to be one of those photogs who tooks photos of people in pain or an accident at least once a week for more than ten years. I know for a fact that I and my peers (news photogs) if first to arrive at an accident scene would offer aid before/instead of/or in addition to shooting. Now grant it I (we) may/will snap a frame or two in the process ... but nothing that would deter from quickly assisting the person or place them in greater stress. Those occasions are few are far between. Even to this day I carry a small First Aid pack in my bag.

Two anecdotal stories. Once I responded to a bank robbery which I heard over the scanner. It was around the corner I grabbed my gear and strolled in giving more thought to adjusting my cameras for indoor shooting than the heist ... as I walked through the doors I see that the robbery was still in progress ... people on the floor type of scene ... I think both the robbers and I were equally surprised ... I performed a quick U-turn and got the hell out of Dodge.

I remember shooting the transfer of men and supplies at a no-name LZ in I Corp. It was a Chinook, the twin rotors were not only deafening but the wind generated by the Chinook had so much force that it would send tarmac flying and rip papers out of your hand. A photog from Time-Life walked into the LZ leaning into the rotor-wash, snapping shots of the supplies being toss off ... snapping the Marines running down the ramp ... the Corpmen loading the wounded. The Chinook increased the RPMs, rose into the sky and banked away, the entire time the Time-Life photog was on the LZ documenting the affair.

After the chopper was out of sight, he looked at me and said "... sometimes you feel like such a bastard...".

Gary

[Ray Garcia]

Not like it's an everyday thing Gary................but we've all seen them before. Granted, some pics were taken after everything that COULD be done had been done or smeone better trained was in control of the situation. I'd prefer to think that most people would show concern for human life and suffering before getting the shot.

[jon_k]

The privacy and copyright laws need a huge change in the US and images like that are the reason.
Everyone should own the copyright to their own image under all conditions.

I disagree here. Pictures of people can invoke emotion and make things happen.

Check this old famous picture out.
http://worldsfamousphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/woman_and_girl_falling.JPG
This was taken on July 22, 1975 by Stanley J. Forman

He climbed on the fire truck and shot this picture of a young woman (Diana Bryant) and a young girl (Tiare Jones) as they fell helplessly from a burning building. Diana Bryant was pronounced dead on the scene. The young girl lived albeit suffered major injuries. The fireman in a herioic effort had just been seconds away from saving the lives of both.


The photographer won a Pulitzer Prize. More importantly, this photo paved the way for Boston and other states to mandate tougher fire saftey codes.

[Seefutlung]

... He climbed on the fire truck and shot this picture of a young woman (Diana Bryant) and a young girl (Tiare Jones) as they fell helplessly from a burning building. Diana Bryant was pronounced dead on the scene. The young girl lived albeit suffered major injuries. The fireman in a herioic effort had just been seconds away from saving the lives of both.

The photographer won a Pulitzer Prize. More importantly, this photo paved the way for Boston and other states to mandate tougher fire saftey codes.

This photo must have ripped out the hearts of Bryant and Jones' family members ... but the greater good of society .... tougher fire safety codes (so that other family's won't see similar photos of their loved ones) was generated from this pain of a few.

Gary

[BillMarks]

This photo must have ripped out the hearts of Bryant and Jones' family members ... but the greater good of society .... tougher fire safety codes (so that other family's won't see similar photos of their loved ones) was generated from this pain of a few.

Gary

But any attempt to link this famous photo to the ones ACDC took would, of course, be absurd...

[Seefutlung]

But any attempt to link this famous photo to the ones ACDC took would, of course, be absurd...

Oh please ... we are talking concepts and theory ... and again you are putting a spin on this which isn't there in an attempt to match/validate your miscontrued/fallacious statements and thoughts.

ACDC's situation is the same any photo journalist faces everyday in every country around the world. Fast developing breaking news in the public arena ... same concept, reasoning and law protecting ACDC also protected Forman in his efforts to document the tragic victims of the fire ... the pain of a few for the benefit of the many.

Just because ACDC's photos did not have the same impact ... doesn't mean that they couldn't have had similar impact ... in photo journalism one doesn't know what they will get under the story is over.

Gary

[Barb42]

If you aren't up to taking photos in a time of tragedy, then don't go into photojournalism. If you do have what it takes - study, learn the craft - and go for it.

[BillMarks]

Oh please ... we are talking concepts and theory ... and again you are putting a spin on this which isn't there in an attempt to match/validate your miscontrued/fallacious statements and thoughts.

Not at all. It is pointless to discuss theory and concepts without relating those theories and concepts to the real world.



ACDC's situation is the same any photo journalist faces everyday in every country around the world. Fast developing breaking news in the public arena ... same concept, reasoning and law protecting ACDC also protected Forman in his efforts to document the tragic victims of the fire ... the pain of a few for the benefit of the many.

Yes--the same law protects ACDC's right to shoot the photos he shot. I've never denied him those rights. Other laws give police officers the right to control the scene of an accident. And as the representative of the authority of the area, the police have the final say. ACDC could always challenge the officer's behavior in court. But good luck with that...

Just because ACDC's photos did not have the same impact ... doesn't mean that they couldn't have had similar impact ... in photo journalism one doesn't know what they will get under the story is over.

Gary

Of course it matters. :rolleyes:

[chauncey]

"im jsut a kid" That says it all. I don't know what world you grew up in but I learned a long time ago not to argue with someone with a gun, you can't win. Right/wrong doesn't matter, he's got the gun. Learn from the experience.

[Glenn NK]

When did ACDC become a photojournalist?:confused:

[Seefutlung]

When did ACDC become a photojournalist?:confused:

The moment he released the shutter while pointing his lens towards a news story. As he is not credentialed ... he is denied certain rights granted to credentialed member of the press ... but, as the title "photo journalist" is not reserved as an acknowledgement and/or honor bestowed upon those completing a certain level of training or education ... anybody who shoots news can claim that mantle. Kinda like "Freelance" ...

Gary

[BillMarks]

The moment he released the shutter while pointing his lens towards a news story.

LOL That is the funniest thing I've heard all month!

As he is not credentialed ... he is denied certain rights granted to credentialed member of the press

Yeah--like access to accident scenes... :rolleyes:

... but, as the title "photo journalist" is not reserved as an acknowledgement and/or honor bestowed upon those completing a certain level of training or education ... anybody who shoots news can claim that mantle. Kinda like "Freelance" ...

Gary

LOL!! Talk about "putting a spin on this which isn't there in an attempt to match/validate your misconsrued/fallacious statements and thoughts." Oh that is funny, too!!

[Karl C]

I promised myself not to delve into this thread again but I just have to ask this...

One individual is presenting their point from the position of 20 years advertising experience.

Another individual is presenting their point from the position of having spent a decade in the trenches as a photojournalist along with being a combat photographer in 'Nam.

When it's all said and done, whose opinion carries more overall weight?

You decide.

:D

[blackshadow]

When did ACDC become a photojournalist?:confused:

LOL That is the funniest thing I've heard all month!



Yeah--like access to accident scenes... :rolleyes:



LOL!! Talk about "putting a spin on this which isn't there in an attempt to match/validate your misconsrued/fallacious statements and thoughts." Oh that is funny, too!!

It's time you two got into the real 21st Century world. With the widespread proliferation of digital cameras, video cameras, camera/video phones many (most) news outlets invite people to submit their images thus making them photo journalists of sorts (note the of sorts but it is photo journalism nonetheless).

Bill in this thread you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on how news works... so what if you have had 20+ years in advertising. Advertisers can influence some publications (mainly magazines or lifestyle or other puff piece type publications) but when it comes to hard news they have bugger all effect.

Most news outlets will publish images of an event even if they are of poor quality rather than no image at all - as long as there is a story there. If a news outlet can get a professional photo journalist on the scene of course the quality will be better but they can't cover everything so they will take what the general public submit - IF IT IS NEWSWORTHY!!!

For examples of what I mean take a look at the following links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2780295.stm

http://abc.net.au/news/upload/

http://www.reuters.com/youwitness

http://www.cnn.com/exchange/ireports/topics/forms/breaking.news.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/faq.htm?nav=cwleftnav

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/facts/pisubmit.shtml

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/corp/submitnews/

[BillMarks]

Dude, look at ACDC's photos. no news organization would would use then. it doesn't take a photo journalist to score that one. and if everyone with a camera is a p j, then the term has no meaning.

and the issue here isn't whether the kid is a p j. it's whether the cop had a right to shoo the pesky, uncredentialed, p j of sorts away.

[Glenn NK]

He is a "photojournalist of sorts": I stand corrected and apoligize, and need to get into the 21st century; must have lived too long in the 20th century.;) Useless experience.

ACDC is a PJ, not an 18 year old that has just finished high school (hopefully).

Perhaps eighteen is the legal age where he lives, and he should then qualify for being able to apply for credentials.

[blackshadow]

Dude, look at ACDC's photos. no news organization would would use then. it doesn't take a photo journalist to score that one. and if everyone with a camera is a p j, then the term has no meaning.

and the issue here isn't whether the kid is a p j. it's whether the cop had a right to shoo the pesky, uncredentialed, p j of sorts away.

I agree did the cop have the right to stop someone exercising their legal right.

From all that has been said I think the cop over stepped his bounds and ACDC wasn't posing a danger to anyone or inflaming the situation.

AND DON'T CALL ME DUDE!!! (0r I may be forced to poke your eyes out)

[BillMarks]

I agree did the cop have the right to stop someone exercising their legal right.

From all that has been said I think the cop over stepped his bounds and ACDC wasn't posing a danger to anyone or inflaming the situation.

AND DON'T CALL ME DUDE!!! (0r I may be forced to poke your eyes out)

Dude, you need to learn to say please...;) As in, dude, please stop YELLING at me.

Remember, you only know what happened from ACDC's point of view and ACDC's account of events. If, in the cop's judgment, the situation was safer without ACDC there, the cop is within his rights (and bound by his duty to serve and protect) to get ACDC out of the area (btw, my brother is a cop).

Given ACDC's responses here, I'm guessing we are not hearing a very objective account of what happened...

[Titus213]

Rodney King would probably have a different idea of what photo journalism was all about...

So what has this thread taught me?

#1 - It's still ok to shoot pictures in America. Especially from public property.

#2 - Rights and ethics are different. But...neither gets stronger from lack of use.

#3 - There are some really strange ideas on this forum about how US laws should read. With all of this talent on the forums how did we end up with such a bunch of ninnies in Washington?

#4 - I should know better than to get involved in threads like this. There are too many people in the world who disagree with my correct view of the world and I really don't have time to argue with them today.

Now I think I'll go take some pictures. Who knows, I might even catch a really great news item.

[BillMarks]

Just a follow-up. This is from my brother who is a cop in NY State:

"I can only speak with authority re. NY state law and local, Erie County laws. None specifically forbid photo taking at accident scenes (to the best of my knowledge). However, the crux of your debate, in my mind, hinges on your second sentence, specifically, "... and a police officer told him to move away." [I gave him a synopsis of the story offered by ACDC.]

Why exactly the officer did so is not important, although I'd speculate that COMMON DECENCY played a large role. The photographer is ab-so-lute-ly under the authority of the police officer and if he feels he was wrongfully "moved along" then his recourse is to defend his actions in his criminal case (because, if he didn't move along, there isn't a self-respecting officer that wouldn't place him under arrest) or sue civilly (if he did move along).

Now, if your question/debate then shifts to "what charge would the officer levy" or" why does the photographer HAVE to move," it's because the officer is in charge of the scene and just about anything s/he says goes. If the photographer didn't move along, I'd suggest he be arrested for Obstructing Governmental Administration, an A-Misdemeanor. That section is used against people who hinder the proper administering of a case by the police (e.g., someone who sticks there nose into the arrest of another by perhaps getting physically involved or attempting to stop the police from arresting the friend).

A less-likely charge is Failing to Obey a Police Officer's Direction, but that's more in tune with not assisting an officer when directed to do so. For example, an officer directs you to help him direct traffic but you refuse.

Lastly, if the photographer gets upset/unruly, there's always the classic Disorderly Conduct. It's only a violation, but is sort of a "blanket" charge that could be used on just about anyone who gets even a little "pricky" toward the officer. It's enough to get the idiot locked up (and typically the charge gets "dropped" shortly thereafter).

Hope this helps."

So, ACDC, as you can see, police business is serious business. Cops, in situations like this are not on a power trip. It really isn't all about you...